General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf either the age for eligibility of social security is just raised and or there is a
reduction of benefits for those who retire early, think about what unforeseen outcomes will occur.
For instance, since most retirees spend their money, then the reduction of benefits will cause smaller growth in the economy.
Then if they raise the eligibility age by two years, that means two more years of seniors being active in the workforce. That brings up two outcomes, younger workers will have even more competition to get a job and, least we forget, those working at the end of their work life are earning a top wage vs the lower starting rate of those entering the workforce.
I think someone should run a cost analysis in order to support or debunk these outcomes.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Paul Begala wrote a book about trickle down economics at the end of Clinton's Presidency. He stated that a working economy is a bubble up economy. It starts at the bottom and percolates upward. If poor people have enough money to go shopping, stores do well and as a result the stock market does well. Everyone benefits even the rich. It's not rocket science and such a simple, easy to understand way of doing things, that it boggles the imagination that conservatives want to do the exact opposite.
dtom67
(634 posts)this is an attack on American citizens; it doesn't have anything to do with the budget. The poorer the 99% are, the easier they are to control. it happens all over the world.
It will happen in Egypt in the next few years. Right now John Kerry is trying to get them to accept IMF loans that they cannot afford. This will put them in debt and ,it is hoped, prevent them from doing anything silly; like trying to spend money to take care of their citizens. Social programs that allow people to get comfortable enough to think about the world and how things ought to be cannot be allowed.
It will be the same here in the States.
Destroying social security should put those pesky AARP people in their place. The world belongs to the Wealthy; the rest of us should just be grateful we are allowed to keep living. If we have to keep running on the hampster-wheel, we won't have time to make a nuisance of ourselves in the running of the country.
Carry on, Koch brothers.....
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,705 posts)And you're right on.
I say goddamn anyone who would do either (or both) of those ideas.
They suck.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)They were all laid off during the bush catastrophe years. Now they all work at wally world.
2naSalit
(86,786 posts)so many can't find any work, wally world only hires so many, the rest of us are struggling like in the 30's and more than a decade before we should even be thinking about retiring. I call BS on the theory in the OP.
We can't get any kind of job, anymore.
msongs
(67,441 posts)working SS jobs for 30 years then getting a 10 year gig with a pension. You reward for that is to get the SS you EARNED over 30 years slashed by 70% whether you tap into early or at 65.
spanone
(135,877 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)A third, according to figures printed in black and white on the SS site tell us that a full third of retirees have little or no other income than their SS as soon as they hit the age of eligibility. It is completely foreseeable that money won't magically appear from another source, and anything but an expansion of the program will result in greater poverty.
And with over 27 million people unable to find a job among the 3.4 million available jobs, in an economy which has created more food stamp recipients than jobs in the past few years, it's likely that they aren't all that active in the workforce now.