Raising the retirement age.

Sure, just find enough folks that will employee those workers until that retirement age too. :p :rolleyes:
 
Doesn't really matter, technically...unless he were to find a way to pass a law without congress.
 
Can we get some links to where Rand said this?

dannno said:
No, I think it's just one of them.
Click to expand...

Particularly I'd like to know more about this.
Is he seriously advocating raising the retirement age as part of budget cuts... even if only as part of an overall plan?

I remember a guy who said multiple times "We can take care of our people at home if we stop wasting money overseas"... it seems like that message has been backpedaled to "We're gonna keep wasting money overseas and make up part of it by raising the retirement age". Is that really the case?

Seems to me that the topic of retirement age is a good opportunity to say something like "Who the hell does the federal government think it is dictating to you when you are allowed to stop working", but I've totally stopped expecting ideas like that to come out of candidates for public office.
 
That might work for people who make a living in a cubicle, but I would not want to force a man who has made a living with hard physical work to be forced to do that until age 70 if his body is not holding up.
 
timosman said:
He says it twice at 8:00 and 8:45 in the CNBC debate highlights]
Click to expand...

+rep
Maybe I'll go back and watch the debate. I would like to know more context. Did he say that he'd rather abolish or totally revamp or privatize the programs beforehand, and only address how to fix it if you don't do any of that? If not then we have yet another example why he's floundering.
 
euphemia said:
That might work for people who make a living in a cubicle, but I would not want to force a man who has made a living with hard physical work to be forced to do that until age 70 if his body is not holding up.
Click to expand...

Origanalist and myself make our livings in the trades.

I have never worked a desk job.
 
Entitlements are 2/3 of the the budget. Cutting entitlements is the most logical place to start. Rand is for raising the age of eligibility, means testing, privatizing the programs, and switching Medicare over to the Congressional health care plan which would lower costs. Sound like good ideas to me.
 
Krugminator2 said:
Entitlements are 2/3 of the the budget. Cutting entitlements is the most logical place to start. Rand is for raising the age of eligibility, means testing, privatizing the programs, and switching Medicare over to the Congressional health care plan which would lower costs. Sound like good ideas to me.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a disaster to me. What is "means testing"? Some bureaucrat will be deciding if I deserve the money I was putting away for my entire life based on what kind of car my boyfriend drives?
 
Isn't the USA STILL spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, EVERY YEAR? Perhaps some FAT and waste could be cut from there. LMAO!

Could we maybe just work to lower the world average, for starters?
 
Last edited:
timosman said:
Sounds like a disaster to me. What is "means testing"? Some bureaucrat will be deciding if I deserve the money I was putting away for my entire life based on what kind of car my boyfriend drives?
Click to expand...

You are right. It is unfair. The programs are insolvent. Somebody has to pay. It sounds like you are against even raising the age of eligibility. People are living longer and having few kids. It is extremely immoral for current seniors to get full benefits when the program is insolvent.

Stossel had a piece called greedy geezers that convinced me.


If you want a more analytical view. This one looks at the numbers.
 
Krugminator2 said:
You are right. It is unfair. The programs are insolvent. Somebody has to pay. It sounds like you are against even raising the age of eligibility. People are living longer and having few kids. It is extremely immoral for current seniors to get full benefits when the program is insolvent.

Stossel had a piece called greedy geezers that convinced me.


If you want a more analytical view. This one looks at the numbers.
Click to expand...


What geezers were/are those that made those rules?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top