FYI: Lindsey has just returned from yet another Reserve activation in Afghanistan. The next time you criticize him, you might want to thank him for his service to our country.
“...GRAHAM: I would give anything if the United States Congress for one month could act in accordance with the way our men and women are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We know what to do on Social Security. I’ve put on the table adjusting the age from 67 to 69. There’s an ad running in South Carolina right now from some group on the left with a 59-year-old librarian saying I’m ruining her life. Well let me tell you, under the proposal, changes don’t affect you if you’re over 55. So I’m a reasonable guy. But how the heck can we save this country from bankruptcy if we don’t reform entitlements? …You will never convince me that that is hard sell if we wanted to sell it. So what the president said last night — “I’m willing to work with you but you can’t affect anybody’s benefits” — that’s telling me he’s planning a 2012 campaign not a 2011 governing session.
So I’m going to offer to the president and to Rand Paul, which is a wide spectrum of people, an opportunity to make a small down payment on entitlement reform by introducing legislation soon that would adjust the age the way Reagan and O’Neill did — 67 to 69 — over decades and a reasonable means test on benefits as a down payment to getting our entitlement house in order. And they can run all the commercials they want. It does not matter…I know what I need to do to help my country. And these young men and women know what they need to do in Iraq to make us safe….”
Before you decide to take out Lindsey, Tom Coburn is dabbling with a similar idea.
“…“Well, I think the easy solution is slowly raise the age of retirement as our life expectancy has gone up,” Coburn said. “That’s what we have done in the past, help those that are the poorest that Social Security really doesn’t supplement now. One of the things the debt commission did was when you’re 85 or 87 and starting to run out of your funds, give a little bump there, change the bend curves in it to where the wealthiest receive a little bit less than what they would have. We can do all those things without raising taxes on anybody and make Social Security solvent for 125 years.”…”
Lindsey has dared to touch the sacred cow – social security – and had dared to suggest the age be raised. The Pink Flamingo doesn’t think he went far enough. I think people shouldn’t be allowed to get it until they are 75, but that’s just my nasty position on things.
We have a tendency not to go back and study the stats when it was put into place. The average life expectancy was something like 62 years old (58 years for men and 62 for women). If that is the case, and we keep with the spirit of the original law, then the current life expectancy is something like 78 years. If that is the case, then social security should not be given out until people are 81 years old. All Lindsey wants to do is raise the retirement age a couple of years, and people are ready to crucify, hang, draw & quarter, etc. (you get the picture).
“…If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.
As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women).
Also, it should be noted that there were already 7.8 million Americans age 65 or older in 1935 (cf. Table 2), so there was a large and growing population of people who could receive Social Security. Indeed, the actuarial estimates used by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) in designing the Social Security program projected that there would be 8.3 million Americans age 65 or older by 1940 (when monthly benefits started). So Social Security was not designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits….”
You want to know what the real problem is?
You want to know what the real problem is?
The average American is so durn ignorant when it comes to our history, civics, and government that they are the ones who are dooming us.
Lindsey DOES NOT WANT to take anyone who is currently receiving social security and bump their age up to something like 68 or so. He wants to do it for those of us who were born after a certain date.
What part of this is too difficult for people to understand?
Why should able bodied people at the age of 65 even want social security?
How hard is this?
From Palmetto Morning:
Lindsey can’t win. He says something honest and honorable about changing social security. Now the liberals are after him.