Nikki Haley

"54 here with 3 job offers in my email and one is throwing some crazy shit around to suck me back into working."

That could interfere with your T-times.

54 here with 3 job offers in my email and one is throwing some crazy shit around to suck me back into working.

"Who the fuck hires 66 year old's that were laid off?"

It depends. I'm 63, and get offers all the time. I could go anywhere in the state and get a job.

Depends on your field and your experience...

"Who the fuck hires 66 year old's that were laid off?""

Who wants to hire a 55-60 yr old let alone a 65 or 67 yrs old?

The one who push these laws, they have money and investments and won't be dependent on SSI or SSDI.

The fools who who repeat this bullshit rhetoric believe they have enough and won't suffer financial setbacks before they retire. Once their employer suffers financial setbacks, so will the employees.

Departments with employees nearing retirement get shut down, companies get bought out, 401s take losses, ppl get divorced..... Shit happens.

"And not my reply that it isn't as one sided as you are trying to project?"

Those who don't remember history...

It has been the Republican policy since the beginning of Social Security and Medicare to defund and eventually abolish these programs.

This is just a step in that direction.

“I don't recall the post I was responding to mentioning anything other than”

It wasn’t a post. It was the same UofM study or survey. Whichever you want to call it.

EROTICAMAZON

"Thanks and it supports what I wrote. I don't think you read the report, just the headlines."

How does that survey support you writing :

"Nikki Hayley has as much chance as Lindsey Graham had in 2016.
What no one wants to mention is the republican plan is to force people to keep working until they drop dead. Why would you want to push the retirement age out? Do people not realize what that is going to do? Who the fuck hires 66 year old's that were laid off?"

And not my reply that it isn't as one sided as you are trying to project?

"You’re also leaving out the percentages and the political makeup of the rest of the proposals. Increased payroll tax was supported with the same exact numbers. Increasing the income level for the payroll tax was supported by basically the same figures. Reducing benefits for high income earners was also supported by roughly the same amount"

I don't recall the post I was responding to mentioning anything other than

"What no one wants to mention is the republican plan is to force people to keep working until they drop dead. Why would you want to push the retirement age out? Do people not realize what that is going to do? Who the fuck hires 66 year old's that were laid off?"

Lmao

"You got a deal. What you doing tomorrow night ? :)"

Date night with my partner, plus I'm several thousand miles away. However, a woman we met at Hedo last week proposed to me, which means we might have to move to Nashville, which is closer. ;)

"Whereas the 100mm person may not spend it. It may just sit in an account as they have no need to spend it."

There is actually a sound argument, one backed by hundreds of years of macroeconomics, that wealthy people are of little to no benefit to a society. I mean, sure, it's great to have tax advantaged donations to arts organizations, especially if those arts organizations give back via arts education that steps in when it's stripped out of schools, but wealth itself isn't socially beneficial.

And trickle down economics has proved George Bush's point that it's merely voodoo, by continuing to not work, to the surprise of no one who understands even basic economic principles.

@molly, "" I make the occasional exception, so long as the tinfoil hat is kept completely hidden for the duration. ;)"" Easy peasy. You got a deal. What you doing tomorrow night ? :)

@Molly

You made me think of something funny. For all the trickle down lovers out there.

Why is it if you give a 65 year old person worth $100k, 30k a year it is bad, but if you give a tax break to someone worth $100mm, that saves them 30k a year it is good? Is the argument that the person worth 100mm will take that 30k and put it to work? That they will spend that money and therefore all the benefits of the movement of money will help all of us? Uhh . . . WTF do you think the 100k person is doing with the 30k? It is getting SPENT. Whereas the 100mm person may not spend it. It may just sit in an account as they have no need to spend it.

“I'm personally not very happy to hear this but I respect your decision…”

I make the occasional exception, so long as the tinfoil hat is kept completely hidden for the duration. ;)

"I remember reading back in the 70s the doom and gloom over SS going bankrupt."

Weird kids unite. I started reading the newspaper at the same age or a little earlier and, yeah, headlines about Social Security going bankrupt have been around for decades. Solvency really just is a math problem, so if you change stuff, the solution changes to no, Social Security isn't going bankrupt anytime soon.

That doesn't solve the completely witless political desire to privatize or even eliminate what should be considered by everyone as a basic government function - keeping the elderly and disabled from dying of hunger and homelessness - but that's also a battle that has been around for decades.

And the part that makes me completely nuts is that even if you strip out humanitarian concerns, there are real economic benefits to financial support of vulnerable populations that offset some of the costs directly.

“I'm personally not very happy to hear this but I respect your decision…”

LOL. Too Funny!

I am not sure how far peoples memory goes back in news events.

I have zero problem admitting I was an odd child. Starting at 7 years old I started to read the newspaper. When my mother and I were having breakfast, she would read some of the paper and I would read the other sections. Eventually, I would read almost all of it. Sorry, I skipped the classified section, sometimes the 'lifestyle' section. And @DB this was the Sun Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale. I found the news interesting because it was dynamic. Sure, it was like a soap opera in that it was always the same type of event, but the players changed and the events were not scheduled.

I remember reading back in the 70s the doom and gloom over SS going bankrupt. Initially it was going to go bankrupt somewhere in the 1990s. Then towards the end of the 70s, it was it was going to go bankrupt in 2000. Every year it seems that SS is going to go bankrupt in about 20 to 25 years. It is a recurring theme. There has been a party that has stated over and over they do not like it and want to privatize it or go with the old, "You are on your own." They want to do everything but have it. Then you have a group that says, no, we will have this, we saw what the country was like without it. Here we are, nearly 50 years since then and the argument is still going on, "SS is going bankrupt in 20-25 years from now."

I fully suspect that if I live to 2040, "SS will be going bankrupt in 2065," will be a headline. There are a lot of levers that can be used to make it not go away.

@molly"" plus I have an aversion to fucking crazy) "" I'm personally not very happy to hear this but I respect your decision not to sleep with me lol

"According to a May, 2022 survey, 76% of Democrats surveyed, and 75% of Republicans support raising the retirement age. It’s not as one sided as you are trying to project."

Here's the survey, which is really more of an in depth dive on a subject, something the Program for Public Consultation does regularly:
publicconsultation.o rg/social-security/large-majorities-of-republicans-and-democrats-agree-on-steps-to-drastically-reduce-social-security-shortfall/

And it helps to read past the headlines:

"Raising Retirement Age: 75% (Republicans 75%, Democrats 76%) favored gradually raising the retirement age from 67 to 68, eliminating 14% of the shortfall. "

A very modest and gradual rise in age before receiving full benefits is going to receive bipartisan support.

This one actually interests me more: "Making More Wages Subject to the Payroll Tax: Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $147,000. A proposal to additionally make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax, was favored by an overwhelming 81% (Republicans 79%, Democrats 88%). This would eliminate 61% of the shortfall."

That's an easy fix, is far more effective than raising the age for full benefits, eliminating 61% of the shortfall instead of a piddly 14%, and is even more broadly popular.

Also, I would neither vote for Nikki Haley nor fuck her (she has a mean face, plus I have an aversion to fucking crazy).

If she fucked me or gave me a couple thousand bucks, she'd earn/buy my vote.

My one vote won't change a major election.

“According to a May, 2022 survey, 76% of Democrats surveyed, and 75% of Republicans support raising the retirement age.”

You’re leaving out externally important facts of the study and the percentages.

The increase in retirement age that your percentages support is to raise the age to 68. That is it.

You’re also leaving out the percentages and the political makeup of the rest of the proposals. Increased payroll tax was supported with the same exact numbers. Increasing the income level for the payroll tax was supported by basically the same figures. Reducing benefits for high income earners was also supported by roughly the same amount.

You’re kind of cherry picking your statements.

@DB

Thanks and it supports what I wrote. I don't think you read the report, just the headlines.

"Respondents were told that another option for reforming Social Security would be to raise the full retirement age. This would reduce the total amount of benefits that a person receives over their lifetime. They were told this would not change the early retirement option, which would remain at age 62, with correspondingly lower benefits.

Respondents were told:

“Currently, the full retirement age is 66 years. According to current law, it is scheduled to gradually rise until it reaches 67 by the year 2027 and then will stop rising. This has no effect on those already receiving Social Security. It does affect those born in 1960 or later.”

They were presented three options for gradually increasing the full retirement age: to 68 by 2033, to 69 by 2041, or to 70 by 2064. They were informed that the options would reduce the shortfall by 14%, 21% and 29%, respectively.

The two arguments against were found convincing by more substantial majorities of over seven-in-ten overall, including large majorities of Republicans and Democrats."

I can't post the rest that supports what I wrote because it is a chart. However, here is the survey and it is on page 8.

publicconsultation. org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Social_Security_2022_Report.pdf

That doesn't sound like an option on when to retire, that sounds like an option on how to keep it funded at the same levels.

@hedo..trump will do what putin says..that simple

Google is your friend. Try University of Maryland 2022 social security survey.

@DB

I'd like to see that survey. I am posting this one because the wording is more accurate.

"A recent survey from Natixis Investment Managers set out to find out exactly when most Americans hope to stop working.

The average age is 62, the research found.

However, it turns out when people to hang up their hats varies by generation.

The youngest cohort, Generation Y — ages 25 to 40 — plans to retire at an average age of 59. For Generation X — now 41 to 56 — the average age is 60. Baby boomers — who range from 57 to 75 — indicated they plan to work longer, with an average expected retirement age of 68."

Notice that wanting to and expecting to are two different things.

I don't envision even 10% of people saying, "Hey, you know, I really want to work until 70." I can see a lot of people saying, "Fuck, I need to work until 70."

I know this is anecdotal, but it did show an interesting trend. A woman who was retired living in Florida (I think it was in central fl somewhere) had to come out of retirement and work. Why? Because of homeowners insurance. Her $1200 a year budget for it got destroyed when she got the $4200 bill.

How was the question asked?