Sunday, April 14, 2013

Social Security at 62 or 70/72?

Let's see: Life expectancy 76, at 62 (for ease of math) you get 1000/month; at 66 $1080, at 72 $1320. Therefore the choices are $168,000; $129,600; $63,360. Therefore, the difference between retirement at 62 and 72 is a gift to the government of $104,640... which, if they follow the Bush (Jr & Sr) model they will squander on WMD to kill third world women and children.
Look at the math ... strangely, heart attack or disability, may force retirement, but it would, in the long run, make you more money.
It certainly would have gotten you medical benefits -- and depending on your age at the time, you could have gone on disability... making a touch more .. plus medical coverage. Now you can turn your attention to the thing you wanted to do, but couldn't because you were a 9-5 slave.
Even if you retire at 70, they have stolen 62% of the retirement benefits you would have received had you retired at 62 and if you live to national average of 76. There are a host of secondary benefits which are not part of AARP calculators (any more than the lost income is included). The late retirement is as much, actually more, of a fraud as GW Bush's privatization idea was... it is a way for the Government to deny you the benefits you paid for -- which the GOP is now trying to find a way to steal from you.... all because they wanted to run up deficits (remember Reagan doubled the National Debt, Bush #1 was working toward doing it again, and Bush #2 actually did it -- yielding a national debt more than four times what it should have been had the GOP lived within its budgetary meant and just paid the interest/debt service like any responsible person is expected to do.)

The percentages used in the first paragraph are based on AARP calculations.  AARP provides a free Benefits Calculator, but it doesn’t take into account the reality of lost secondary benefits, or accumulated benefits.  In some states, the “income” determines a state subsidy for rent or property taxes – right there you can get the $80 difference between retirement at 62 and 66,  if you keep in mind your actual taxes might mean you get more than that difference.

Next, Medical care.  Remember, our GOP opposes life – they oppose government provided medical care of the type found in nations whose population outlives ours.

The reality is, for all their “pro-life” nonsense, the GOP is out to kill as many people as possible.   Even the core issue of the “pro-life agenda” is based on increasing the numbers killed – remember, if not for the Supreme Court, anti-abortion laws would include abortion that are done to save the live of the mother (usually because both mother and fetus [or child] will die before the fetus is viable, ie, tubular pregnancy).  Thus their real agenda is to terminate an adult and a fetus – not to ensure the life of the fetus.  Though they would allow the fetus to live, if it ensured the death of the mother – that is the pragmatic reality of the laws they promote.

Continuing with the “pro-life” example: Who is going to pay the medical bills for the fetus they did not want terminated?  Who will pay the medical costs for that child, and how will they get educated … remember, the GOP opposes paying for education and medical care.  If you put in a Bill to provide additional money for education or health assistance, the GOP will be the first, and loudest opponent. 

When have they ever, in recent history, advocated improving education in poor or rural communities?

When have they ever, in recent history, advocated improving medical care in poor or rural communities?

Identify any piece of GOP sponsored legislation WHICH WOULD HAVE DIVERTED MONEY FROM MILITARY KILLING MACHINES TO THE SUPPORT OF LIFE FOR THE LIVING.   Can’t be done – the GOP wants to kill people.  That is why push wanted to privatize Social Security – he knew the majority of Americans  would soon qualify, and if he could both privatize it and (while out-sourcing jobs, and so protecting the wealthy income streams) then causing the government to tank the markets, he could hurt the majority of Americans in one shot… with the next, or some subsequent, administration taking the blame.   To ensure the blame is passed to non-GOP administrations, the GOP is obstructionist with regard to anything that will benefit the people of this nation.

Look at Washington… show me where I’m wrong.  Show me a GOP Congressman who is actively working to help the average person, to put money in the hands of those who will spend it (the ultimate stimulus package) … those who are retired and and will be buying things to help their children, or put smiles on the faces of their grandchildren.  NO!  They are actively trying top take the disposable income out of the hands of that group --- to reduce them to marginal subsistence levels.

Marginal subsistence levels for any who are on, or are approaching, Social Security collection dates, is the perfect anti-stimulus program.  It achieves two goals, first it eliminates disposable income for those most likely to spend it, and second, it pushes more people to the levels at which they will qualify (and really need) welfare benefits.  Their goal is to suppress the economy while increasing costs to government.   That will ensure the collapse of the nation.



Hey, Destroy America, Vote Republican

It’s less messy than bombs… and more permanent.

No comments: