Life expectancy is increasing, and we need a combination of revenue and spending cuts(especially defense) to pay down debt and have the money to invest in education, green jobs, and infrastructure.

Increased life expectancy has been accounted for by the actuaries. That's a nonsense argument from conservatives.

If someone manages to live that long they often have health issues and have been working for more than 30 years. Depending on the type of work they do and the medical care they've had access to they may be pretty beat up. I have to say that those of my generation provided for our parents and ourselves and I want for those who come behind us to have it as well.

With healthcare this may get better, hopefully but don't forget that many were robbed by the housing market and crash on wall street.

I agree about defense spending but the Bush tax cuts have been huge and I want them repealed.

A progressive government would be lowering the retirement age, increasing the funding to pay for it, and stimulating job growth by coaxing more people into retirement.

Why not allow people to retire earlier and open up opportunities for the young? I wish we had a progressive government...we have to keep working toward that.

Even then you are asking those that work jobs that take a toll on workers physically. Not everyone has a cushy job or can work until they reach a higher retirement age.

There's a finite number of jobs, so raising the retirement age increases unemployment. If older Americans need to hold onto their jobs longer, those jobs are unavailable to younger workers.

Young people definitely need jobs!

raise the cap and lower the retirement age

Is that the cap on Social Security taxes was set to cover 90 percent of the wages in the country. Now that the one percent has arranged to have more income funneled to them, the taxes cover only 80 percent of the income. All we need to do is raise the cap on Social Security taxes to cover 90 percent of the income and Social Security will be fine for the next 100 years.

The fact of life expectancy is totally irrelevant. The formula is re-examined periodically by actuaries and adjusted to new demographics. Demographics aren't the problem. Income disparity brought about by conservative policies is the problem.

Your concern is appreciated.

This helps. Why do I feel a need to assure you I'm not a concern troll? It really does concern me and I worry about what both parties may do. I think 'trusting' is part of the reason we get taken to the cleaners and I want us all awake for this next big battle. Thanks again.

doesn't reduce debt.

After Clinton, administration borrowed to fund the wars; government paying back as they go so to speak

Trust fund obligations are already accounted for as part of the national debt. Adding payout of those obligations again would be double booking that debt.

It really doesn't matter much if the government finances its annual deficit through public t-bills sold on the market or intra government debt such as the FICA surplus, the net result is a long term debt obligation that is paid back over time with interest.

Right wingers have wet dreams over zeroing out the trust fund obligations. They can go fuck themselves.

They see more "harvesting" in their future I'm sure.

has been robbing Social Security for years to pay for their indiscretions.

And can easily be fixed permanently by removing the cap.

Why isn't this simple solution applied, then? For the simple reason that everyone is afraid wealthy people will complain of "unfairness," since they will pay in more than they can ever get out.

This is why denying that Social Security is welfare program is counterproductive. As long as we continue to insist that it is nothing more than "insurance," we will be unable to lift the cap.

Or means-test, for that matter, which would be even better.

It could certainly be skewed to further benefit them. We could lift the cap on yearly benefits and replace it with an upward trending line with a slope of about 0.01. That is the only "means testing" necessary. People now maxing out at ~$32K/year are only 1% or so of beneficiaries anyway.

but they are openly aggressive and ignorant. There is no link because I wrote it. What do you want a link for? I'll happily give you the link to the forum if you pm me.

on edit...

You didn't mean me you meant that they never give a link to back up their claims. No they never back up their BS.

The Trust Fund is part of the national debt and for every dollar paid out of it, the federal debt decreases by a dollar. As there is no actual money in the Fund, just special bonds, the Federal govt. will have to borrow another dollar thus the overall debt remains the same. What does add to the debt is the interest the govt. pays on the money it borrowed from the Trust Fund. About 116 billion a year the last time I looked.

What it doesn't do is increase the debt.

to provide the funds to pay back what was borrowed from the Trust Fund.

And his stance on a SS lock-box?

Is this what you're talking about?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/15/994921/-Al-Gore-was-Right-We-DID-Need-a-Lockbox

That has not channged by very much. Reduction of infant mortality is what dropped life expectancy at birth so much. If you die at the age of two, you are irrelevant, as you neither contribute to nor collect Social Security.

Also, the surplus in the trust fund was built up to prepay baby boomer retirements by doubling the FICA tax in the early 80s. It is FUCKING SUPPOSED to be going down now. Gen Y is another demographic lump, so we'll eventually need to build a surplus again.

The life expectancy of a 21 year old today is higher then it was for a 21 year old back in 1938.

The average 21 year old today can expect to draw several more years of benefits then the average 21 year old back in the late 1930's could.

The relevant number is further life expectancy from age 60.

who worked and paid FICA taxes but died before they collected any benefits.

Here is a link where if you scroll down to table 1, you'll see about a 20% increase from 1940 to 1990 of adults who live to the age of 65. While life expectency of 65 year olds has increased only by about 5 years on average from 1940 to 1990, the percentage of population surviving from age 21 to age 65 has gone way up.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

Raising the retirement age is just going to exclude more of them.