The New York Times‘ Ross Douthat (11/15/10) warns us about the nightmare world that “Nancy Pelosi and her compatriots” live in:
It’s a world where the Social Security retirement age never budges, no matter how high average life expectancy climbs.
Shudder! Luckily, Pelosi and co.’s world seems to have diverged from ours around 2003, when the normal retirement age budged up two months, further budging by the same amount until 2008, when it reached 66 years. It’s currently scheduled to begin budging again in 2021, until it budges up to 67 in 2026.
In sharp contrast to Pelosi’s horrifying dystopia, where such budges are considered unthinkable, in our universe they are so routine that even some people who write about politics for a living seem completely unaware of them.
that entire essay was like a trip to bizarro world….
i can think of all sorts of stuff that chunky david brooks, aka ross dross-hat is completely unaware of ….
You’d think someone might have some common sense in this “retirement age” discussion and recognize that part of the equation has to do with the job market.
With over 10% unemployment (conservative estimates) and no signs of improvement, what happens to those who are unemployed and could have fallen into the Safety Net of Social Security, but now have x more years of what? Homelessness, to starvation, to suicide?
No one is the mainstream media or politic is discussing that real ramification.
Just to keep the stone rolling, it was only a few years ago that
you could read about the, “coming shortage of labor” which
shows just how little the pondering pundits know about the
stuff they get paid for writing. China is currently investing
over $100 billion for their railway system while the stimulus
package made $8 billion available to develop the railway system
in the United States. Just think, if people could travel in this
contry by train, they wouldn’t have to be groped at the air-
port.
Ironically Mr. Douthat and seemingly everyone else have missed the fact that the next generation is projected to have a shorter lifespan because of all the junk food hence obesity/diabetes .
Good point, Pat. No one is taking into account that, thanks to our food industry, our children are going to live shorter lives than us. Would you like some transfat to go with that soda?
That’s right, raise the retirement age because people are living longer these days. A few points: since Social Security has been implemented the elderly have gained in real years only 3.5 years in age while getting the benefits. Real longevity is considered longer because infants live longer. The ages of the founding fathers most of which lived into their 80’s is not widely known.. Sure at one time the age of 50 was considered a long life. But curing common disease that usually killed everyone solved that problem. 150 years ago germ theory was a curious notion. I say give everyone Medicare at age 50, and retire at 60. Raise the $106,000 limit to all income. Let the old folks give back by volunteering in different activities involving the young folks instead of segregating the old. Keep them engaged.
I like Raymond’s ideas. And his recall of history. Folks did live to ripe old age in the early years of the American settlement, especially if they were fortunate enough to have wealth and position. And of course the environment hadn’t yet been poisoned. Hmmm…
Lower the damn age so young folks can get hired
Small potatoes.Nancy has more important worries. Number one she is certifiable.Nuts!And now the DEms(who learned nothing from this wipeout election)have kept the pressure on her by retaining a measure of her responsibilities.My suggestion……Keep the high powered weapons away from her,and don’t let her near any bell towers.I am not completely being a yuckster on this.As it became obvious in Regans later years that something was wrong- I see signs in Nancy that are worrisome.
“Number one she is certifiable. Nuts!”
Ack! Michael e iz projecting again! I zuggezt therapy!
Sigmund therapy wont help her.That little helmut headed- trust fund baby ,with the spinning eyes is too far gone.
Just like the olden days, most of us won’t live long enough to retire, or won’t live much past retirement age.
Infant mortality rates have dropped significantly enough to skew the results upwards quite a bit. Admittedly we probably won’t die of polio, smallpox or typhoid, those are all but wiped out. Unfortunately they have been replaced with diabetes, heart disease, stress related disorders and cancer. They are treatments for those as well, but that just means that everything you and your family have worked for all your lives will go to doctors instead of your children.
Two reasons that Republicans hate Nancy Pelosi. First: She’s the most effective Speaker of the House in decades, getting all kinds of progressive legislation passed. Second: She’s a woman. Republicans hate successful women who don’t bow down to men, and they work very hard to demonize them. You can be sure that if Republicans hate her, she’s doing a lot of good things for the people. Yea Nancy!! Godspeed!!
michael e-I am all in favor of an informed critical opinion appearing advocating for thoughtful conservative positions. When you make ad hominem attacks on the other hand, they are kind of a waste of time and just tend to make you look bad. Welcome your participation, but not silly name-calling.
Agreed………but damn it is so much fun.Cant I just give her one more good wack?Just one ?????
Nancy is an effective politician, that’s for sure. And she sure has the Republicans in a snit. They snit so easily. But that is not the real issue. The people who are living longer are people with enough money to eat right and pay for the good life. Folks who work in jobs requiring hard physical work and difficult working conditions do not live so long, so they wouldn’t get to retire in time to enjoy any social security, leaving all the benefits to us with better working and living conditions. The very wealthy, and maybe health freaks, live the longest. Go figure.