Government Analyzes 30 Social Security Changes

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The text states that none of the benefit changes affects anyone 55 or older in 2010 but then goes on to say that only those aged 62 in 2017 or later would be affected. Someone 55 in 2010 WILL BE 62 in 2017. So which is it?

Kenny of NC 3:28AM November 13, 2010

If the Government will put back into social security that they borrowed, and replaced with IOU's. we would be in great shape. It wasn't their money to touch for any reason, our citizens need to let Washinton and all our voted in legislators know that we expect our money to be repaid immediately. If billions can be spent on wars, and alot of ridiculous things such as building bridge to nowhere. why can some of thses politicians not wise up and demand social security to be repaid (that in reality was stolen from our citizens that paid it in. Where did the Gov., get the right to go into these funds???

janice of NC 3:34AM July 21, 2010

How about doing away with the SS fund all together? Or making it a choice of whether you want to contribute to it. Personally, I would rather have my money now and save it or invest it for my own future not somebody elses.
I am a believer of personal responsibility and therefore it should be each persons responsibility to plan for their future. Maybe this would help (force) people off of the welfare roles and get a job. Survival of the fittest I guess.
The American Dream was if you work hard you earn the rewards, The system in place has made that if you are fat and lazy don't worry Uncle Sam will give you some money. This pilfering of those that have to give to those that don't needs to stop.

Matt of NJ 2:52PM July 18, 2010

The reason we have this problem is that politicians "borrowed" funds and will never repay it. Therefore, it seems reaonable that both their pensions and Federal employee pensions be subject to the same reductions that Social Security pensioners will have to take.

Anonymous of TX 2:13PM July 18, 2010

Definitely something should be done to fix Social Security, but benefits should not be reduced. Already alternate retirement income has been hit hard: 401K's have had record losses in the stock market, all equity in our home's has vanished, companies and governments are implementing early retirement. The only reliable income left for the aged is Social Security. If I'm laid off at 55, after working for 35 years, how can I survive until I'm 70 if I have to wait that long? At that age, health expenses start kicking in, and savings don't go a long way when you're not generating income. What kind of quality of life are we looking forward to if we have to work for 50 years before retiring? Everyone can chip in a little to fix this problem. The cap on salaries on which SS deductions are made should be raised. It eventually evens out when you retire, depending on whether or not you have outside sources of income. I see needy people now living on around $600 a month of SS with no other sources of income, how much further does the government want to reduce that? If you cut the benefits by the proposed 20%, that leaves you with $480, if you wait until the full retirement age to collect, while that age has already pushed back to 67, and now there are talks of going up to 70. Not everybody lives to be 90 or 100. Reagan was the proponent of pushing back the retirement age and he could not even enjoy his retirement, because of his alzheimer condition. We need to learn from cultures that respect the aged and their lifetime contribution, if you worked for it you deserve to enjoy it!

Anonymous of PA 6:18PM July 17, 2010