First democrat debate

[bozack]

Seeing MSN beat off over this thing is hilarious...so typical

 

[ivwshane]

Quoting for completeness since the above quote got my attention.. like lower the amount what?

Good point though!

I don't have a specific number but to 60 would be good. The point of lowering the retirement age would be to help remove the elderly from the workforce which has been slowly replacing your typical young worker in entry level jobs.

 

[RaistlinZ]

Is it just me, or does Webb come across as completely stiff and unlikable?

 

[dank69]

single digit ratings for the networks carrying this tonight fo sho

Yeah, train wrecks always pull huge ratings. Dems can't compete with circus sideshow freaks.

 

[bozack]

Its a shame they can't find someone that isn't ancient to run, talk about a bunch of Geezers.

 

[dank69]

Is it just me, or does Webb come across as completely stiff and unlikable?

He's an ex-marine so it's understandable.

 

[nickqt]

So Sanders is a liar?

Nope.

Sanders used a much more conservative estimate.

But social security was not created with that in mind. If you want to lower the age, then that's more of a welfare system. I think that if you want to talk about keeping it within its original scope of serving as a source of income for those who live past the age at which they intended to live til, the current system has drastically changed.

If you look at the average life expectancy in the 1930s or even the # of years people typically live for after 65 years of age, the number has changed from the 30s til today. It would make sense to raise the age in that sense if you want to keep it today as the program it was intended to be.

Now what you're talking about is to change the scope of social security by lowering the age. Is that really the goal? And if so how does it make sense for rich people to cash out on social security at an earlier age?

Believe it or not, actuaries (google it if you don't know what they are) built in increasing lifespans into SS.

SS doesn't cost the US government any money, and hasn't. It is still sitting on Trillions.

If it weren't for Reagan blowing up the deficits in the 80s and borrowing against the SS trust fund, it would be even more flush with cash.

Note well that the Pentagon runs out of money every single year. And somehow, someway, we come up with more money to pay for it.

Cutting SS benefits now because we might have to cut benefits in the future, instead of just allocating money to SS, or, you know, uncapping the SS payroll tax, is incredibly hilarious reasoning, and also incredibly stupid.

 

[ivwshane]

But social security was not created with that in mind. If you want to lower the age, then that's more of a welfare system. I think that if you want to talk about keeping it within its original scope of serving as a source of income for those who live past the age at which they intended to live til, the current system has drastically changed.

If you look at the average life expectancy in the 1930s or even the # of years people typically live for after 65 years of age, the number has changed from the 30s til today. It would make sense to raise the age in that sense if you want to keep it today as the program it was intended to be.

Now what you're talking about is to change the scope of social security by lowering the age. Is that really the goal? And if so how does it make sense for rich people to cash out on social security at an earlier age?

The point of social security was to give a way for old people to live out the rest of their lives without being in poverty. If old people are having to work then I'd say the system is failing. If old people want to work (as opposed to need to work) then their benefits should probably be adjusted accordingly.

 

[ivwshane]

Finally clinton is getting some passion!

 

[bozack]

make the wealthy pay is unsurprising, and had to laugh when she said she can remember being a young mother...lulz

Blame republicans blame republicans blame republicans.. rah rah rah!!!

At least Sanders has the nuts to say he'd vote for weed

 

[LegendKiller]

make the wealthy pay is unsurprising, and had to laugh when she said she can remember being a young mother...lulz

Blame republicans blame republicans blame republicans.. rah rah rah!!!

At least Sanders has the nuts to say he'd vote for weed

Ohh, and free education for all!

Uncapping taxation on SS? Fine, then uncap my earnings on it.

Gotta love progs and "Make anybody moderately successful to pay for it!"

 

[Indus]

Gotta love progs and "Make anybody moderately successful to pay for it!"

If you're moderately successful, you're not making $500,000 USD a year.

That classifies as very rich.

 

[DougK62]

Bernie and Hillary are the only real contenders here. I think Bernie won it, but was disappointed with a closing speech that lacked fire.

 

[LegendKiller]

If you're moderately successful, you're not making $500,000 USD a year.

That classifies as very rich.

So uncapping SS is only for 500k+/yr?

 

[JEDIYoda]

single digit ratings for the networks carrying this tonight fo sho

you have no clue...

 

[ivwshane]

Winner?

Both Bernie and clinton.

Loser? O'malley.

 

[bozack]

you have no clue...

Judging by your reply neither do you...thanks for playing though

 

[bozack]

Winner?

Both Bernie and clinton.

Loser? O'malley.

the only two folks on that stage were sanders and Clinton...everyone else was completely forgettable.

 

[HomerJS]

With only 5 people on stage couldn't they allow more time for extended answers. Maybe give each candidate 2 extra time cards.

Use when needed

 

[bozack]

With only 5 people on stage couldn't they allow more time for extended answers. Maybe give each candidate 2 extra time cards.

Use when needed

Why bother, they should have given all the time to Clinton and Sanders, no one gave a rats ass about what any of the others said...what were their names again?...the only two folks CNN is talking about are them.

 

[ivwshane]

With only 5 people on stage couldn't they allow more time for extended answers. Maybe give each candidate 2 extra time cards.

Use when needed

Honestly, I felt the answers were long enough and were well pre packaged. I'm not sure more time would have helped.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The point of social security was to give a way for old people to live out the rest of their lives without being in poverty. If old people are having to work then I'd say the system is failing. If old people want to work (as opposed to need to work) then their benefits should probably be adjusted accordingly.

Yes and that's why Social security was set at 65 back in the day when the average life expectancy was in the upper 50s to low 60s.

The idea is if you live PAST what most people live til, the government will step in so you don't just die. Social security isn't a retirement fund. It doesn't remove the personal responsibility to put money away. The idea is you continue to save and if you happen to live a long life past the average life expectancy, that's not your fault.

To keep that going, it only makes sense to raise the social security retirement age to match the increasing life expectancy. You can't expect people to continue retiring at the same age as life expectancy extends. If people at 65 are healthier than they once were with advanced medical treatment, more awareness of healthy lifestyles, etc, then it really isn't a failing system if people work til a later age. In the 30s, you were screwed if you had hear tissues. There wasn't the awareness regarding smoking or cancer or vaccination that we have today. People at 60 were ready to croak and tons of people didn't even live til those ages.

Lowering the age changes the scope of social security into a retirement plan. That's not what it is.

 

[flexy]

Holy crap,

No-one came across as a total idiot or clown, I am impressed!

 

[HTFOff]

Winner?

Biden

At this point, I think very few can be swayed one way or the other regarding clinton. You'll either vote for her or not. Biden can grab non-dem and dem voters who are allergic to clinton.

 

[Franz316]

Kind of refreshing watching that after the other two debates. It's like the difference between a bunch of college professors having a debate and a bunch of nimrods.