[Torie]

Damn, I am only 54, and won't be immune from what will be cuts. Oh the horror, not. Of course, if I were president, I would propose that folks in my category, just zero out, and get absolutely nothing. I have been blessed with the right genes, the right values, the right parents, who payed my way forever through eight years of higher education, including paying for some products I did not explicitly tell them about (but my Dad, no dummy, or course inferred), and when it comes to SS, I should get absolutely nothing. That is my plan to square the circle. "Rich" geezers get nothing. Write that down.

[EternalVigilance]

"Rich" geezers get nothing. Write that down.

Couldn't agree more.

Means-testing SS makes perfect sense.

Nothing would make the system solvent faster than that.

[hocndoc]

Unfortunately, at least one of the plans included continuing the Social Security tax throughout the years, instead of cutting off the tax after a certain level. Years ago, it was $60K, now it's $90,000. So people get 6% more of their salary after that point. Or 12% if they're self-employed, and/or employers save that 6% for those employees. That money can make a big difference for small business and the self-employeed.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

"Rich" geezers get nothing. Write that down.

OK! I wouldn't object to SS being means tested...

[Dysfunctional]

Well, so far I could live without any SS myself.

But the rub is this: what about those who lost their portfolio's in the Clinton Stock market ".com" scam.

Can they save enough from scratch in the next 20 years to live with virtually no SS. I don't think so. With all the downsizing, outsourcing... I mean, can you build up a big nest egg on minimum wages at Wal-Mart.

That is the problem.

I don't see anybody coming out with those answers. Surely, the stupid Dems do not see a golden opportunity to address the good paying job issues when they talk about savings etc.