Twitter: Elizabeth Warren just left the WH.

Hope you can confirm whether this is true, David. Trying not to get my hopes up.

The world’s greatest monster strikes again.
Grijalva doesn’t understand that increases in retirement age aren’t benefit cuts.
They’re right ageing.

While I’m glad they sent the letter lets not forget this is the same Progressive Caucus that caved on the Public Option.

When the pressure is put on them they will cave -

We still need to organize, organize, organize -

See, the Progressive Caucus plays the ‘hero’role on this issue. And then a yet-to-be named Democrat will play the ‘bad guy’ role. And then the ‘bad guys’ will gang up on and beat the ‘good guys’.

Our role is to send money so the show can go on.

Hate to agree with prior posts about the Kabuki show nature of this, but it is how things operate anymore. I sometimes feel like I’m watching an ancient Greek play, and the so-called “progressive caucus” is the chorus. They stand in the background warning about whatever… and the actors in the foreground continue doing what they’re gonna do. And we chumps in the audience get to deal with the crappy consequences.

Thanks for the update. Knowledge is powerful.

Yay! Now if we can just get the President’s henchmen on the committee to listen. And Steny Hoyer!

Organize, and show that we can hurt them.

They still fear corporations and FOX News more than they do us.

I see someone else already pointed out that these are the same idiots who swore to die for the cause of single payer.

“Organize”?

“Hurt them”??

Nah. Stay at home, let them lose. Learn to groove on geological time, it’s the only answer.

Stop the presses. CPC just issued a strongly worded letter.

CPC is about as rigid as bowl of water. They have no credibility after the health insurance reform fiasco. *grumble*

Nice to see the Prog caucus find their spine by sending a strongly worded letter, but this may be just more Kabuki to keep us rubes in line. Remember that Pelosi has already committed to a vote on the Catfood Commission’s recommendations after the Nov elections – and we very well may have a lame duck Dem majority at that point. What are the odds that ousted Blue Dogs will hold the line on keeping the retirement age as is? Obama is probably salivating at the opportunity to show off his post-partisanship bona fides and scuttle SS as we know it forever.

so where were they when they cut the food stamps to pay for the border drones? oh shit…sorry. I didn’t think about it that way.

Even Kucinich rolled over on the “health care” vote, so I’m not too elated with this stearnly worded letter.

While Allan is technically correct such nit-picking only serves to muddy the waters of the discussion.

Grijalva doesn’t understand that increases in retirement age aren’t benefit cuts.

I gather that you meant this as snark, but ISTM that increases in retirement age should not be considered as benefit cuts. When SS was created, the age of retirement for SS was almost the same as the life expectancy. Since then, the life expectancy has grown considerably. The last SS “fix” included a small increase in retirement age, but the gap between SS retirement age and the normal life expectancy has continued to grow. Increasing the retirement age by a year every now and then, as quality of life increases around the retirement age, are reasonable. Of course there are other reasonable solutions, too, such as lifting the cap on income taxed for SS. Social Security was never intended to fund a lengthy retirement.

Bob in AZ

Uh huh.

I want another ‘pledge’, in writing. I want it distributed, and signed. I want them to put a finger on each of their gutless compatriots. I want another video of Woolsey making a statement so I can watch her lie again.

Goofy punks.

“…this is the same Progressive Caucus that caved on the Public Option.”

Exactly. “We promise never to do it….until we do”

The prog caucus has “2 in the Senate”? Just two? God, that’s more than depressing…

“Increasing the retirement age by a year every now and then, as quality of life increases around the retirement age, are reasonable.”

Unless you’re black, or poor, and you actually need the SS to eat. Then you die sooner, so the white rich people get the money.

You may think that’s reasonable, I do not.

“Social Security was never intended to fund a lengthy retirement.”

Doesn’t matter what you think it was ‘intended’ for, people have paid in all their lives. SS is solvent til 2037, 25 years from now. The corporate toadies in office just don’t want to pay.

It’s our money.

While I’m glad they sent the letter lets not forget this is the same Progressive Caucus that caved on the Public Option

True, and it’s largely forgotten that before they caved on the inclusion of any version of the public option, they caved on their promise (in June 2009) not to support a public option that failed to meet a set of rigorous “robustness” criteria that would have made the public plan available to any American. Then they caved on their promise (in July 2009) to support a watered-down public option only if premiums were tied to Medicare rates. Then they caved, period.

I am adamantly opposed to defacto SSI cuts or Medicare cuts (Medicare for ALL) but…seriously, if people are living longer (they are) why should we NOT make adjustments to the retirement age to reflect this? The age is set to increase ANYWAY in the very near future so why not use objective data and statistics to make sure that the coming increase in retirement age/benefits access age accurately reflects reality rather than just some political compromise that has no connection to anything real?

If the average lifespan were to go up to, say, 110 good years are you all saying that even then the collection age should NOT be adjusted upwards to reflect this? No matter what, the age for collecting SSI benefits should remain sacrosanct and never changing? Really?

Dean Baker has a fresh cross-post available: Fun With Paul Ryan and the Washington Post

“Increasing the retirement age by a year every now and then, as quality of life increases around the retirement age, are reasonable…”

It is only reasonable if those 50 and above can expect to keep their jobs until they reach retirement age, whatever it may be. The average time to find a job for those over 50 is currently double the average for everyone else. And of course that doesn’t include those that are working at jobs paying substantially less than their everage lifetime earnings which could ultimately result in a reduced SS benefit.

Maybe we can just live in a box under the freeway until SS kicks in at 70. That would probaly insure that there are fewer of us around to collect when the time comes.

You are going to have to prove that life expectancy has increased. If you are living in reduced circumstances, psst, unlike the top ten percenters, your life expectancy was just reduced by unemployment, falling wages, lack of health insurance, reduced savings, reduced home equity, and a personal austerity campaign. In Russia, life expectancy dropped back to 58 when their society crashed. If anything, for the group of people I represent, bottom third, the age for retirement should be lowered and benefit levels should increase every time they add twenty cents to the price of a loaf of bread or reduce the size of a can of tuna from six ounces to five. The Progressive Caucus should apply for membership in the union for actors and actresses.

“but…seriously, if people are living longer (they are) why should we NOT make adjustments to the retirement age to reflect this?”

Only the well off are living longer, people with money and good insurance to pay the hospitals. They live longer, the rest is because infant mortality has decreased. Don’t fall for the quisling talking point.

With demographics being what they are, there are fewer younger people (workers) coming into the work force as time goes on (a good thing…population needs to come DOWN all over the world). That being the case, older workers will have to be retained/hired to simply fill jobs. It wouldn’t hurt to add more teeth to age discrimination laws too.

“… there are fewer younger people (workers) coming into the work force …”

That may become the case but it certainly isn’t that way now.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38674003

Youth Unemployment Hits Record High

Global youth unemployment has hit a record high following the financial crisis and is likely to get worse later this year, the International Labor Organization (ILO) said Thursday.

The report from the ILO says 81 million out of 630 million 15-24 year olds where unemployed at the end of 2009, some 7.8 million more than at the end of 2007.

Agree, our younger generations are facing being a “lost generation” in terms of finding jobs. Keeping older workers in the workforce until 70 may result in lost opportunities for younger workers. In my profession there are very, very few job openings these days, and recent grads complain about this a lot. I don’t blame them, nor do any of my boomer colleagues. Yet most boomers are stuck bc of the losses incurred due to the crash – if we are lucky enough to have savings, that’s less, and those with houses have seen their value decrease.

There needs to be some sensibility about what’s happening and recognize that forcing workers to keep working until 70 might not be as beneficial as it initially seems.

Life expectancy may have increased but we are falling apart at a faster rate thanks to our industrialized food and better living through chemistry.

Also.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×8937370

Perhaps you’d like us to be working 80 hours/week instead of a standard of 40 hrs, too?

“Democrats to a man have rejected raising the retirement age.”

What did the women do? Or maybe they don’t count?

While I’m glad they sent the letter lets not forget this is the same Progressive Caucus that caved on the Public Option

Thanks to Obama and Rahm using the hardball tactics the Bots don’t think exist.

With Obama doing his best to cut the safety net for average people, at least I was smart enough to buy stock in Bootstraps. I’m going to make a killing!

Once the erections…er, elections are over, they can and will do anything they want to US and we’ll have to bend over.

When I saw those poor people in Atlanta sacrificing their dignity in the heat just to get an application for section 8 housing, I wondered how many in the WH were laughing in contempt and imagined superiority.
Then, then the riot police that surrounded those desperate people. the whole thing was absolutely sickening and, I believe, absolutely what MOTU want to see.
Thousands Crowd Atlanta Area Housing Authority For Section 8 WAITING LIST, Fights Break Out

speaking of the topic, this is very enlightening:
Washington’s Deficit Games

That view also doesn’t take into consideration the fact that technological improvements are expanding so rapidly that fewer jobs for humans are necessary to sustain profitability.

Did you buy the boots to go with them?

Also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49YQhTLoGuA

expect major outbreak of deadly flu…after they steal the trust fund.
It all reminds me of an especially malignant soap opera

Not at all. I’d prefer a SHORTER work week.

I like objectivity over emotion and politics. Call it a hazard of being a scientist. I HATE polemics and political games and mythmaking. Show me cold, hard numbers and we’ll talk.

I am not saying what the changes should be (but accept this objective fact, social security retirement eligibility age IS going up with or without the bogus Deficit Commission – it is already in law). That commission simply seeks to fast track the changes and likely make them more drastic without any objective science to base it on.

See, I’d like to see politicians taken out of the picture entirely. Have an independent study done and peer reviewed. Then take the numbers and base policy on the numbers WITHOUT POLITICAL CONSIDERATION. Politicians, as a rule, are too stupid and/or corrupt to understand anything but a payola check anyway. Take it from their hands.

I want (and expect and will depend) on my social security in combination with my military retirement. I don’t want them f*cking me or anyone else over when its too late to do anything about it but making adjustments over the future to reflect cold, hard, objective reality are OK anyway because…reality. It always wins.

“…fewer jobs for humans are necessary …”

I have long been an advocate for cutting the standard work week to 30-32 hours. We should be sharing the available work among all that are willing and able to work. It is ridiculous to have 80% of the available workforce employed and paying taxes to support the other 20%.

The biggest obstacle to making a move like this is that high unemployment suppresses wages and keeps the working class scared and therfore docile.

The single move that could help bring this about would be single payer health insurance and an end to employer provided insurance.

Did you buy the boots to go with them?

I didn’t. Conservatives always are telling the poor to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, wasn’t aware the actual boot is involved in the process. Damn! Let me call my stockbroker. BRB.

And a tax policy that discourages excessive CEO compensation at the same time as worker compensation is gutted.

The law as it SHOULD be:

Corporate taxes are minimized when the differential between top executive pay and average worker pay (in US dollars) is NO MORE than 60. That is, if a CEO brings in (all forms of compensation) brings in 60x or less average worker pay for that corporation then the corporate tax is minimized. It climbs drastically (let’s say geometrically) for every dollar above the 60x number. If a CEO wants more money, then s/he must also increase the average worker pay or eat the penalty.

Stipulation: in US dollars. This is intended to discourage off-shoring jobs to lower pay (slave labor) countries. If corporation X off shores jobs to Mauritania because they can pay workers there a mere $1/day, then that, in actual US dollars, counts in the average worker pay. It means that CEO pay must come down drastically to avoid the 60x cutoff. To do 2 socially good things without f*cking over anyone: the tax system could be structured to allow for up to 15% off-shoring for the sake of international development without the lower pay counting in the average worker pay but if it climbs above 15% then it ALL counts in the average worker compensation calculation.

Also, card check must be enacted and worker unions encouraged/supported. There MUST be a counter to the overwhelming power of management that has developed since both the GOP and Dems have turned against labor.

Remove the withholding cap, put back Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich that the social security bonds were used for.

Social Security is solvent until 2037, at which point the payout drops to 75% of what it’s supposed to be. This is if nothing is done. If the withholding cap is removed, there is no problem at all.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0308miller.html

That is reality, do you have any more questions about it?

I know people who think Denmark is somewhere in Colorado, people who think Social Security and Homeland Security mean the same thing, people who say ‘national debt’ when they mean ‘federal deficit’.

This is the first time I’ve seen “national deficit”. In its context I can’t tell if it’s supposed to mean ‘federal deficit’ (excess spending over federal budget) or ‘national debt’ (money owed by US Treasury to borrowers/investors as Treasury Bills, Bonds, etc.).

Yes, and after they caved on that they have no credibility, either with us or the people to whom they sent the letter. It can be safely ignored, and will be. They said they weren’t going to vote for a bill without a public option, and then they did. They proved that they won’t even stand on principle.

The fine point on it, from the link.

“According to Stephen Goss, the SSA’s chief actuary, lifting the cap while giving commensurate benefit hikes to high-income taxpayers once they retire would cover 93% of the SSA’s projected shortfall in Social Security revenues over the next 75 years. Removing the cap without raising those benefits would actually produce a surplus in the system over the same period—even if the economy creeps along as the SSA predicts it will.”

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0308miller.html

Increases in life expectancy are almost entirely due to post-natal health care and decreases in infant mortality.

People who live to retirement age live about two years longer than they did when Social Security was implemented: men, one year; women, three years.

Your ‘life expectancy’ talking point comes straight from the CatFood Caucus, the folks who think it’s okay for the United States of America to default on its Sovereign Debt to its own people, the aged, infirm and youngsters left behind without adult support. Don’t spread it — it is not true.

The inventors of Social Security, the actuaries who designed it, knew full well in the mid-thirties, that medical advances would improve prospects for youngsters to live to a ripe old age. They discussed this in their deliberations and allowed for it in the program’s design. You can look it up, and you should.

In an economy like the emergency created by the MOTUs that we are all living through right now, the sensible thing would be to DECREASE the retirement age, to 60, so that folks can get out of the labor pool and make room for youngsters will skills but no jobs. Increasing the retirement age in an economy that is barely growing, and not creating enough jobs to accommodate population growth, is lunacy.

People need to be encouraged to retire by lowering the retirement age, at least until the banksters and financial pirates decide to make the economy work for ALL of us. It’s the only fair solution: can you imagine the difficulty of getting a job in this economy when you are 65? No one will hire you. No one.

Life expectancy has increased but longevity has not. The increase in life expectancy is due to drastic reductions in infant mortality. As for those who argue that when Social Security was first started, we had thirteen (or some number) of workers for every retiree, but that soon we’ll only have some 2.5 (or some other similar number), and that’s “unsustainable.” Well, when Social Security stared we had one American farmer feeding some thirteen people, but now each U.S. farmer feeds over a hundred. Productivity increases and broadening the tax base base will keep Social Security solvent forever. The only choice is the will to make it happen.

You’re correct. Do you think the CatFood Caucus & the Lawful Professional Commission itself isn’t aware that increased life expectancy comes from more infants and children who survive? They’re allowed to mislead and lie. Their words count, because they’re officially professional, while your words don’t count. The Senate votes on bills, you don’t. You debate; senators solicit funds.

Teddy –

Thanks for response correcting the misconception on retirement longevity. Beat me to the punch, and did a better job of it, too.

BFD; They will fold on this just like they did on HCR. Another useless ultimatum by the accordion wing of the Democratic party.

If they each contribute to an escrow fund, say $1 million, as a guarantee of their vote to be given to the Progessive Left if they renege, then I’m starting to consider believing it.

We can easily afford to fund Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare and much more if we end all the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. And we close Gitmo and all the black sites we’re rendering people to.

the accordion wing of the Democratic party.

hahahaha

Nah stay at home. Let them lose.

Yeah, sure all of you are saying this are going to stay home. Right. I don’t believe any of you is ready to give up your country to the Repugs without a fight.

Just how are you going to add teeth? We’re talking at-will employment where people can be terminated for just about any reason at all. Once terminated, you can’t get hired again if you’re over 55, and believe me, I speak from experience. I’m damned lucky to have part-time temporary work at this point. My skills are excellent–every temporary assignment I’ve filled as resulted in glowing reviews, but that doesn’t mean I’ve been able to get a permanent job even after almost 2 years of looking and hundreds of resumes sent out. I’ve had exactly 6 interviews in that time. I’m going to have to file for social security at 63, for the reduced benefit, because I simply can’t get permanent work and temporary work is too uncertain to depend on. See, I’ve depleted my retirement savings at an alarming rate paying for my medical insurance, which runs me $1,200 each month as of my latest premium increase.

If gets near SS he’s toast. If he thinks about it he’s going to face a Primary challenge. If he scuttles SS he’s toast and the Dims are toast forever!!

It’s 62 for early SS retirement friend. I have to do the same. I am in the same place u are at 61. Great skills and experience in 2 different fields. All of it means NOTHING to employers, because of our age. I ‘ve had just 3 interviews in 2 yrs. To old to work to young to retire. No health care for another 4 yrs. if it still even exists? The Obama people are Reaganites and have every intention of gutting what’s left of the safety net. They don’t give a flying fuck if most Amerikans are reduced to poverty, because they already have theirs.

I agree, all this whining about increased life expectancy makes me sick. I guess we should be required to fucking die at the appointed time so the rest of these people are freed of having to deal with our now useless bodies. Maybe, they can arrange for mass die offs or ethical suicide parlors like in Soylent Green.

go get um raul ………

if you are going to compare life expectancy today with that of when social security was created (and other commenters have already pointed out where your argument on that point is wrong)…. then it is only fair for you to also consider the difference between then and now of the amount of total income in the US that was taxed to pay for the program. If I recall the stats correctly, when the program started over 85% of all income in the us was taxed for social security with the income cap that was in place at the time. But, today, that figure has dropped into the 70s. This is because the largest gains in income have been for those at the top of the scale while the cap has only been moving up at a much smaller rate.

1. Social Security has nothing to do with the budget deficit or national debt. It doesn’t contribute to either one. And, saving money in the program won’t reduce either of those unless you plan to steal money from social security to pay for other programs.

2. If you want to make sure social security remains solvent and isn’t required someday in the distant future to take money from outside its own funding, just lift the income cap and collect taxes on 100% of income.

$$exactly$$

Yes,I think they think we won’t remember……or we are fuc..ng stupid.

I’ve also read numerous articles that explain part of the reason why the rich, and relaxed live longer is because of their lack of stress. For those that are persistently stressed about their day to day existence, it takes a hefty toll on the body. It effects hormones, which effect longevity. Those little increases in cortisol yr after yr can take a toll and cause heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes and dimentia. So it’s not just not having adequate HC, it’s that you are pre-disposed due to stress to need that unavailable HC.

These are the very folks that are being asked to work until they are 70 or whatever the potential age increase might be. Then they get their full SS benefits and that’s most likely all they will get because most of us lost everything in the recession, and/or don’t make enough to save up for retirement.

Sheez…just knowing that is stressing me out even more!

“The consensus position in the caucus is we can preserve the existing structure of Social Security including the retirement age,” said the Maryland Democrat. “And that is where we are. Obviously, people have, whenever they talk about the issue, there are different ideas. But it was very clear from the statements that we made as the Democratic caucus on the front steps of the Capitol that we believe that we should not be changing the retirement age.”

Finally, this puts the caucus on record.

When I see that the “Congressional Progressive Caucus” is on the case, I know the little people have already lost another one. This is the same gutless bunch that played “the good guys” role on health care reform, with 63 of their members signing a public pledge to “vote against ANY HCR bill that did not contain a ROBUST public plan option.” They then folded faster than a cheap suit to EL RAHMBO’s f-bomb attacks on them. One could easily conclude that the government of the US is essentially impervious to the desires of Main Street America, with Democrats and Republicans playing kabuki theater.