Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
When GOP says Ryan bill should not concern those over 55 what that means is (Original Post) K8-EEE Aug 2012 OP
I turned 55 this week, I'm still nervous. I've been right on that line since they started saying MiniMe Aug 2012 #1
we will get screwed, MiniMe Skittles Aug 2012 #4
exactly arely staircase Aug 2012 #2
EXCEPT that part of his plan is to raise the retirement rate. They're lying again.. n/t progressivebydesign Aug 2012 #3
Even if that were true... pink-o Aug 2012 #5
+ 1 they think everyone is an Ayn Randian K8-EEE Aug 2012 #10
Of course, because there's no reason for people over 55 to have any concern for people under 55. Jim__ Aug 2012 #6
Not with the "we got ours screw you" Ayn Randian cultists who are over 55 K8-EEE Aug 2012 #9
Ryan does not personally expect to live to be 60. HubertHeaver Aug 2012 #7
hey's just the typical teabagging hypocrite Skittles Aug 2012 #8
RYAN'S COVERED . . . FUCK YA'LL!! madashelltoo Aug 2012 #11
All the more reason to vote his ass out and also change his benefits. LiberalFighter Aug 2012 #12
Almost, but not quite. elleng Aug 2012 #17
How can those over 55 be so greedy as to support this? JohnnyRingo Aug 2012 #13
I'm 58 and I sure as hell don't support this-neither does my 63 year old partner.... Rowdyboy Aug 2012 #15
I'm your age, but I want SS there when my boys get older. JohnnyRingo Aug 2012 #19
Right, throw our children and their children under the bus. elleng Aug 2012 #14
It means people under 55 should seriously reconsider voting for Republicans Herlong Aug 2012 #16
Play this fact HARD, and very few under age 55 will vote for these corporate toadies. RBInMaine Aug 2012 #18

MiniMe

(21,718 posts)
1. I turned 55 this week, I'm still nervous. I've been right on that line since they started saying
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 04:45 PM
Aug 2012

those 55 and older don't worry.

arely staircase

(12,482 posts)
2. exactly
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 04:47 PM
Aug 2012

It means exactly that. If you are under 55 years of age you aren't going to have social security of Romney/Ryan get their way. They will gut it and Medicaid. They will destroy the crown jewels of America's social saftey net. Two of the most effective programs ever.

pink-o

(4,056 posts)
5. Even if that were true...
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 05:02 PM
Aug 2012

why would those of us over 55 be happy about it? Stupid Goopers think we're like them, and we don't give a shit if something doesn't affect us personally. Well, I have friends and relatives who're way younger than I am--not to mention random strangers who are as much a part of America as anyone else--who'll be screwed to PIECES by Ryan's sociopathic ideas. So yeah, it does matter and I will fight against it!

K8-EEE

(15,667 posts)
9. Not with the "we got ours screw you" Ayn Randian cultists who are over 55
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 05:58 PM
Aug 2012

You're exactly right that his how the sick CONservative mindset works! However with decent people who are concerned about the well being of the citizens in their country as well as their own friends and family, it might be an issue.

HubertHeaver

(2,522 posts)
7. Ryan does not personally expect to live to be 60.
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 05:16 PM
Aug 2012

His attitude seems to be that he will personally not benefit from SS, so why should he pay into it. Conveniently forgetting he collected SS on the front end.

madashelltoo

(1,699 posts)
11. RYAN'S COVERED . . . FUCK YA'LL!!
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 09:51 PM
Aug 2012

That's what he's really saying. He's been in congress for 12 years and he gets his salary and full benefits FOR LIFE. Now, go whine in somebody else's face and leave him alone, you pauper.

elleng

(131,107 posts)
17. Almost, but not quite.
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 01:08 AM
Aug 2012

Nearly all Congress members are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System. The FERS retirement plan has three parts:

•Social Security. Members of Congress have Social Security taxes withheld from their pay like other workers, and are eligible for retirement benefits beginning at age 62.

Before 1984, members of Congress were covered by the old Civil Service Retirement System and were not required to pay into Social Security — nor could they get a Social Security benefit. But at present, all members of Congress must pay into Social Security, including nearly 50 currently serving members who were first elected before 1984.


•A pension benefit. People on the federal payroll, including members of Congress, receive a traditional "defined benefit" pension, something that is available to only a small percentage of private-sector workers.

According to the Congressional Research Service, in October 2006 the average annual pension for a retired member of Congress who served under FERS was $35,952, compared with the current $174,000 salary for active members. . .

A member who leaves office before serving five years because of an election defeat or resignation is not eligible for a pension. And any member who is convicted of a crime such as bribery, fraud, racketeering or perjury for acts committed after September 2007 is ineligible.

But, on grounds that working in Congress means uncertain job security, elected members and their staffs receive a larger retirement benefit from FERS for each year of service than other federal employees. They also become eligible for a retirement annuity at a younger age and with fewer years of service.

In return, they contribute a higher percentage of their pay to participate in FERS — 1.3 percent instead of 0.8 percent for most workers. As in the private sector, the bulk of the retirement benefit's cost is picked up by the employer, in this case, the U.S. government.

Members of Congress can begin drawing their full pension at age 62 if they have completed five years of service, at age 50 with 20 years' service, or at any age with 25 years' service. They can collect a reduced pension with 10 years of service at ages 55 to 57, depending on their birth year.

http://www.aarp.org/work/employee-benefits/info-12-2010/benefits_what_does_congress_really_get.html

Members of Congress receive the same basic health insurance coverage as rank-and-file federal employees, although lawmakers also have access to other services not available generally, according to a new internal congressional report. . .

Nearly all federal employees, including elected federal officials, are eligible to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The FEHBP offers several nationwide plans plus about 200 regional health maintenance organization plans. All cover hospital, surgical, physician, mental health, prescription drug, emergency care and certain other benefits, although exact terms vary.

“Members of Congress are also authorized to receive medical and emergency dental care at military treatment facilities,” CRS said. “There is no charge for outpatient care if it is provided in the National Capital Region. For inpatient care, members are billed at full reimbursement based on rates set by the Department of Defense. Outside the National Capital Region, charges are at full reimbursement rates for both inpatient and outpatient care provided to Members of Congress.”

FEHBP insurance may cover those expenses after a deductible or copayment is met, the report said. Members pay out of pocket for expenses not covered by FEHBP or other insurance. Former members and dependents are not eligible for care at military hospitals, it said.

Persons covered by FEHBP, including House and Senate members, can continue that insurance into retirement if they are eligible for a federal annuity and if they have been continuously enrolled for the prior five years. The minimum amount of service needed to qualify for a federal retirement benefit is five years; an individual retiring with that little service would need to be at least age 62. Other standard combinations include age 55 with 30 years of service or age 60 with 20 years, although other combinations apply in certain circumstances.

Retirees must continue paying the enrollee share of the premiums and other costs. While premiums are the same as for active employees, FEHBP coverage effectively becomes more expensive after retirement because active employees can pay their premiums with pre-tax money but retirees can’t. . .

The report added that under the 2010 health care law, members of Congress and certain staff members will be required to leave the FEHBP and get their health insurance coverage under the state-based exchanges envisioned by that law. That provision will not be effective until 2014 at the earliest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/health-care-for-congress-examined/2012/05/07/gIQAFZZi8T_blog.html



JohnnyRingo

(18,641 posts)
13. How can those over 55 be so greedy as to support this?
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 12:29 AM
Aug 2012

It's like the Republicans are telling the seniors to vote for them because they aren't going to screw them out of their Social Security, just their children and grandchildren. Of course they're doing it to allay the fears of the elderly and garner their votes.

Voting for these Republicans is a cruel way to tell our kids they can kiss our collective asses on our way out the door. Make sure to tell your conservative grandma how much you appreciate this on Thankgiving.

Rowdyboy

(22,057 posts)
15. I'm 58 and I sure as hell don't support this-neither does my 63 year old partner....
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 12:52 AM
Aug 2012

Once they start with "voucherizing" do you honestly think they'll stop at 55? Hell no!

How do you know when a Republican is lying? Easy, his lips are moving!

JohnnyRingo

(18,641 posts)
19. I'm your age, but I want SS there when my boys get older.
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 12:34 PM
Aug 2012

That's why I don't understand how older people can support this cold hearted plan. All I can figure is that it gives the elderly racists a reason to vote against Obama by assuring them they won't suffer in a Republican budget.

I'm sure there are others who think the money they leave behind will take good care of their children, but old people often view their wealth through a magnifying glass and believe it will go a long way.

The rest are just mean old geezers who want the whippersnapper generation to suffer like they did during the depression.

 

Herlong

(649 posts)
16. It means people under 55 should seriously reconsider voting for Republicans
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 01:07 AM
Aug 2012

Stop with the Stockholm syndrome and seriously re-evaluate their values.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»When GOP says Ryan bill s...