Obama and Social Security

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by TeaBisqit, Jan 7, 2009.

  1. TeaBisqit

    TeaBisqit Member

    I am so confused. Now they're saying he wants to cut Social Security and Medicare and other programs we need to survive. I hope this is wrong. I'm totally scared now :( Does anyone know what he's doing? He's supposed to give some speech on it soon.
  2. TeaBisqit

    TeaBisqit Member

    They better not cut what I get. I only get $568 a month and I need foodstamps and medicaid just to survive on that. And I can't even live on that amount of money. They should be increasing SS to match todays times. That low figure was put into place like half a century ago, and it is no longer fair when compared with a modern economy.
  3. Mikie

    Mikie Moderator

    Used to be that we could draw full SS benefits at age 65. Depending on when one was born, it may be age 66 or age 67 before one can do that. Some ideas under consideration are to cut benefits to those who have large amounts of other retirement or investment income and to raise the Medicare premiums to those in high income brackets.

    Of course, this is very controversial because it penalizes those who worked hard, were lucky, saved their money, etc. They don't believe SS should be a "needs-based" program. SSI is, but SS was never meant to be. That doesn't mean it might not be in the future. On the other hand, those who, through no fault of their own, ended up with little retirement savings feel the well off don't need the SS and should give up their benefits to help sustain the trust.

    One way Medicare could be helped is for congress to redo the Medicare Part D, which was originally written by Big Pharma. Medicare should be able to negotiate the price of drugs for Medicare recipients just as it does for the VA. That would bring down the cost of this boondoggle legislation significantly.

    The hard facts of life are that SS and Medicare aren't sustainable as they stand. It will likely be young people who will have to take the cuts--not present recipients. People over the age of 65 are the largest voting bloc. They, and AARP, will use all the pressure they can muster to retain benefits for present beneficiaries.

    It's not us, but our children and grandchildren, who will be paying for the deregulation of financial institutions, greed, and unbelieveable govt. spending of the last eight years. The double whammy, of course, is that many will be caught in the middle with not enough years for their 401K's to regain huge losses, loss of equity in homes, and job losses. Our chickens may be coming home to roost figuratively AND literally.

    Love, Mikie
  4. therealmadscientist

    therealmadscientist New Member

    To restate, in a slightly different context, a real comment/quote by the vice President, " So? ".

    (Sorry, sometimes it all gets to be too much.)

    [This Message was Edited on 01/09/2009]
  5. TwoCatDoctors

    TwoCatDoctors New Member

    Yesterday I received below from AARP asking everyone to send to the new Congress stressing what the country wants them to do.

  6. Didoe

    Didoe New Member

    bilionaires who have lost money are committing suicide, even some who had millions left!
    the only people who should have a reduction in social security are those who have huge pensions, savings, etc and dont need it and there are many people like this. And those of us, mainly women, who divorced and came late to the workplace, with kids to support as well as the bills to pay, we havent all socked away a fortune to retire on...some may have, most haven't and live paycheck to paycheck.
    Its just more govt theft, another rug to be pulled out where you thought there might be stability and security.

  7. Gingareeree

    Gingareeree New Member

    A little clarity re the Bush administration re:social security. At no time did he advocate putting all of one's social security benefits into the stock market. It was an option available to each individual. Even at that not all funds would have been available to do so. I don't remenber the exact percentage, bottom line your statment was misleading. Jeanne