July 16th, 2010
06:00 PM ET

Is it time for Congress to raise the retirement age?



FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

If you like your job, better hold onto it because Congress is thinking about raising the retirement age.

As lawmakers run out of options on how to pay for Social Security, the Washington Times reports how top Democrats and Republicans have been making unusually frank comments on the topic. Usually, politicians talk in generalities about cutting the deficit, and most other things. It's what they do best.

But it seems the flashing warning signs of our skyrocketing and unsustainable deficits have finally gotten their attention.

And now they're getting down to business - with party leaders saying that with people living longer and in better health - the nation can't afford to keep paying out benefits for as long as 30 years after people retire.

House Minority Leader John Boehner suggests raising the retirement age for full Social Security benefits to 70... for those who are now 50 or younger.

Boehner also says we should provide benefits only to those who need them. He says with the government broke, it shouldn't be paying benefits to those who have substantial income from other sources while they're retired.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also talks about raising the retirement age... and providing benefits primarily to the poor.

Government watchdog groups are impressed at how serious both parties seem to be about fixing Social Security. They say leaders now realize that Social Security - which was long considered the "third rail" of politics - is now the "low hanging fruit," meaning it's one of the easier budget problems to fix.

All this comes as many European countries are moving toward raising retirement ages to fix their budget crisis.

Currently, Americans can start collecting Social Security benefits as early as 62.

Here’s my question to you: Is it time for Congress to raise the retirement age?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

John in Lake Charles, Louisiana writes:
Forget the retirement age. Drop the cap on Social Security taxes and raise the percentage people and employers have to pay.

Mack in Michigan writes:
I'm sure the Republicans would prefer to just kill the poor and working class when they're 61 but this will have to do until they regain the House and Senate.

Ed in Port Jefferson, New York writes:
This is a likely candidate to be put successfully through Congress during its lame duck session.

Gary in Michigan writes:
Yes, the age should be raised. It is documented that with the advancements in stem cell research and other technology that in 20 years the average life span will be 110 years old. It is only common sense to adjust any program to fit the realities of the day.

Jeannie writes:
Jack, I have no problem with raising the retirement age - we are all living so much longer, it only makes sense. However, the Social Security fund is full of MY money and I should still be permitted to live off its benefits.

Greg in Ontario writes:
Who the hell gets to retire these days? Politicians, doctors and the few people we say are celebrities. Everyone else works until they drop.

Steve writes:
Social Security was started with the knowledge most people would not live to an age to get it. They are just screwing us again.

Shaun in Las Vegas writes:
Jack, I hope the retirement age goes up to 100, so we can see you on the Situation Room for decades to come.

Filed under: Congress
soundoff (303 Responses)
  1. Barb

    Folsom, CA
    Sure, if you can convince business to keep us. I was laid off at 62 and feel very lucky another business wanted to hire me. It took me nine months to get that other job at $30,000 less. Business always go for the younger individual. I was just lucky this time. I'm now 64 and plan to keep working as long as possible.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
  2. Lyle H. Trask

    It would definately require those under fifty years old to establish other methods of providing for their retirement, such as investing. The down side is that there is always the risk that the source of investment goes "bust." Then where would those folks go?

    July 15, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
  3. R Tieman

    Why is it that the persons who are responsible and invest well in life always get penalized? Socialism! It's not American!

    July 15, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
  4. John from San Antonio

    Absolutely they should raise the retirement age. The working men and women of this country are the only ones who can pay the bills. Senators and congressmen are retired the minute they hit Washington and focus on feathering their nests further. It works just like in nature. The host supports the parasite until it dies. The parasite dies soon after but lived a good life while the host was alive.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
  5. Chris from Charlotte

    I think Congress needs to stop using social security as an ATM machine. Then we would not have any issues. Let's also put some real reform on wall street (not that do nothing bill that was paased today) and allow taxpayers to invest in the market. That would help alot of problems. However, we taxpayers are dealing with the most dysfuctional Congress in our history. In the words of Lou Dobbs "Vote then all out".


    July 15, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
  6. Jeff M

    Its a two edge sword. The retirement age should be raised. But the formula using the last 40 quarters of income to determine eligible wages and therefore how much you will receive needs to be modified. If a person has spent decades at the max level of contributions due to a high salary, but then has a job that only pays $30K for the last 5 years before retiring at age 70, it shouldn't reduce the size of the monthly check they will receive.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
  7. Lawrence W Archambeau

    With respect to Social Security, certainly the retirement age should be raised. But if anyone expects that all they have to do is hang on to their job until they reach retirement age, they're delusional. In today's world, the company can terminate you anytime, without an explanation, other than your job is eliminated. And when it comes reducing expenses, the employer is certainly aware that it is most expedient to fire high cost older employees and hire the young at entry level wages. The worker is not protected.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  8. Paul, Mankato, MN

    Absolutely! Raise the age and make Social Security a "safety net" program. It's long overdue, but start raising it now for those under 60, growing incrementally, and then fix it to average life expectancy in America. It's social "security" to know that if you can't work in old age that you'll not end up living on the streets. It should never have been allowed to become a socialized pension program on which people expect to stop working and live off the young. This will fix it and allow a lower rate for those who want to save on their own. And don't forget Medicare, too!

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  9. Kristina

    It's about time. When Social Security was enacted it was to support senior citizens that were destitute (primarily because of the Great Depression). More importantly, the average life span was much shorter, so the total benefits paid out were relatively small per person. We should absolutely have needs testing, and increase the retirement age. I think early retirement should only be available if a person is unable to work for medical reasons. I am in my 40's and funding my own retirement because I don't think social security will exist when I retire.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  10. Steve (New York)

    Jack... It should be raised and 70 seems like a good target, even if there is some sort of compromise in the upper 60s. However I don't think it's fair to expect people to pay into a system like this, and then tell them they're not qualified to receive the benefits because they have income from other sources. It is encouraging to see both parties taking this seriously.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  11. Eagle

    NO NO NO NO NO , they need to return the program back to what it was originaly meant to be. Retirement pay for people that payed into it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not to pay out to everybody that puts out their hand, or to the medical payments that are made. Also stop making 50 years of payments to kids of people that have payed in .

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  12. jim harris

    hell no i've been paying into this system ever since i started working which by the way was when i was 17 i'm now 44 i think we should make all the congressmen and women give up their golden umbrella and make them apply for social security when they retire i bet they fix it then

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  13. Pittsburgh

    We need to raise the retirement age only for unionized government employees and transit workers, who would rather destroy bus service than take any contract concessions..... these folks get to retire with full pension at 50 or 55! Why don't we start with them, instead of sticking it to the average taxpaying Joe? (FOR A CHANGE)

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  14. Patricia

    I think the social security rules should be modified ONLY if I have the choice of whether to contribute to it or put that money I contribute to it away elsewhere. Tons of other countries have retirement financial funds like Social Security that are properly funded at a similar tax rate of this 50% and which benefit all sectors of the population. It is time for the government to cut spending and stop playing Robin Hood with my income.

    Patricia from Atlanta, GA

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  15. Jessica

    I'm 36 years old. I'm for it! My husband and I will probably never see a dime of what we put into the system. While we're at it, why don't we remove the $106,800 cap on employee earnings? The sky the limit baby...

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  16. james

    Only to those that need them ? If thats the case I want my money back thats been taken from my paycheck for 4 decades...this want the deal. Jack you old drunk, go away.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  17. Fed

    It may be time to raise the retirement age, but cutting benefits to "those who don't need it" is wrong. Federal employees who came on board after 1985 have social security as one of the "three legs of the retirement stool" (the other two are a base (low) retirement and 401K) that they have been promised and working toward for their retirement. The basic retirement is lower than under the old retirement system precisely because they thought the other was too generous, and made the SS benefit a component. The total retirement is still lower, even worse if you don't contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan. Millionaires, maybe. People who have been promised SS benefits as part of their retirement plan, no.
    Who makes the determination of how much other income is too much ?

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  18. Robert Schmidt

    I don't care if Congress raises the retirement age or won't pay me any benefits because my income level is too high. Simply give me back all of the money that I've paid into Social Security over the years. You can keep the portion paid by my former employers.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
  19. Steve Knipe

    How about paying back the money you boworred!!!!! That is the people's money not the government's.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm |
  20. Patricia Ebaugh

    It's obvious the retirement age must be raised before benefits can be obtained as we are living much longer than we did at the time the original age was set. As far as only giving benefits to the poor, that is not fair. Everyone who has paid into the system their entire working life are entitled to all they have paid, at the least. Beyond that is problematical and should be studied.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm |
  21. Mary

    Past time. With all of the medical advances medicine everyone is living longer lives. I am in favor of being able to get back what you put in and then having social security on a need basis. Mary – Phoenix

    July 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm |
  22. Joseph Delisle

    The Social Security Administration started raising the retirement age years ago. Millions of Americans receive statements from the SSA each year, adjusting their retirement age and how much they will receive based on earnings. True I can still retire at 62 but I would receive the absolute minimum, and in this economy there's little incentive to do that.
    Having been born in 1949, my retirement has been moved back to age 66. I'm sure others born after me, have had their retirement ages moved back to 67, 68 etc. It would seem the question you're asking, has already been answered.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm |
  23. Harry Hummel

    After the politicians restrict Social Security funds to SS Benefits only and after they replace the SS funds that were placed in the genral fund for years: Then review retirement age and SS Benefits. Until then hands off!

    July 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm |
  24. Ken

    How about not paying Social Security benefits to people who have never paid into the system. And how about putting the money that people contribute to Social Security into an account that the government can't raid to pay for other projects and programs.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
  25. Dan

    Yes, unfortunately it is. This along with possibly a modest increase in the social security payroll tax is the only way. This program should and must stay funded. Letting Social Security go down would be in absolute slap in the face to all the workers who paid into for so many years. and for many of them, with the current condition of our economy, it is the only retirement they have. Also, i'm quite sure we would all hear FDR turning in his grave. Probably still wouldn't be loud enough to drown out Rush LImbaugh, but it would be close!

    July 15, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
  26. chris

    if they only want to pay benefits for those that have no other retirement income, then maybe those of us that have other retirement savings plan in place shouldnt be paying into social security.....

    July 15, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
  27. Cary

    Too little too late. As a 49 year old I just miss out but the real issue is I'm near the end of the baby boomers which are the real problem. They are proposing to let the bulk of the baby boomers retire then start increasing the age for future generations. This should have been done ten or twenty years ago when it might have helped. Right now it just comes off as a double slap in the face because the younger generations will have to pay the bills but they are becoming less likely to ever benefit from the programs. Run the numbers and you'll see that it may save a few trillion of the projected 50 to 60 trillion the baby boomers are likely to cost. The system will be bankrupt long before I reach even 65 so it's a pointless exercise. It accomplishes nothing.

    July 15, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
  28. Steve

    Why should we balance the Federal budget on the backs of the poor and elderly?
    Because they have no real voice in Washington . A better question would be, "what happens to the money a man has in his social secruity account if he dies before he is able to obtain it?" I know of two men I worked with who died before receiving any social security benefits. One friend died four days after he retired.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
  29. Sally Dettmer

    I do not believe the retirement age should be raised. Many people already have a hard time working until full retirement due to health reasons. I believe we should raise the cap on income that is subject to social security taxes and raise the tax by 1% to keep social security solvent. I know it is not a popular thing to do but it is the right thing to do.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
  30. Nurse Lisa in Shelton CT

    GOPers rail against socilism till it is time to change social security – not realizing they've gotten all they paid in over their whole career within just 2-3 yrs of collecting. Just be thankful GWB didn't talk people into investing all their funds before the huge crash. "It's uh, gone, man."

    July 15, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
  31. Steven P.

    Useless worthless windbags make darn sure their trough remains filled though. Never mind the little people paying for institutional thievery.

    No sweat. We've known for decades that SS won't be there for us, which is why a boat load of us protest the gubment spending your children's taxes. I say YOUR children, as mine won't have a tax profile here. And I guess we won't be doing "our part" either, for when we retire – when WE are ready – we are going to make darn sure the theifs in Washington can't take it.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
  32. Tim

    Hoyer's suggestion that we primarily provide benefits to the poor is very scary. Anyone that has worked has seen the amount of FICA taxes they must pay. Now he is saying that you will not see any return on that money. Unless we have an opt out of SS we will forced to pay for another give away of our money, it is so wrong. The poor already get food stamps, section 8, medicaid, now it will be a retirement account.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
  33. sal from cal

    Jack, it's not broken it is just mismanaged by our crooked
    representatives. There are people getting social security
    benefits who don't deserve them. I'm not talking about poor folks
    who need it Jack, I'm talking massive nationwide fraud.
    Don't raise the retirement age just get the fraud under control.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
  34. Mary West

    Charlotte, NC

    i think the retirement age should be raised for full benefits to age 70.
    More importantly, we should return to a retirement test. The program was designed to replace income lost to retirement, death of the worker (survivor benefits) and then in 1956 disability. It was never intended to be an investment ( i.e. stocks or bonds). From 1937 to [the late 1970's, full benefits were given at age 65. You got basically all your contributions in about 3 yrs. Now that has changed to 4-5 yrs but still a deal. Plus it provided for your parents, aunts uncles and the elderly couple doen the street. We are so ignorant of the most important program this country has.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  35. Paul

    Hey, thanks for the great advice "Hold on to your job"! Could you let my employer know that as wel!!!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  36. Sarah


    1. Prevent and quickly prosecute any and all Medicare fraud – saving 62BILLION a year!

    2. Social Security's systems and integrity are shattered, as in an on-going case I'm involved in. Neither systems nor people talk to each other and seem to be unable to quickly and clearly resolve any issues, including duplicate Medicare deductions, supposed "over-payments" and very intimidating (but legal boilerplate) "statements".

    3. Apologies for mistakes NOT made by the recipients would go a long way to taking better care of our seniors. Don't forget, we all are and have been paying into the system all our working lives.

    4. DO NOT ALLOW any government agency to (continue to) "borrow" against Social Security It is a life line so many of us have trusted and depend on.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  37. Andy Hart

    no, if the members would look after this country not steal our money
    when they don;t even pay social security. We need 6 year term limits for everyone including the president., They all serve one time and then get a damn job like everyone else. Washington is screwing the american people over.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  38. Worked all my Life

    Dear Federal Government:
    I would like all the money that I paid into Social Security returned to me in one lump sum. This was not the initial agreement when I started working at age 16. We can save a lot more money by repeeling the benefits of all Congressman and Senators still alive and living off the Government.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  39. Diana from New Jersey

    Increase retirement age is not the solution, it is already difficult for a 50 – 60 year old to find work, never mind someone over 60! And should we really be competing with younger workers that have families to raise and college loans to pay off? The real issue is funding the system and the only way to do that is creating jobs and bringing jobs back to the US.

    It irks me when career politicians and high level officials get on this bandwagon, we are not all in demand like Alan Greenspan.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  40. Tim Selfridge, Ogden, UT

    This is a typical ploy by Congress. Why not have the working people who are paying into a system and have been paying into a system for a long time, change the rules in the middle of the game. To think we only provide benefits to the poor when I've been paying into this system as it is being promised as a tier in my retirement package. Hey Congress!! Here's a novel idea! If you want to fix the defecit then you need to stop spending money you don't have like we do here at home. Stop giving our money and assets to those that WON'T work and pay in their fair share. Those politicians who go along with this need to be replaced in November!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  41. Michael

    So the democrats that were mentioned in the article want social security only doled out to the poor and if you have substantial assets, then you shouldn't receive it?? Ok, then give me the option not to contribute to it. Why should I be penalized and forced to contribute to something I won't even get just because I am smart enough to save in addition to social security. Social security is a joke anyway. I guarantee that if I was allowed to "opt out" and put the money I currently contribute to social security into my own investments, I'd have SIGNIFICANTLY more to retire on. Do the math, I'm 26 and I currently pay $155 per paycheck to social security. Multiply that by 24 paychecks per year and you have $3,720/yr. Times that by 36 (# of years I have until age 62) and assume a reasonable 5% interest. **I know everybody thinks the financial world is ending, but it's not hard to achieve 5% interest over that amount of time** I would be left with $374,342. Assume I would take 4% annually out of it and I'd get 14,973 annually....or about what I'd get from SS. Wow, that was really hard wasn't it!!! And that wasn't even taking into account inflation on the amount I pay every year and also assumed a measly 5% return. But Demosnatches would rather I pay for all the lazy scum in our country.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  42. AG

    Not for 1. Those 50 and under. Make it 35 and under, plus make sure that at age 35, Americans get a tax credit on their taxes that year of $100.00, if they attend a state run class on financial planning. The person can attend any day of the week. It would be a free 8 hour class and they sign in and show id when attending. In return, they get a credit of $100.00 on that years tax return.

    Not for 2. Those people who make jointly under $110,000 a year (our middle and poor class) who already will be struggling with repaying 1/5 to 1/3 of that income back for education bills, medical bills and other cost of living rises and doubtfully have large savings built up.

    Again, start with those who are 35, train them in the right way to prepare for life without social security at 70, and on how to opt to invest their own retirement money. Like a Roth, penalize them if they don't invest their retirement. Those 40, 50 and 60 now, need to be able to expect to retire at 62. People may be living longer, but with Health Care costs rising, benefits still not there for retirees, poor lifestyle habits of those in the 40's, 50's and 60's, the average american will not be living much past 77. Using social security for 15 years. The average American living to 80, 90 and 100, will be that person with large retirement income and that is not the average American.

    Get our younger Americans into the workforce as soon as possible instead, so that their children have food and health care and they put in to social security until age 35 at which point, they must invest in their own retirement plan.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm |

    Hey Jack,just ask congress to pay back the money they borrowed,with interest from SS. I believe that would solve the problem.For years these bandits in congress have raided the SS. piggy bank. These guys are nothing more than a bunch of spineless morons.They have the best benefits, give themselves raises and get great pensions for a limited amount of time working.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
  44. Charles, Hickory NC

    I, as a 37 year old, self employed man, know that there is no such thing as retirement for me, and millions of others like me. Retirement for anyone over 35, is not a long lost dream, since the baby boomers and Obama have effectively drained Social Security like a swollen prostrate at a bath house. There will be no social security / disability / or any other social entitlement programs at the rate we are spending the American Dream, we will all wake up in the midst of the American Nightmare.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
  45. Frank

    so, they want to take away benefits from those of us who have been paying social security taxes our whole working lives? Since they want to take away benefits, they should repeal the taxes as well..

    July 15, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
  46. Mario

    Jack...Raise the retirement age? That's funny! Let's see, how many job offers do you suppose a 69 year old person will get? Globalization, baby!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
  47. Steven P.

    Make no mistake: both parties have their grubby mitts in the stew. Traitorous scum. Imagine the Fed employing a Ponzi scheme, and then changing the rules whenever they wish to sit nicely in their books. Other people go to jail for that, Washington.

    Thieves, the lot of you.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
  48. Charles, Hickory NC

    replace not with ...
    is now a long lost dream.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
  49. mytoys666

    Jack, does that mean we will have to put up with you longer ? C'mon things are bad enough without having to look forward to 8 more years of you. Please have mercy on us.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:03 pm |
  50. Nurse Lisa in Shelton CT

    YES – but GOPers rail against socialism till it is time to change social security – not realizing they've gotten all they paid in over their whole career within just 2-3 yrs of collecting. Just be thankful GWB didn't talk people into investing all their funds before the huge crash. "It's uh, gone, man."

    July 15, 2010 at 5:03 pm |
  51. Tom Ruckel

    Simply stated...YES. Is that popular? Certainly not. However, it is, in several ways, a reflection of realities...a system in trouble, partly for doing things for which the original parameters were not intended; far longer lifespans than were the case in the FDR days; and the failure for too long to deal with these underlying issues, moving it from the 'problem' category to a looming major crisis. That's what Congress does best...avoid issues until they are crises.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:03 pm |
  52. Marie

    Here is a thought: How about the politicians that are guaranteed full benefits and pensions for the rest of their lives, sacrifice that and cut all the wasteful spending in America? If they did that we could all retire by Christmas of this year! How dare these fat cat politicians consider raising the retirement age! They don't have back breaking jobs that most Americans have, they spend money like there is no tomorrow and force us to pay for their greed. I am a Registered Nurse– do you think I can physically care for someone in a hospital when I am age 70? Cut waste and spending then let's talk, otherwise enjoy waiting 4 hours for me to get you that Tylenol you need with my walker!!!!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:03 pm |
  53. Kevin Dickinson

    Yes Jack the age should be raised to the same point beyond the life expectancy of the average American it was set at when it was first in acted and should continue to climb and the life expectancy climbs. So i can continue to see your old face daily.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  54. clem from new jersey

    Jack, raising the retirement age would be unfair
    to the workers of America who paid their fair share.
    We have illegals drawing social security benefits.
    It's not a bad system Jack, it's just not controlled.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  55. Tom (Washington state)

    I can agree that raising the retirement age has merit, given the longevity of the average recipient, but that won't relieve the problem with SS.

    Congress has to stop raiding the fund and start repaying what they have taken from it.

    There is also the issue of the number of folks drawing retirement benefits as opposed to those who pay into it. I know this won't be a popular opinion, but it may well be time to reassess the intent of the program and perhaps find a different system with which to buoy elders who truly can't support themselves beyond their working lives.

    Given the practices of the current congress and the probable practices of any congress in the forseeable future, I am counting on $0.00 in benefits when I hit whatever age congress decides is the retirement age. And yes, I am livid that those with absolutely NO worries about health care and retirement finances (thanks to the hard earned tax dollars we are legally compelled to give them and the unchecked ability to shape their own benefits) have the control to shove their woefully inadequate versions of both down the throats of the rest of us.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  56. Manuel Dayenian

    The answer is no – on the contrary, Congress needs to consider allowing for earlier retirement to free up the employment ranks for Generation X’s opportunity for advancement.

    Very simply, the best solution is to permanently remove the social security cap on wages and then reduce the percent of tax on said wages to the point of financial solvency to protect future generations of Americans.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  57. Heather


    The average (we'll call them the formerly middle-class) person will probably work until the day they day anyway.

    The question is what company is going to keep the 'old farts' around until the ripe old age of 70?

    It's time for the state and federal government to get rid of unsustainable pension plans (and the double-and triple dipping that inevitably occurs) and let the politicians make due like the rest of us. At least we work for our 'benefit.'

    Louisville, KY

    July 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  58. Mike Mazzla

    Of course they should. When the government established social security and retirement dates, it was a time people were not living anywhere near as long as they are today. It doesnt take a genius to understand that as people live longer, the pool of money cannot last. Moving the retirement age to 70 makes total sense as a start. If you are living 20-30 years past retirement age now vs 10-15 then, obviously things need to change.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  59. Cynical

    I meant House Minority Leader John Boehner, not Roehmer as noted above. Sorry for the typo.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  60. Will Gregoire

    I don't care what age you and the Government set as the age for retirement as I will not rely on Social Security for my future. Bet you aren't either!
    Baton Rouge, LA

    July 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  61. Butch Hollenbeck

    We already have a very serious job shortage. Having the older folks stay in the work place longer will magnify this problem. How about we bring back all of the manufacturing jobs we moved to China and other places so that everyone has a place to work?? Than see what that does to Social Security when we have millions more paying into the funds. thanks

    July 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  62. Robin Bray

    So if I was wise with my money and did not spend it on drugs and booze I won't get the benefits that I have been paying for all my life that I have been promised. But if I never saved a cent and wasted my income I'll get support? This will sure give people a good message. Of course those in Congress don't need to worry their benefits are secured along with medical care.

    And just because people live longer does not mean employers want them around. I was let go at age 40 so they could hire 20 year olds at a cheaper rate. Do we really want 70 year old police officers on the streets with 70 year old fire fighters? I think not.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  63. Sam

    One thing they should do is stop people from collecting at 62 unless they cannot work. That should help some, even if just a little.

    Unfortunately, I'm 48 and will just get snagged by this proposed change. By the same token, having some retirement funds available at 70 is better than none at all, because I was planning on there not being any by the time I retire.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  64. ray

    how about trying to reform welfare. they are the ones draining the economy. i have been working for 22 years on the books paying taxes, and if i drive through public housing they have better cars then i do. where are they getting this money from i would love to know. oh wait the are getting it from me. makes me sick. raise the retirement age for what. REFORM WELFARE. get rid of some dead weight or am i the only one in america that this makes sense to.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
  65. Kevin

    I am 10 years from retirement. You want to make it 17 years? I certainly do not!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
  66. Bob B.

    It's way past time for these reforms. It doesn't take an accountant or an economist to see the present system is unsustainable. You're exactly right, Jack, this is an easy problem to fix. All we need is the political will.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
  67. MandaMarie

    As someone who works in the finance industry, I see a LOT of people who retire from company pension plans with large retirement accounts who can't wait to get their SSA benefits at 62.
    I havent even hit my 30's and I can tell you I am NOT counting on having SS when I retire. So to say they should fix it now - I think the answer is obvious. Raise the age AND put it for those who need it.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
  68. dale houseman

    were americans went wrong was surrounding their soverign personal responsibity to a group of people (gov't) vs being responsible for their own future.

    this social security problem can be solved by raising the retirement age to 120. and just what happened to all the money people like myself paid in all their working life? gov't takes, not gives.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
  69. Ed Anderson

    Yes and if I have sufficient resources when I retire, I would not mind not receiving Social Security if it benefits my Country.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
  70. Klint

    What's the difference? I've never counted on it and I never will. It seems to me that raising the retirement age is a way to slowly eliminate Social Security. What is truly strange to me is that the leader of the party that opposes handouts suggests that only those in need should get Social Security. Won't SS become a huge wealth redistribution program if becomes as Mr. Boehner suggests?

    July 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
  71. Cameron

    No. I personally don't want to wait to age 70. I've been putting into social security since I was 15 and have worked ever since. Most of the time I've held two jobs and I'm proud of that. I just turned 47 this past week and that suggestion from Congress (none of whomwill ever be dependent on social security due to their HUGE pensions) .. means those like me have to work an ADDITIONAL 8 yrs? I think over 40 yrs on the job is plenty for ANY one and retirement has been earned at that point. I work hard at two jobs and I want to relax at 62 and have planned on doing just that. I'll take my benefits starting at age 62, thank you very much.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  72. justin

    It's about time!!!!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  73. Anise

    I don't mind working until I'm seventy, but will there be jobs for older workers that pay a decent wage ?

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  74. Eva Gabrielle

    This makes a lot of sense to me.
    Salt Lake City, Utah

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  75. Tom in Andover

    Yes, raising the retirement age and cutting Medicare is inevitable. Unfortunately, the spend-thrift baby boomers get off scott-free while leaving yet another mess behind for the younger generations – nice work boomers!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  76. Polly Patel

    How about we stop paying Social Security benefits to active US Senators & Representatives? They are already being paid a salary of $174,000 (this year) and some are also drawing Social Security and VA disability benefits

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  77. Ryan G

    I have been saying this for years. Here's an important point though: in a few years they'll have to make this adjustment again, and so on. What they should do is stipulate the retirement age to be some constant proportion of the average lifespan. As lifespan increases so does retirement age, automatically. They age at which you can retire should be locked in when you are 50. For example if retirement age is set at 13/16 of the lifespan, and the lifespan is 84 when you turn 50, then you retire when you are 68 years and 3 months old.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  78. Jim


    Yes it is. Raising the retirement age not only saves money on benefits, it also keeps the most productive, experienced, and knowledgeable people on the job a while longer.

    Reno, Nevada

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  79. Kristine

    It is true that the United States has gone further and further into debt especially over the last ten years, however, raising the retirement age is not the way to reduce the deficit. The thought of working until the age of 70 is almost unbearable for people working stressful and/or very physical jobs and could potentially lead to more Americans being put on disability and then, would we really solve anything? Stop bailing out banks and supporting the affairs of other countries – I support preserving Auschwitz but can we really afford to?

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  80. Jim

    I do not know if raising the retirement age is a good or bad idea. But I do fear unintended consequences related to decreased job opportunities for the young and increased costs to businesses and governments as the older, higher paid workers become a greater percentage of the payroll. Let's hope the government thinks this through and we do not replace one problem with another.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  81. Doyle

    After they roll back all the raises they have given themselves in the last 10 years.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  82. Ronita, SC

    If I paid into the social security system then I should be able to reap the benefits no matter how much money I make. I didn"t have the option to contribute, the government took it, so the government should give it back!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  83. Greg from Durham, NC

    What we ought to do is immediately adjust the retirement age for the massive baby boomer population that is set to reach retirment age. Why should we force a younger generation to foot this heavy bill for a boomer population that has done their best to milk this country dry? If we expect the system to remain solvent, the elderly are going to need to understand that their massive spending habits have finally caught up with them.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  84. Carol

    I currently am a senior on SS benefits and could not live without them. Do not cut our benefits, however raising the age could work because people are living longer into their 90s. And I agree to not pay the wealthy who have other planned retirements.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  85. Randy Damiana

    I have been paying into social security for the last 47 years and have watched the government give social security away too freely and now that I am at the age to collect social security the government is talking about changing the rules?? What will happen to all the money that I have contributed?? The best way to fix social security is to place everyone, yes even congress & senators on the program. Its easy for them to give my money to the "poor" while they are exempt!!!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  86. Alan M

    It is certainly time for congress to change their own benefits; retirement, health and expense benefits!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  87. David Ost

    from Lancaster, PA
    No. Why do you not report the fact that Social Security IS NOT A MAJOR PROBLEM? It can be addressed with relatively painless fixes (like removing the $106,000 cap on FICA), which is why it's always lumped together with Medicare and Medicaid, which ARE serious problems, by those like Boehner who want to dismantle the most successful policy in American history...not because Medicare and Medicaid are not good programs, but because we can't seem to control health-care inflation, which was 9% last year in an economy in which the overall inflation rate was below 1%.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  88. Leslie Monthan

    I might support raising the Social Security retirement age if it came with stronger legislation protecting older workers. All too often companies get away with "downsizing" senior employees so they can "restructure" the staff and hire cheaper, younger workers. So what's a 60-year-old who can't find an even reasonably equivalent job going to do for 10 years?

    Leslie Monthan
    New York, NY

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  89. Ripple

    The down side to raising the retirement age is that it narrows employment opportunities for the younger generations, potentially depriving them of the opportunity to pay into a retirement system and depriving he country of the idealism, energy and creativity of the young. Furthermore, although we are living longer and healthier, health does go down hill and we need to examine the health care costs of an older working population. Until and if the economy, including employment, improves, raising the age of retirement is just one more short-sighted solution.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  90. JSabado

    Not a good idea to raise it. Anyway we have 3 options to retire, 62, 66 and 70. Many People have been working through their lives and most wants to retire to enjoy the rest of their life.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  91. Robin

    A few extra years to retirement age may not be a bad idea for the majority of the people who are in decent health at age 62. For many years, citizens of the US have been paying social security taxes for their retirement. If Congress now decides that the money that was paid by these citizens should not go to them because they have other income, then why not just call it what it is, income tax, and be finished with it.
    There are too many able people who find ways to beat the system by collecting social security or welfare. To have everyone else wait, to retire, after many years of hard work is just not fair. To deny an individual what is rightfully theirs because they were frugal and saved and invested their hard earned money is not fair. Social Security does need to be fixed. A compromise needs to be made, but not solely at the expense of the elderly. Besides, many young college graduates cannot find jobs. If older workers don't retire, these young people will never find jobs.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  92. Mario

    John Boehner, let's see, he was born on November 17, 1949. that makes him, what, 60? And he wants to raise the retirement age to 70 for those 50 and younger? Makes perfect sense to me!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  93. Paulette in Dallas,PA

    Not a good idea. Not everyone will be capable or able to work till the age of 70. The shape our country is in may shorten expected life spans. High numbers of foreclosures, high homeless population,and high unemployment. Does the government really think people will be able to work till 70? At WHAT jobs? Many will not be alive due to poor quality nutrition and quality of life. The government needs to make everyone who borrowed from the Social Security Fund repay the monies to the SSF immediately – then leave it alone. They are aging out Foster kids and then just leaving them live on the streets with no followup help. What's next-pushing out the elderly to fend for themselves? A disgrace!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  94. Gary Knapp

    As live expectancy increases it makes sense to raise the retirement age to 70 for those who are age 50 or younger. Jusy a couple of concerns though – allowing payments of social security only to the poor means that everybody else who paid into SS paid an additional income tax while working (which is completely unreasonable); and will SSI be changed so that it is not a permanent welfare check to those who did not contribute to the fund?

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  95. Greg from Durham, NC

    What we ought to do is immediately adjust the retirement age for the massive baby boomer population that is set to reach retirement age. Why should we force a younger generation to foot this heavy bill for a boomer population that has done their best to milk this country dry? If we expect the system to remain solvent, the elderly are going to need to understand that their massive spending habits have finally caught up with them.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  96. Maura - Ft. Washington PA

    John Boehner needs a fact checker! Social Security ALREADY reduces payment to retiree if on a Pension or if retiree has substantial investment income.

    I am ONLY 55, so if this gets to the floor, it won't affect me, but I fully intend to work full time well past 70, as I love what I do. Third career, got that BS degree at age 47 after 20 years with Police Department.

    So I am also on pension, and if I waited til age 67 (where my SS benefit would be a roughly $2200 month), it would be reduced to $400 a month based on my pension.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  97. Kerry Ferguson

    The first thing that needs to change is the age limit for public employee pensions. My sister just retired at age 55 with an annual pension of $45,000 for the rest of her life. Since I love her dearly I hope that is another 40 years or so. My best friend took an early retirement seven years ago at the age of 47. He gets $32,000 per year starting then for the rest of his life. Pensions used to be a way to support people once they couldn't support themselves. Now it is a second income for more years than they put in on the job as people "semi-retire" and work other jobs. We have wonderful teachers and principles in our schools who are all retiring at 55 because they can make more taking their pensions and working part time work when they want to.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  98. Felix

    I'm not against raising the retirement age as long as people close to retirement are not harmed by this action. Also for Boehner to suggest that people with other sources of income should forgo benefits is just plain wrong. If someone has paid into the fund for 30+ years how can you tell them they cannot receive benefits because of other sources of income? Granted they may have these other sources of income but eliminating social security will either drop them into a lower standard of living or shorten their income horizon. What needs to be done is to eliminate the people who are getting a free ride on social security such as those who get their benefit increased because they happen to be married to a former spouse for more than 10 years and non-disabled children of elderly parents.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  99. Beverly

    Hell, no! After working people to death they now want to raise retirement benefits? I guess they're betting that people will kick the bucket before collecting any of the benefits to which they paid in?

    And all suggested by a bunch of sycophants who will be getting their golden parachutes once they leave the hallowed halls. Oh, yeah. They tell you that "European countries are moving towards raising the retirement age...." but they forgot to tell you what that age, or that until not so long ago retirement age in the U.K. was 55 years for women and 60 years for men!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  100. David Waren

    Why not just raise it to a 100. If a person can't collect on it they shoudn't have to pay into it.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  101. Michael, Chapel HIll

    The gov should stop paying those who have not worked in the US for atleast 5-10 years. Even among native born citizens, there are guys and girls who never contributed to the soical security but had income which did not attract taxes.
    Again, why do the govt think that it is a tax. If it is paid for the rainy days-retirement- those who paid should be benefitted during their retirement..

    July 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  102. Rob Winston

    We absolutely need to raise the retirement age. It doesn't take much to actually bring SS back into the black. Moving the age up to 70 for full benefits and maybe up to 65-67 for early benefits would be a very wise thing to do. SS was never designed to support people for the 30 plus years that it is currently. If you have save well and can afford to retire early on your own merit then that is great. But if it is on the Gov't (taxpayers) dime then you might need to work longer.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  103. Robert Duke

    Raising the age isn't the answer, it should be lowered to 55. Then payouts if any, should be based on qualifications ie: net worth, tax bracket, health and of course contribution history during working years. My millionaire neighbor boasts that his $4200.00 monthly check is his "fun" money at the casino's. I might add that my neighbor made his fortune legally through "fat" government contracts awarded to his company as small as it was. Talk about "double dipping"

    July 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  104. Ron Tucceri


    Yes, I think it is time to consider that, among other reforms, as a way to deal with the coming waves of retirees. It would be responsible to deal with that now so that changes could be announced and implemented over time. People are generally more aware of the deficit, I think that is great, but we need to move away from crisis response and focus on medium and long term plans.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  105. Eric

    Oh you mean raise the age to qualify for Ponzi-Security benefits?

    Yep, that money will be there when I retire in 30 years. Sure...

    Say, want to buy a bridge?

    July 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  106. Deborah

    Absolutely Not. It's the people like me (50 and under) that's going to get the shaft having to work until 70. We want to enjoy our families more just like all the others before us got to do or is doing now. It's mainly the people who are 51and above who made bad decisions that put our economy where it is today. (Wall Street, Banks and our last President and VP) If we start making people work until they're 70 then you are going to start to see alot of people dying before they reach 70. Can you imagine seeing a bunch of 70 year olds having to drive to and from work ....that makes me thing the Govt. is trying to figure out a way to get rid of people without being accountable so they won't have to pay out social security benefits. We might as well by the time we reach 70 and retire it's time to put us in the ground permanently! I don't trust the statistics stating people are living longer, well I know a great deal of people who are dying at a young age daily.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  107. Jon

    Absolutely it's time to raise the retirement age. It was time 10 years ago. It's either that or the payout should be significantly scaled back until you reach age 70. We can't keep spending money that we don't have. It also should be reserved for those who really need it. This is an easy fix. I'm 34 I want social security top exist when I retire instead of going bankrupt. If I want to retire earlier than 70, I'll need to save for it. Also, there should be a TRUE social security fund and the government should not be "borrowing" from it every year to try and balance the budget.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  108. Mary Johnson

    I've been paying into social security since I saterted working, as a teenager. And now John Boehner (conveniently, himself, well over his proposed cut-off age of 50 or younger), wants to unilaterally deprive me of five years' of benefits? Maybe I wouldn't mind so much if I hadn't been unemployed for more than a year, with no immediate prospect for a job, and thus even more insecure about my ability to support myself in old age. This is theft, pure and simple. I paid into the system; I deserve the benefits. People (Republicans especially) speak of social security benefits as "entitlements" - as if that were a nasty term. Actually, they're not a handout. The benefits belong to us. And if you steal them, there will be serious consequences.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  109. Chris

    HaHa...Too late! I already retired!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
  110. Ernie Banks

    Absolutely the best idea to fix the deficit. It cuts government spending, it raises GDP, it reduces the government's unfunded liabilities, and helps the states with their pension problems.

    We should raise the retirement age 5 years, phase the change in over 10 years, and apply the change to everyone. Those over 50 will have a few more years to save for retirement. They'll live longer and healthier lives.

    Those that have physically demanding jobs and are no longer capable of working, could either be moved to a desk job or go on disability. The rest of us should stay on the job.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
  111. Susan

    The problem is...they also need to encourage companies to hold onto older employees. In my field (advertising), I already feel ancient at 40. So tell me, how do they expect me to make a living at 68, let alone 60?

    July 15, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
  112. Ryan

    amazing how congress isn't willing to raise taxes on the richest of the rich. instead this falls on the backs of the working class. the message here, work until you die.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
  113. Walt

    Raising the retirement age sounds great... If you are someone who has a desk job. But what about those who are doing hard, manual labor. Tell me a 68 of 69 year old will be able to keep working at that pace. Or look at the problems right now. Get laid off at 55 or higher. Good luck finding a new position. And if you have to work to 70?

    Raising the retirement age poses multiple problems. For those who do get laid off, finding a job is nearly impossible, resulting in an "employment hole". And with people working longer, that means less jobs for the young. Retirement by its very nature serves to create space for younger workers.

    As for Social security. Social security is an insurance plan. It is not meant to discriminate based on salary, income, or other sources. Not paying to those who have been prudent and saved in other ways is discrimination, unless those who will not receive benefits do not pay into the system.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
  114. JC

    Is it time to raise the retirement age? YES
    Is it time to change eligibility to only focus on those without other demonstrated income? YES

    It's a safety net, not an entitlement.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
  115. Jack

    Apparently John Boehner forgot what Social Security was all about. We pay over our lifetime through no choice of ours into a corrupt system. Now Boehner wants to raise the age to 70. The majority of black men will never see 70. Based on my family history and stress level of my job I will be lucky to see 60.

    If Boehner thinks that Social Security is a burden to the government, then give me my money back and let me save for my own retirement!

    July 15, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  116. Roger Willingham

    For starters....social security is a supplemental income...not retirement. And no, don't raise the age requirements. Simply let us invest the money ourselves as it should be with our money.If the government needs to control it, let them make rules for withdrawal, but keep their greedy little fingers out of my pie.Believe it or not, some of us have shorter life expectancies but of course the government will use extreme examples of longevity to once again,screw us because of their own stupidity.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  117. KW, San Jose, CA

    Social Security has become an oxymoron. It began as a way to force us to "save" for retirement, the theory being that by the time you were old enough to retire, the money you had been putting into the Social Security system over the years was enough to support you until you died. But then they started looting the funds for other purposes, and now it's all gone too far to fix it. Also, a question to John Boehner: do you mean to say that if I have what some arbitrary bean counter decides is "enough money to live on" when I retire, I can forget about ever seeing a penny of the thousands of dollars they've withheld from me all these years? I've been working since I was 16 years old, and if I ever have enough money to retire, I want those funds for me, not for those who perhaps have not contributed enough.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  118. Anthony from Swedesboro, NJ

    Retirement age should be based on new statistics of longevity due to medical breakthroughs. If today's sixty five is tomorrow's seventy then calculations should take that into consideration. However, this should action should only be grandfathered in to the equation.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  119. Lois Moyer

    I think before policitians start changing Social Security they should be force to give up their retirement plan and be on the same plan as the average citizen.
    Also they need to wait and see how the new health care program is going to work out. If the government handles health care like it handles everything else, life longeivity will most likely take a drastic down hill swing.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  120. Kurt Havemann

    So what you are telling me is that my SSN payments are going to turn into another tax. I will never be able to collect at 70, I will either be dead or my investments will be more than I am "allowed" to make.

    Please give me the option to opt out or just admit you are going to rip me off.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  121. Kerry Ferguson

    Sorry... I am from Traverse City, MI.

    And... my sister worked for the city in information technology, my friend worked for the state in printing and (of course) the teachers work for the school district 🙂

    July 15, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  122. Gary , Albrightsville PA

    Congress can raise retirement age.As long as they understand that
    we,the voters,will retire them in November.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  123. Susan

    I;'m 32 and yeah, I think they can raise the retirement age....but I would say an odd number like 67...and people AREN"T healthy, not the younger generation anyway, so most WONT live that long. I never thought I would agree with John Boehner, but he is right...people that don't need Social Security shouldn't be paid it, whether they meet the retirement age or not.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  124. Jeff Z

    I realize my view is somewhat tainted, but as a 62 year old who has been paying into Social Secuerity for 44 years and is appoaching retirement, it seems a little unfair to be changing the rules in my ninth inning.

    July 15, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  125. Corey Smith

    Sure, go ahead and raise the retirement age and eliminate benefits for those who have other means of income. But while they are reforming it, why don't they allow people to opt out of social security and keep there hard earned money?

    July 15, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  126. Brandon

    I think its time for some in congress to retire!

    July 16, 2010 at 1:34 pm |
  127. Annie, Atlanta

    How can Congress expect us older folks to work when we're the ones losing our jobs in greater numbers? This is not only absurd, but obscene. 70? Seriously? Maybe they shoulder lower it to 55 and lift the $106,000 SS tax limit.

    July 16, 2010 at 1:48 pm |
  128. Lori - PA


    Yes, it's time to raise the retirement age. However, I don't agree with providing Social Security only to those that need it. Anyone who's contributed to Social Security should be allowed to collect their money. How about basing someone's social security beneifts on what they actually contributed?

    July 16, 2010 at 1:50 pm |
  129. Russ in PA

    As long as all the public pension plans have to follow that same logic of raising the retirement age, then, yes. If not, give me my money back now...

    July 16, 2010 at 2:02 pm |
  130. Robert

    I ,Think the legals citizens of America should go and sue all past and current presidents and all government politicions for all the ssn money they stoled all these years,first sue them and they can take the billions they so called borrowed and put our money back were they stoled it from,,never trust a lieing government and they all proved thats all they do,steal our money and violate our constitutional rights

    July 16, 2010 at 2:02 pm |
  131. Greg in Cabot, AR

    Unless Congress is willing to set a retirement age for elected officials, I think they best leave everyone else's alone....period

    July 16, 2010 at 2:03 pm |
  132. Willow

    My nex door neighbor several years ago was an elderly lady that was an accountant. She had been on the original social security board that defined social security for the entire country. she told me many times that social security was not designed for everyone to receive benefits. It was designed for the lower income retired worker, the ones that had no pension, and no savings. She agreed it was not designed as a "coffee fund" for someone with huge investments, lots of income. I agree that there is a large percentage of retirees in the country that have a lot of income, and no desperate needs for SS.

    July 16, 2010 at 2:05 pm |
  133. Kevin in CA

    No ... it's just time to retire Congress.

    July 16, 2010 at 2:07 pm |
  134. bob z fr ,pa.

    so cong. can steal more money off of s.s.

    July 16, 2010 at 2:11 pm |
  135. bob, oshawa, ontario

    Jack, I believe the retirement age should be left flexible in order to offer options to those not wishing to retire at a mandatory age. Depending, mostly on one's financial situation, many will be able to choose the plan best for him or her. I don't think you should have to work to 70 to receive full benefits. I think 65 is a better compromise.

    July 16, 2010 at 2:15 pm |
  136. John, Lake Charles, LA

    Forget the retirement age. Drop the cap on social security taxes and raise the percentage people and employers have to pay.

    July 16, 2010 at 2:32 pm |
  137. Phil-Wenatchee, WA

    Absolutely NOT! Most of us have been in the "system" for years and have paid our dues already. Now the minority leader of the House wants us to wait another 8 years to start drawing some of what we have already put in? This is a slap in the face! Some of us won't reach the ripe "old age" of 70. What happens to all the money we have put in? I'm sure Mr. Boehner won't have to worry, as he will be well taken care of regardless of whether he reaches 70 or not. He'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Another typical case of screwing the low and middle classes.

    July 16, 2010 at 2:37 pm |

    Tampa, Fl We should lower the retirement age of our politicians from the standard now of death being the only way to get rid of their fat, corrupt, over medicated, self-serving butts. In fact, we taxpayers should remove all retirement benefits from our politicians, this would serve as term limits that we taxpayers would love to see happen.

    July 16, 2010 at 2:41 pm |
  139. Simon/Orlando

    If Washington hadn't raided the Social Security Fund for their insatiable pork projects, there would still be ebnough money for all retirees at a decent age. This will teach younger people to never trust the promises of their congressmen.

    July 16, 2010 at 2:58 pm |
  140. Jane (Minnesota)

    Yes they should and they should also remove the ceiling on income that is taxable for social security; it should not be any different than MediCare.

    July 16, 2010 at 3:08 pm |
  141. Kyle Irvine, CA

    I am 26 years old and God only knows if the word "retire" will be used when I'm in my 60's and 70's. To my understanding, people can start collecting Social Security when they turn 62 and if you postpone your retirement to 66 you get a lot more income.

    For people who are 50 or older, the current structure should stay the same. In other words, people 50 and older should expect to work until the age of 66.

    For my generation who are just now starting out in the business world, the government should allow Social Security to be privatized to some degree. What is wrong with allowing us to invest some of our own money into private accounts? Absolutely Nothing!

    July 16, 2010 at 3:19 pm |
  142. JENNA

    Is it time for Congress to raise the retirement age?

    According to Social Security I can't collect my full benefits until I reach 67 years and 2 months. Not 65.

    So NO it shouldn't be increased. We don't get our salaries or free health care for life like Senators do. Maybe this needs to be addressed? I am sure that would save some money!

    Roseville CA

    July 16, 2010 at 3:20 pm |
  143. IKHAN san jose ca

    Sure Jack. Raise retirement age.
    Why not abolish Social Security altogether & Medicare?? Some aspirants to Senate & Congress, sans grey matter, have been suggesting this. An aspirant in Nevada for example.
    Sure go ahead. Scale back or close myriad social services, police & fire services, abolish school districts,lay off teachers ,let the eco-systems go rot. This nation needs money.

    But please Oh please do not end wars gobbling up trillions along with precious lives.
    And please do not stop Congress from writing checks in billions in largess to Egypt & Israel every year.
    Sure Jack Congress is on the right track doing the right thing by this hapless nation.

    July 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm |
  144. Ray in Nashville

    Jack, Republicans have been trying to do away with Social Security since its inception. Since they took over the country in 1981, they have imposed economic practices that have led to the virtual collapse of the American middle class and sent millions of jobs overseas. The Clinton administration did nothing to halt that practice, so, together, the Democrat and Republican parties have virtually insured that the retirement age will go up, as people can no longer afford to retire at age 62.

    July 16, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
  145. Joe in VA

    In a word, YES. This is only one of a number of unpopular and unpleasant actions,like higher taxes, that will have to be taken to get us out of the financial hole congress and our leaders have placed us in. Also it would not hurt to have an administration that is business friendly instead of the enemy of the private sector.

    Chatham, VA

    July 16, 2010 at 3:29 pm |
  146. JOE CE

    Bad time to keep old people in the workforce, the jobs are needed. With people living loner, an increase is the retirement age is probably inevitable but better 10 years from now.

    July 16, 2010 at 3:32 pm |
  147. R

    Yes..seems to be the only thing the Dems and GOP agree on..I don't think it will be very popular among the general population though.. While congress is at it , they can include term limits as well for themselves.. (shorter terms preferably )

    July 16, 2010 at 3:32 pm |
  148. Colleen


    We need to level the playing field and give all Americans the same retirement package as the government employees. If that breaks the bank, then we can raise every ones age limit and restict everyones payments. Seems fair to me.

    July 16, 2010 at 3:34 pm |
  149. Rick Medina,OH

    In 1935, Social Security was passed as a 'supplement' to individual savings for retirement. Over time, it morphed into a primary source of retirement. Perhaps it is time for it to return to its root mission - income of last resort for the retired poor and middle class.

    Medina, OH

    July 16, 2010 at 3:37 pm |
  150. Ed from MD

    Yes, if the retirement age is high enough most people will die before being able to collect social security. Then social security taxes will be pure profit for the government.

    July 16, 2010 at 3:40 pm |
  151. Barb MN

    No. If anything the age should be lowered to open up jobs for the younger people.

    July 16, 2010 at 3:43 pm |
  152. Deb/Alabama

    I think congress should lower the retirement age on congress itself. None of them need any retirement or pensions either, so do away with that for them. They're all wealthy anyway after being a congressman or woman for life.

    John Bohner is full of suggestions isn't he? How about doing away with the health insurance that he has. How about taking a pay cut like a lot of us have had to. He could afford to do that. Doesn't congress vote themselves a raise. I don't think thats right. The people of the United States need to decide on their salaries.

    I think most of them are out of touch with all of us and they need to pack their bags. Which is whats going to happen to a lot of them

    July 16, 2010 at 3:45 pm |
  153. JoOnna

    Absolutely NOT! As it is most of us have lost our nest eggs and will be working until we are in our 80's in order to live. How hard we will have to work will be offset by our Social Security. There are not enough jobs to go around now, lets add a few million more to the list....we have to come up with better solutions that allow us to live like human beings.
    Americans work harder with less vacations than any other Country. Eventually it would be nice to rest. I am not sure what I will be able to do in my 70's let alone my 80's. Both the Congress and the Senate need to start to be more creative and innovative about what they are doing to solve problems and stop putting themselves and their contributors first. Think outside the box and fix it.

    July 16, 2010 at 3:48 pm |
  154. Christine from Ocean City, MD

    I thought that politicians were supposed to make *government* work more efficiently . . . not us.

    July 16, 2010 at 3:49 pm |
  155. Jay

    When these Congressional dopes acknowledge that part of what is crippling America is the fact that they, the Congress-people, have NO retirement age, and then proceed to vote for term limits for themselves, maybe then I’ll listen to what they have to say about what age the rest of the American workforce can put their feet up and retire.

    July 16, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
  156. d wood

    this all sounds great. however we are missing one big point for the baby boomers. Over the past 20 years most baby boomers calculated a 7-10% return on their cash assets. So a married couple who had ! million saved,they both are the same age could retire at age 65 with 6 to 9 thousand per month in income. add on social security benefites equals a good quality of life in retiremnt.
    Now you raise the min age reduce benefits have put the principal at rick and have no interest income to count on.
    This is a real situation that affects millions of faithfulll taxpayers for 40 years. Lets not forget that.

    July 16, 2010 at 3:54 pm |
  157. Janne from NC

    They need to raise the retirment age to 70 and cut out benefits for those in the upper income bracket. Lets face it, if your worth millions do you even care about a paltry social security check.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:00 pm |
  158. Joe Ripp


    Just abolish the cap on earnings, this year is what 109k so millionaires and billionaires and upper level income pay, raise the age is absurd, just make all income subject to the SS tax.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:05 pm |
  159. Alan Urso

    I just watched Steven Jobs elaborate on the reception issues with the i-Phone4 and if I turned away from the screen I could not tell if I was listening to Steven Jobs or Donald Trump. Both of these individuals think that they are the masters of spin however they area obvious in their self promotion and unwillingness to be held accountable without pointing the finger and saying – "They did it too!" much as a fifth grader does int he school year. It is unfortunate how many are deceived by their antics and drawn into their strategy for free promotion.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:06 pm |
  160. Mack from Michigan

    I'm sure the republicans would prefer to just kill the poor and working class when their 61 but this will have to do till they regain the house and senate.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:08 pm |
  161. Nancy, Grand Ledge, MI

    Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just remove the earnings cap? If they change the retirement age, pension plans everywhere will have to be adjusted, along with changes in the IRS code and state tax forms, and who knows how many other things. Let's start by making members of Congress take reduced benefits and wait to start receiving them. After all, we're funding their retirement!
    They're like stray animals, as long as we keep feeding them, they keep coming back for more!

    July 16, 2010 at 4:09 pm |
  162. Sam from Warren

    Jack, how about lawmakers ban Social Security, an outdated relic from the 1930s Franklin Roosevelt New Deal big government. Take away all government payouts, pensions, freebies and let's get back to a society where you have to earn every penny, instead of simply expecting it. If you take away the entitlements, everyone will benefit. If we worked on strengthening the private sector, stop outsourcing jobs, and lowering tax rates across the board, nobody would need social security when they got too old to work because a healthy economy could ensure every enterprising, hard working individual live in comfort by their own means and on their own dime, which is more satisfying for the soul as well.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:11 pm |
  163. Stephen Paul

    This is always the path downhill for our politicians. WHy not entice companies to bring jobs back into the USA instead. As more and more people are on welfare rolls (we can't think of SS as welfare, it was a promise) more and more votes will go to those politicians who want to give to the poor and take from those who worked hard for their money. It's a shameless game our Congress is playing and it's going to backfire on them. THe most important thing in their World is getting re-elected; bar any other excuse for their actions. We must vote them all out or we're toast.

    Nashville, In

    July 16, 2010 at 4:15 pm |
  164. ben stockton, calif

    i do endorse this idea. look at the positves of this. they will pay more taxes which helps the economy. and in turn will have more retirement money coming in for their retirement years. the only thing that worries me is if the social security fund is raided for other things and if that happens we didnt gain anything at all . sameo , sameo.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:22 pm |
  165. Jeffrey Schwartz

    Easy enough for the ones who make the laws but dont have to abide by them. Maybe I should appologise that I worked and paid into the system for fourty three years and want to collect at 62. Maybe we should all commit suicide after collecting SS for ten years so that we dont overload the system. After all we need to leave something over for all those illegal,,,,,excuse me, undocumented aliens.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:31 pm |
  166. riley oday

    YES, Raise the retirement age at which you can draw benefits,

    on FEDERAL EMPLOYEES . Start saving money there first.

    Also this tired old worn out body of mine cant work till 70.

    Yes also to not paying benefits to those with other means.

    Not fair for them but we have to do something .

    Charleston wv

    July 16, 2010 at 4:33 pm |
  167. LS in Rochelle, IL

    Congress may as well raise the retirement age to 120.
    This will ensure that no one collects a dime of their Social Security contributions that Congress has been looting for decades.
    I'd like to charge all of these bums with theft and "retire" the whole lot to federal prison.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:36 pm |
  168. Mark Hennessey


    Yes, but do it in increments,
    Starting as:
    Americans 50 equals retirement at 67
    Americans 40 equals retirement at 68
    Americans 30 equals retirement at 69
    Americans 16 equals retirement at 70

    July 16, 2010 at 4:41 pm |
  169. Chandler in Rockaway, NJ


    Raising the retirement age would be great. In order to retire, you have to have a job. One in five workers in this country are unemployed, under-employed, or have quit looking. In other words, the retirement age has been lowered. Jobs are the backbone of the country. That back is broken. Put everybody back to work, then talk about the retirement age.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:45 pm |
  170. Chris

    In a word, yes. Raise the age and increase the number of units to qualify for benefits. I was 25 and had nearly worked enough to get full benefits in retirement. Crazy.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:48 pm |
  171. Kevin in CA

    Hell no! I want and deserve ever stinkin' dime that I'm entitled to. Just because the Republicans deregulated everything and collapsed the financial system does not mean that I'm willing to suffer for their ideological patronage to big business and the one percenters.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:50 pm |
  172. barbara in NC

    No – but it is time for them to put an age limit of Senate and Congress - say - no one can run after age 63. That cuts them off before they get really senile like you and the rest of us.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:53 pm |
  173. Brian Smith PhD San Diego CA

    No... We need to do something like the reverse. We need to force Members to retire after two terms. We need to cut off their pensions and reduced their overly generous health care. Then we need to prevent them from becoming lobbyists for the remainder of their lives. However, we will allow them be be clerks in the Post Office or the DMV.

    July 16, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
  174. Chad from Los Angeles

    YES, it is past time. Just like 50 is the new 40, 70 is the new 60. We are living longer and able to work longer. This is a no-brainer. Make it happen!

    July 16, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
  175. Bruce

    They should just cut to the chase and eliminate all retirement except for the blood sucking corporate elite.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  176. Jack, Niceville, FL

    I hate to say it, but yes. Social Security originally set the retirement age well above the average life expectancy. It was a safety net for those few people who lived to a ripe old age. We probably need to eventually set the retirement age to 75 or 80.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  177. Greg Who? Mechanicsburg, PA

    Age is just a number. Retirement is either an extended vacation for older people who don't want to work any longer or a hell for those who are kicked out of employment by a discriminatory and unjust company policy. A person should be allowed to work for as long as they want to and are capable of. I have a feeling that what you are talking about is social security. I have no problem with Congress raising the qualifying age for that up a couple years. After all, social security was never meant to be a person's retirement. For those people who are unable to work because of age related health issues, they should be cared for with respect, dignity, and tender mercy as should all citizens who worked to make America great. I'm fifty five and expect to work until I'm seventy regardless, unless conditions change. I look forward to going out into the world to comingle and be useful and would find just sitting at home in front of the TV a pitiful way to squander away my vitality. But if I am not able to get up and go, then that is another matter. I'd like to see Beohner try to make it on social security alone, his tanning salon bills would cripple his budget.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  178. Alex Rabines

    I would like to know, how much money the govermant owes to SS? then what is the average age of mail and female die in the country.? Now there is another numbers that I would like to know before I give an answear. How many teen turn 18 years old per month? You know where I'm going? don't you. And the cherry of the pie, jobs. how are we going to hold more people working? Are we going to be for ever 18 to 20 % unemployment.? then tell me tthese numbers and will tell you my response.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  179. richard a. winkler

    Yes, they should raise the age, people are living longer. They should also raise the cap on withholding.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:14 pm |
  180. ladyxx

    Considering that no employer will hire you after 50 that leaves 20 years before you can retire.

    I do think it should be means tested. If you have other sources of income you shouldn't collect SS.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:20 pm |
  181. Julnor

    If they raise the retirement age, it should go into effect for all people. If you are already retired and collecting social security, but you are younger than the new retirement age then your benefits should be cut. What's good for the grandchildren is good for the grandparents. Remember, those over 50 are the folks who have been in power for the last 40 yrs. They are the ones who screwed this up. They should be the ones to bear the burden of the fix, not their children and grandchildren. My child's doctor will certainly be able to keep them alive and drooling longer than my parents' doctor can keep them alive and drooling, but that doesn't mean they'll be any different at age 65.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
  182. Rus in St. Paul, MN

    Jack, it's one of the few realistic and responsible things that could be done to insure Social Security will still actually exist for folks like me in our 30's when I get to retirement age. Raising the age and indexing benefits based on income are the easiest ways to save our grandchildren from being buried in debt from SS.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
  183. Scott Stodden

    I Think Its A Good Idea To Raise The Retirement Age And I've Said For The Longest Time That 62 Is To Young To Retire! Why Not Raise It To 70? That's When Your Actually Considered Old Anyways!

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Illinois)

    July 16, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
  184. Silas Kain

    Sure, Jack. Congress should raise the retirement age as long as they add a few amendments to the legislation:

    1) Term limits
    2) Comprehensive campaign finance reform.
    3) No member of Congress may become a lobbyist until 6 years after he/she is out of Congress.
    4) All meetings with lobbyists and special interests must be documented, recorded and made available to the public.
    5) A Congressional pay freeze in effect until two years in a row of a Federal Budget surplus.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  185. Solitude

    "Getting worried Jack? I dont think they'll let you go just yet."

    July 16, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  186. dan

    Why, they (the gov.) will just find another way to spend the money that gets saved up just like Johnson did for Vietnam.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  187. Rafael Minero

    Why is always the most vulnerable who suffer? I have NOT heard any mention in cutting these lawmaker's salary or THEIR benefits when they leave their jobs, as a way to help pay for Social Security. Some of these people have worked more in their entire lives than what some of these lawmakers do in their whole careers pretending to represent the people they were elected by. I guess easier to make a elderly person work harder when you make over a hundred thousand dollars a year.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  188. Bernie of Lowell, MA

    The money isn't there, Jack. This is a Ponzi scheme like none other we've ever seen. State and local governments have done the very same thing, too. "Pay as you go" got us into this pickle; we need to make Social Security actuarially sound . Increasing the retirement age will help, but it will only delay the real problem.

    Ever since our Congress adopted a consolidated revenue budget, we've been hiding even greater Federal deficits. In addition, we've added so many unfunded liabilities to the original Social Security system, including early payments for those poor souls who cannot work due to disabilities as well as Medicare.

    The Tea Party will be even angrier – and it will be the fault of each and every Congress session since Lyndon Johnson reigned in the Senate. We cannot overcome over 50 years of this scheme without doubling , perhaps tripling, our current national debt .

    July 16, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  189. Julnor

    The government knows how much money they have taken from your paycheck. You should be guaranteed to get at least that much back. After you exceed that amount, further benefits should be based on need.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  190. Kirk (Apple Valley, MN)

    So what part of "you can't cut taxes and retire too" don't people understand? I'm retired so I really don't care. I'm already getting my social security and will collect as long as it's viable. As long as people believe the right wing mantra of "cut taxes" there will never be enough money in the public coffers for my kids and certainly not for my grand kids to retire and collect SS.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  191. fred, montello, nevada

    Only if they raise the retirement age for all government workers (including Representatives and Senators) accordingly.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  192. jim

    Sedona, AZ
    Congress should be forced to establish a mandatory retirement age for Congressmen at whatever the Soc Sec age is.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:29 pm |
  193. John from San Antonio

    they should absolutely raise the retirement age. the working men and women of this nation are all that can pay the bills. Senators and congressmen retire as soon as they are elected and devote their energy to feathering their nests further. It works just like nature. The parasites live off their hosts until the host dies. the parasite dies soon after but lived a good life as long as the host lived.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
  194. Bob

    It reminds me of the fable about the grasshopper and the ant, because it's not enough that we Americans endure a lifetime penalty with the graduated income tax (they more you make the more you pay in tax). Now a hard working grasshopper could lose a his/her social security payments, all with the storke of a pen. It's outrageous to take social security away from anyone, regardless of their income.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
  195. Rob in Wisconsin


    Sure what the hell why not? Wall Street has already made it so that most seniors have no retirement funds left with which to retire on. The government continues to refuse to listen to any of us where illegal aliens are concerned even though the majority of us want them gone. Social Security is nearly non-existent and it is already estimated that 95% of us will not have enough money saved in order to retire anyway. Could this government possibly screw seniors anymore than they already have? Oh ya, now they want to increase the retirement age so that we all end up literally working until the day we die! This country needs a major political enema and it needs to start with Congress and the Senate with seriously reduced term limits to keep these back stabbing bastards in check!

    July 16, 2010 at 5:32 pm |
  196. Kevin in Missouri

    Dear Jack:
    No is the short answer. It is time for congress to quit funding wars and putting our military in harms way for people who have never been able to govern themselves. Charity begins at home . All that treasure should be used to further our own country and help its tax paying citizens.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:34 pm |
  197. Jerry Jacksonville, Fl.

    They probably should, but then the money raised by social security taxes should be put in the social security trust fund and the government can't borrow from it, that is the only way to protect it.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:39 pm |
  198. william

    Isn't it strange that the wealthest country on earth can't provide for it's citizens. We were the last among developed countries to provide national healthcare; we have a higher retirement age requirement than almost all other nations, with the exception of Germany and Switzerland (France just raised theirs to 62). How is it that we seem to be going backwards. We will soon be a third world country if this continues.
    Tulsa Oklahoma

    July 16, 2010 at 5:40 pm |
  199. Maggie

    There has to be another way. Too much already is on the back of the middle class Americans. The rich get richer and the middle class moves on down. The elected, appointed, hired government workers should not get special treatment. They already make a better living than most other Americans, they should have to have the same retirement and insurance as everybody else.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:43 pm |
  200. Cheryl, Florida

    Of course, now that I'm getting close to retirement, they want to raise the age I can collect. I contributed to Social Security all of my working life, and I expect to be able to get it while I am still healthy enough to enjoy it. My suggestion would be to cut back on some of the huge defense spending we do, and eliminate those numerous pork projects that don't benefit many people. Then the government can repay Social Security for the money they illegally took out of the fund.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:44 pm |
  201. Solitude

    "Did you read it Jack? Can the DOW go as low as 1000, from the 10,000 today?"
    Dow Jones Industrial Average Index
    10,097.90 -261.41 -2.52%

    July 16, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  202. Mary Steele Yorktown VA

    No, it's time they put in term limits to stop the coruption that is taking billion of dollars that could go to Social Security. They should also let all Medicare recipients go into a public health insurance program of their choice and pay the small difference which would save billions of dollars in fraudulant claims that could also go into Social Security. Problem solved!

    Yorktown VA

    July 16, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
  203. Mark from Boston


    To what, 99? That's a nice round number.

    The baby-boomer “entitlement” generation has already eaten half the pie, which was their "rationed" portion based on diminished resources. Yet, over the years they’ve allowed out of control government and the gluttons on Wall Street to consume most of what was preserved for their children, condemning us to a life of debt where we earn wages equivalent to two dollars over lunch money. Furthermore, they now feel they deserve what’s left of our share of the pie, despite the fact we paid for it, simply because they feel their reduced portion was insufficient. Yet, we’re supposed to find adequate sustenance from the left over crumbs? From our perspective, it appears that both local and federal governments are graduates of the Bernie Madoff School of Economics and Social Responsibility.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
  204. Pamela Fitzgerald

    Americans who work have been paying THEIR money into the Social Security and Government does not have a right to play with it or steal it. Pushing people to work until their are seventy before their retirement benefits kick in is just government wanting people to die off so they don't have to pay them back. anything.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:52 pm |
  205. MIke in TX

    Boehner and his bunch would love that as they are against entitlements in general. He is secure in his retirement so has no issues. Those of us that watched jobs disappear as we got older, due to the lower cost of younger workers both in salaries and benefit costs might have an issue with that logic. Ask those of us who lost everything we had in the Enron or WorldCom debacles and have contributed to SSN since we were teenagers if we want the government to take away the rest of any chance we have to exist. They as a group should get off of their secure tails and take monies from defense, foreign aid (unless it makes more sense to give to those who hate us) and other fat areas to turn SSN around to protect those who fought in wars, sweat in factories, and generally made this country what it is. How many Senators are getting SSN today Jack. How many would give up their SSN and their congress retirement because they meet an income threshold. Easy answer huh.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
  206. Andrew Amherst NY

    Jack, not only is it time to raise the retirement age for social secutiry, it's time to END it. Social security for the majority of americans is a negative investment, meaning your payouts are less than you put in. It time to cut back on all social programs and bring our national budget back to the level we had during the mid 1980's. Jack something needs to be done to at least give my generation a chance.

    July 16, 2010 at 5:58 pm |
  207. John, Fort Collins,CO

    In addition to saving money by raising the social security benefit age to 70, the government would also be saving retirees from themselves. Until people actually retire, they have the grossly misguided impression that being joined at the hip to their spouse for the next 30 years is a life worth living. When the kids are grown and gone, regular work of some kind is the only good way to stay sane and sober.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:01 pm |
  208. Mark, Oklahoma City

    Jack, here's a novel idea....REQUIRE that U.S. Congressmen RETIRE at age 70, then I'll go along with it. They work around 150 days a year give or take and can come and go as they please. Most workers who actually "work" can't hold out until age 70. Sounds like they are trying to make sure we don't live long enough to use their new health care plan or draw SS benefits! What a cruel way to balance the budget.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:01 pm |
  209. Tom, Avon, Me, The Heart of Democracy

    Look at the good work Senator Byrd put in and you have your answer. The strength of the American work force is greater in the older Americans than in the younger Americans. When Gerard Hebert retired Boise Cascade tried to replace him with five people. They probably needed six.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:01 pm |

    well Obama still has my vote and I truly believe in time his efforts will be in the history books as a great man

    July 16, 2010 at 6:02 pm |
  211. Steve, Clifton, VA

    Absolutely and they would have by now if they them selves hadn't been in office so long that they have contracted Alzheimer's decease

    July 16, 2010 at 6:02 pm |
  212. BGreen

    Jack, It would not surprise me. Those of us gifted unemployed have already realized that the bailouts and financial support has gone to every other work sector but us so it would make sense that we (when we get to go back to work) will have to stick around longer to pay for all of the Bush blunders. Think by that time we probably will have pay for our own retirement party.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:02 pm |
  213. Stefan

    I'm 52 but I'm sure I'll be working until my last days. It's just simple math: social security benefits cannot cover more than five years of retirement without increasing taxes. And nobody wants to pay today for a better retirement tomorrow. It is all about instant gratification that dominates our lives: we don't save, we don't get real and we don't live within our means. Even if we don't like it, increasing the retirement age might be the only way to save us from an economical disaster because I don't see the American people accepting to save more for the "golden years" and to pay more taxes. And as we see today, it is not only the American people, it is Europe, Canada, and every so called "rich country" for that matter...

    See you celebrating your sweet 95 at CNN in 27 years from now Jack together with Wolf who'll bring the cake and the candles!

    July 16, 2010 at 6:09 pm |
  214. steve- virginia beach

    Your question and the opinions of politicians obviate one of the major problems in Washington DC- failure to recognize that major and complex problems usually have more than one cause and require a combination of multiple solutions in moderation rather than any single drastic solution. Not long ago Christine Romans itemized well over a dozen solutions to fix Social Security. All of them in moderation would be effective and fairly painless yet I bet no politician could identify even half of them.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  215. Greg, Hamilton Ontario

    Who the hell gets to retire these days? Politicians, doctors and the few people we say are celebrities. Everyone else works until they drop.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  216. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    Yes the age should be raised.

    It is documented that with the advancements in stem cell research and other technology that in 20 years the average life span will be 110 years old.

    It is only common sense to adjust any program to fit the realities of the day.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  217. Steve

    Social security was started with the knowledge most people would not live to an age to get it. They are just scr3wing us again.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  218. jz

    No, if the Social Security Adminstration stopped using the Social Security Fund as the new welfare disbursment fund for people who have never paid a dime in social security taxes things would change.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  219. Dennis / Hartsville, TN

    Jack, fine, raise it to 70 but just a minute, I turn 60 in two weeks and the deal I worked under since I was 18 was retire with benefits at 64. I don't think I can live that long. Let them fix the problem at hand starting with the younger crowd who have to work another twenty five or thirty years or more to pay for their turn at the plate.

    Dennis/ Hartsville,Tn.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  220. Dan Leahy

    Anyone, including Jack Cafferty, who says that Social Security is broke is nothing but a liar. Untouched, the system will pay full benefits for about 30 more years. Untouched, even then, it would pay out at about 75% of promised benefits. That's hardly broke. A simple raising of the cap would insure that our grandchildren's benefits would be completely paid. There is no need to raise the retirement age.
    Dan Leahy
    Santa Barbara

    July 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  221. Norma

    No - how about just cleaning up the system and eliminate all those collecting under a false pretense and eliminating qualifications such as monthly checks for not being able to read and keep the government from using the fund as a bank loan.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  222. Russ Young

    If Congress is going to raise the age for SS benefits to 70, they need to look first in their own back yard. If we take a hit on the time when we are able to receive these benefits, they should too, but I doubt that will happen.
    I do agree with some regulation on people who receive SS benefits who really do not deserve them.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  223. Michelle

    I totally agree with Kristina below! She articulates my ideas and all perfectly. "It's about time. When Social Security was enacted it was to support senior citizens that were destitute (primarily because of the Great Depression). More importantly, the average life span was much shorter, so the total benefits paid out were relatively small per person. We should absolutely have needs testing, and increase the retirement age. I think early retirement should only be available if a person is unable to work for medical reasons. I am in my 40's and funding my own retirement because I don't think social security will exist when I retire."

    July 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  224. jerry berry

    Jack, have you ever noticed that the ones who make the changes don,t live in reality. they have unlimited income and retirement dosn't really effect them. they should live on our retirement income then make those decissions, wouldn:t that be great,then they would change things, don't you think. jerry

    July 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  225. ELINOR

    Yes, it makes absolute political and fiscal sense to raise Social Security eligiblity age and to make it means tested. Let's show that we are capable of being reasonable and ubtelligent and not merely political.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  226. Kim

    Jack – If they raise the retirement age, nobody will ever retire. They will never be able to afford it, and those looking for a job can forget about it. Some of the best employment opportunites have come along only when someone retires. I don't care how much money you think you have, it is never enough. You pay into social security all of your life, and can only hope you live long enough to enjoy some of it. I guess looking forward to retirement will soon be a thing of the past. Better get a larger piggy bank.


    July 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  227. Ken in NC

    It would not be necessary Jack if congress replaced the Social Security IOU's in West Virgina with the cash they stole from our accounts.

    OOoopps did I just accuse Congress of stealing? Yep I did. Oh well.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  228. Rick

    There is no need to raise the retirement age. Social Security will be in the red for only 20 years. it has been in the black for decades. The rise in the age is just a smoke screen to hide that we have use it to cover the general deficit.

    want to close the deficit? put a $4.50 tax surcharge on every man woman and child and instantly balance the budget. That is the price of a Happy Meal.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  229. Peg - AZ

    Yes, it is time to raise the retirement age. However, I think it should start sooner and be done much more gradually. They can simply add on one month each year, starting in a couple of years. Obviously, it will take longer to accomplish the increase, but the savings will begin sooner and people will have time to adjust. People with high incomes could also be asked to wait a few years longer before receiving their social security payments as well.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  230. Pat

    Just take away the retirement/health benefits from those from both the Senate and House.
    They get it no matter how much amount of time they are in office and even if they are removed or censored from office. Or otherwise disgraced.
    They make enough money throughout their terms to be very well off with making the tax payers pay,
    Just that simple. Wonder why this idea won't get too far in Congress???

    Barnwell, SC

    July 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  231. patti from Ohio

    Hi Jack,

    Here's an idea. How about quit giving illegal immigrants social security benefits when they are not US citizens and have never paid into social security.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  232. Carolyn

    The retirement age for a person who is 45 or less could be raised.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  233. David P Vernon

    Tucson, AZ – No, the problem is not the retirement age – most blue collar workers have to stop by age 65 because they are not longer able to work a full week – later retirement may be fine for TV personalites, but not cops, firemen, bricklayers or plumbers. I agree (for a change) with Boehner about the means test – a person with an annual income over $50K from other sources should not be getting Social Security too. I also think that the "cap" on taxed wages should go up to at least $250K – it is now around $90K – why should an investment banker who makes millions not pay more in SS taxes than a civil servant? I have not actually done the math, but I suspect that means testing and a much higher tax cap would put the system near solvency without changing the retirement age at all.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  234. mike sey

    Means testing ? What a mean, bureaucratic and governmentally intrusive notion. Why not pay it to everyone who qualifies do what most sensible nations do and use the income tax system to claw it back from those who don't need it. Its more efficient and less costly than a means test, but I suppose it would be portrayed as a tax increase and declared anathema in tax averse America.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  235. Katlin-ME

    Instead, how about considering raising the CAP. Earnings above a certain level are not taxed for Social Security. Seems like this would have minimal impact on high earners and give Social Security quite a helping hand.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  236. Frank N Cape Coral FL

    I have a better idea, whay don't those same politicians give back that 25% raise they gave themselves a few years back, and maybe cut back on their expense accounts, make them pay for their own health care insurance, I don't find it to difficult to fine ways to cut back on gov't expenses, why is it the people always have to pay for politicians inability to save money?

    July 16, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  237. Bob Englar

    I can’t believe how stupid our government is when it comes to Social Security and everything else. All they have to do is lift the cap. They will have money to pay baby boomers like me and my children when they retire.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  238. james

    Maybe it is time the fed's stop stealing our social security

    July 16, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  239. Deborah Coots

    No the age should not be raised! Get the dopers and alcholoics off the dole. We seniors have worked our whole lives and they are sponging off of the system draining the Social Security System dry.
    Why should those of us who worked and paid in (no matter what our financial status now) not get what we paid for???? Lord help those paying in now, they are going to be cheated. I say let the Congress have the same system as those they govern and it will get straightened out!!!

    July 16, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  240. Adam Blair

    The most annoying thing about this is that the government shouldn't be involved in the first place. Absolutely ridiculous that the government tells us when it is "ok to retire". Even more absurd is the concept of giving the money only to those who "need" it. There is a good chance that those who don't need it contributed more to what is in the fund than those who "need it". I am so tired of people taking what they didn't earn. I understand that some people need help, but nobody DESERVES or has a right to help. It is time for Americans to become 'the buck stops here kind of people'. Stop asking for hand outs, prepare, think ahead, take responsibility for yourself and stop depending on everybody else. It's nobody's fault but yours if you are not ready to retire.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  241. Larry Coughlin

    NO Jack, the reitrement age should not be raised. People in their 50's and on up who lose their job have little chance of finding another one in this economy and even when the economy improves, the trend is to hire younger workers. Now we want them to wait even longer to collect anything? If they do, they better start funding homeless centers for a whole new group of seniors. One way to help out the social security problem is to remove the threshhold that when one reaches, they no longer pay social security taxes. Some of these people pay social security wages for the first week of the year and no more the rest of the year because their earnings are so massive. I think the executives at the large financial institutions that almost ruined our country can contribute the entire year and I'll bet they'll still be able to put food on the table.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  242. Elliott

    When Social Security was established, people retired at 65 and died at 70. Since then the life expectancy of Americans has increased dramatically. Furthermore, the program has morphed into a disability income plan as well as a pension plan, something not intended or planned for at the time. Raise the retirement age, to be sure, but also (1) eliminate the cap on individual contributions (those of us that can afford it should pay more and (2) do away with our politicians' special pension plan and make them pay into and draw from social security like the rest of us.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  243. Colleen

    Social Security is a supplement, not a replacement, of retirement income. In a year, when I turn 62, my husband and I will have a combined retirement income with the addition of social security...$120,000. Perhaps what needs to be considered is the retirement/pensions of those eligible for that benefit. We probably don't need it....

    July 16, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  244. Linda in KY

    It is all fine and well for those like you and Wolfe who work in air conditioned offices and studios to not want to retire. However, if you and had put in 30 years standing on concrete in a hot factory job you would most assuredly not want to do that until you are 70 nor would your body. Such changes and generalities are usually made by those who don't have to fight the elements. I would urge our leaders to think of these people before making any rash changes. I do, however think there is some merit in.."if you already have a good retirement then take that into consideration. Oh geeze here we go again...the little guy always comes out on the short end!!

    July 16, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  245. Glenn

    Interesting... John "Mr. GOP" Boehner suggests a means test for receiving SSA retirement.

    Does that actually demonstrate that he is actually a "wealth-redistributing Socialist at heart"? Hope someone asks him how he can turn this statement into a proper GOP "elephant dung" economic policy statement.....

    July 16, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  246. Donald Barron

    They are talking about changing social security to a regular government program after they have stolen the money from it for decades. That would make it the most regressive tax ever. The real question is : should the working people of this country form new political parties that would serve their purposes?

    July 16, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  247. Ol'Bob

    Laid of at 62, wouldn't that be great. I'm one of the hight tech guys. I was doing "high tech" before anyone had heard of it. I was laid of at 49 and have not been able to find a full time job since. I'm 57 now. The minimum Social Security benefit would double my income.

    Raise the retirement age? Get real, jobs don't last that long.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  248. joe

    Most of us have paid upwards of 35% of our wages to the government. Most of those taxes are mandatory. Social Security? If you didn't put into it, or aren't married/widowed/widower of someone who did, you shouldn't be eligible to collect it. And if the folks on the hill with 80lb heads can't figure out how to give me back what I've lent them all these years, how about if they give me back what I've put in now, and I'll manage my retirement myself!

    July 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  249. Juli

    Yes, Jack, I think we elders can stand for the age limit to be raised. I am 72 and just retired, my husband is 76 and he retired from three careers. Just because we reach the 60's doesn't mean we are not able to work. I think the limits could be raised to 65 and 68 instead of 62 and 65, and that would give the system a little room for expansion that will be needed. People are living longer now than when SS was originated, and are healthier, too. Other things have changed–I'd rather see these numbers changed than there not be a Social Security when our children are ready to retire! One thing, though–Congress needs to keep it's sticky fingers out of the Social Security Trust Fund and pay back what they have "borrowed" in the past and not reimbursed. Don't you think that is a good idea?

    July 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  250. Cindy

    I guess we would be willing to raise our retirement age if all of the politicians would also be willing to raise theirs as well. As far as giving our money to the poor, I don't work so that the poor can have a retirement. I work to give myself a retirement. AND if the money that is being taken out of our checks is not meant for our own retirement, then they need to stop taken it out of our checks. We certainly are not paying it so that the government can use it for whatever their little hearts desire. The Social Security is in this mess, not because people are living longer but because the goverment keeps borrowing out of it for those little stupid reasons they come up with and then not paying it back. They are going to keep pusing us and they are going to see a revolution bigger than any World War and then they will know how we feel about these idiot solutions that they come with. Being they don't seem to understand the word NO, guess we will end up having to show them what it means.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  251. james

    I would also demand my money back

    July 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  252. Zel

    I don't think the retirement age should be raised. When I hit 65, it was so scarry, my health went downhill from then as did most of my friends. I feel the the amount taken out of paychecks could be raised by 1 or 1 1/2 percent. That's the better way to go.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  253. Gigi Oregon

    I think other factors need to be implanted also.
    1. Raise the age to 67 and 70 is great. And it should be used only as an insurance program for those needing it. Too many jobs have been sent overseas then the jobs left are often discriminated against older workers. At a critical time in their life a company will let them go for a younger employee who will work for less. Just at the time the older employee could set aside a retirement plan he looses his job.
    2.Also no one with assets over a million should be able to draw from it. Just as any other insurance policy..
    3 The government needs to return all monies borrowed with interest.

    The only thing wrong with Social Security is the government has their hands on it. And they can't see anything below their on nose.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  254. John Hayward

    No. No. No. Anyone who has earned Social Security deserves it. That means anyone! If you're going to use a means test for qualification, then, it better be better than the other means tests the government uses to qualify for other programs. Here's a message for the politicians and the people who are in favor of this. If it's your desire to do this, think first of the consequences of such an outrage. If you want a violent revolution, this is the perfect formula for one.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  255. Bill (Workhorse-Workmore-Gettin tired)

    I've worked everyday since 1974 all hours of the day and night and all weather conditions(some extreme).
    I didn't have the luxury of going home for a summer break or Christmas break or any other break some of these politicians can dream up at taxpayer expense. To hear some one say we should raise the retirement age sickens me.
    Stop wasting my tax dollars on wars or anything else you can think of and start considering the real people/patriots.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  256. Donald D. Deane

    They wouldn't need to if they paided back all the intrest free loans they have floated themselves over the years

    July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  257. Jay Nelson

    Absolutely NO we should not push back social security benefits. This government should do away with some of their worthless projects, that helps nobody. Also, we need to quit giving everything to the Illegals, we need to take care of our seniors. Why punish them for the irresponsibility of our out of control government. NO increase in Pay for any of our government for 10 years that should help some and let the people vote for their benefits and rate increases. No company allows the employee to vote on their own benefits and pay, how dumb are we. We must get this government in control and let them know again who is their boss. Thank you.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  258. Paul

    Wow no way, are they crazy . even though im over 50 and it would not effect me theres other ways to be creative to fix social security, after all thats what they do is get creative when they want to raise money instead fixing the problem head on. all i want to do is be able to retire and have a little piece of ground but since the economy took a dive ive only worked 5 days in over a year and i just might have to work till im 70. what a shame,who in there right mind wants to work when there 70. i know i dont thats the time you want to spend with the grandkids right. good luck america!!!!

    July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  259. Peg - AZ

    Yes, it is time to raise the retirement age. However, I think it should start sooner and be done much more gradually. They can simply add on one month each year, starting in a couple of years. Obviously, it will take longer to accomplish the increase, but the savings will begin sooner and people will have time to adjust. People with high incomes could also be asked to wait a few years longer before receiving their social security payments as well. With Boehner's suggestion, we would not see any savings at all for at least another 15 years.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  260. Al, Saco Maine

    No. I was a corporate benefits manager in the 1980's when Sen. Pat Moynihan's Social Security plan was implemented. Everyone's Social Security Tax more than tripled that year and the extra money was placed in trust to pay for the 'baby boomers'.

    Congress, however, systematically stole over $2 Trillion dollars of that money in order to pay for programs without raising Federal Income Taxes. Their thievery should not be condoned. Congress should cut back the programs or raise Federal Income Taxes. Either option is fine by me.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  261. Steven Davidson

    I am retired from 30 years working at the Social Security Administration and one of the jobs I held during my tenure was information specialist. I would receive phone calls from beneficiaries asking me for more money than they were getting. My answer to them was that Social Security is not a NEEDS program but a BENEFITS program. You pay a premium, a percentage of your salary, and you receive a corresponding benefit amount. (I might add that paying the premium was NOT optional). Not only did the government NOT match these contributions but they robbed the trust funds of all the money that was forcefully taken in premiums. Now that it is time to pay the piper they want to renege? I think not!!!!

    July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  262. Jerry Sawick from San Andreas (It's not our fault)

    From 1990-2005 $1.3 trillion was stolen from the SS Trust fund for use in the general budget. IOUs were issued with a wink and a nod, our legislators knew that they would never be paid. My U.S.. Congressman is one who thinks this is okay, my U.S. Senator won't comment. This is the same with our fuel taxes that are supposed to be for the infrastucture that is falling apart. Time to clean house, fire them all, and don't rely on the political parties to choose your options. Palin, Gingrich, Beck, Limbaugh? Yikes!!!

    July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  263. Luis Ruiz

    NO!NO!NO! We should not raise the retirement age to 70 in order to collect social security. I have been working and paying taxes since the age of 15, and I am expected to work till I’m 70. We all weren’t born with a silver spoon in our mouths. If congress had to actually do physical work they wouldn’t be raising the age to 70. Oh and give it to the poor that do not work sure help the lazy. You have people collecting social security that have not worked a day in this Country and people on disability that should not be disabled they are just too lazy to work and looking for a free handout. Congress seems to be good at giving hand to corporations that don’t need it. They need to reevaluate everybody collecting social security and making these doctors liable for putting these people on disability.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  264. Ernie Naples Fl

    I'm so sick of political demagogs whining that our deficit spending is borrowing from our children. Who was standing up for me when I was someones child? I'm going to turn 50 this year. I've been working full time since I was 18 years old. My wife and I are recently in the so called rich category making a little over $250k per year combined. I've only been able to afford to put money into my 401k in the last 8 years, and I'm getting squeezed everywhere I look. My home is worth half of what it was 3 years ago, but I keep making my payments, I don't get any stimulus money, or any sort of bail out. My wife and I have been paying into Social Security all of our lives. I've never collected a dime of unemployment in my entire career. Its bad enough that we have to wait until we're near death to collect the miserly benefit that we'll eventually get, and now to add insult to injury, they want to raise the age yet again. We'd be so much better off if we just walked away from our commitments, quit our jobs, and put our hands out. We'd probably end up ahead of the game. We've become a country where only the dead beats are set up to succeed. We like to slam France a lot, but they still get 4 weeks vacation, free medical care, and retirement benefits start when they're 60. I'm not a socialist, not even a liberal, but tell me Jack....where did we go wrong?

    July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm |
  265. Ruby Zimmerman

    Absolutely! People are living longer, why shouldn't they work longer? Age 70 is much more realistic. Also, payments should be limited to people with incomes of $250,000 or less, unless a widow with college-age children.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  266. Ben

    Heck no... It is time for the US to get serious about green energy so that we don't have to keep pumping trillions per year into our military in preparation for the next war which is no doubt going to be over oil. Stop taking the easy way out and put in long term solutions that will benefit our children & mankind as a whole. What's next? Worrk till you croak!?

    July 16, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  267. Kwutabu

    Absolutely not! This would simply be another ploy by congress to stick it to the low income population, principally, Spanish and African American citizens

    July 16, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  268. CM

    No.How about not paying Social Security benefits to people who have never paid into the system or those who take their checks out of the country. How about putting the money that people contribute to Social Security into an account that the government can't put their hands on. What happens to the money that those under 50 have paid in? What happens to those who can't save for retirement?

    July 16, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  269. Betty

    I'm 75. Years ago when I had a meeting with a 'financial adviser' Social Security was factored in as a substantial part of my projected retirement income. I started working when I was 13 years old which was 'sort of' legal at that time. I have contributed to multiple 'retirement' plans through 4 different jobs and my deceased husband did also. Thanks to 'big business' I don't have my retirement money nor that of my deceased husband. I live on SS and 2 independent retirement investments outside of any of my jobs. There are all sorts of 'reasons' why the company retirements I paid into aren't available.
    Don't knock government or SS, it is the only thing from which I am getting any retirement. The biggest 'lost' retirement income is from a republican politician.
    Get rid of all the 'financial retirements/perks' from congress and we will get an answer to the average citizens' problems.
    (Surely you are aware that a one-term congressman gets a lifetime income from that sting.)

    July 16, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  270. Randy

    YES! Those of us that make under 107k a year pay SS taxes on 100% of our income. We should not expect rush, hannity, gates, winfrey, trump, hilton, buffett, koch, or any other millionaire/billionaire to pay taxes on 100% of their income because they "work" sooo much harder than the rest of us. As a matter of fact, there's some people in a hospice down the street that i know have some life left in them. Let's pull them out of those comfy beds and put them back to work.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  271. Marvin Wade

    Amory, MS
    I have no problem with raising the Retirement age for SS to 70 as long as the retirement age for ALL government employees is raised to the same level.
    Before the Government is given the option to not pay some of the people that have put into the SS all of their lives, they should give the people the option not to pay into it.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  272. Joe Fetherling


    The National Debt is a major issue facing this nation. There have to be ways to help with the national debt and delaying of paying the retirement/social security may be one way to help. Members of congress have been taking care of themselves over the years with good perks, good pensions and health care benefits. If this passes, members of congress should not be able to receive thier pensions/retirements earned while in office until age 70.


    Joe Fetherling

    July 16, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
  273. danny thomas

    Hey jack! I think the age limit should not be raise,what should be done is that congress and law makers should get a drug and alcohol test for making stupid decision.It is time to get these crack heads and money hungry people out of office.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:28 pm |
  274. Deidra Downs

    Dear Jack:

    It is definitely time for Congress to raise the retirement age simply due to the fact that it is taking young people to achieve gainful employment, due to the state of the economy. Also, what about the vast amount of Americans that have been laid-off, but, still need to work to support their families? Congress needs to do whatever it legally can to as well as, those that have been laid-off from their current positions to counteract this precarious situation; thus, allowing American citizens to a second opportunity to make their financial stake in this society. And, perhaps, by the time they are 70 years old, and Wall Street, gets on the "Right" Street, the American people will have received a substantive amount of monetary benefits from that, as well as, from other investment sources. Hence, it it time for Congress to "go with the reality of the flow."


    July 16, 2010 at 6:28 pm |
  275. nick

    This problem won't go away by raising the retirement age the problem is that the ever expanding elderly population is collecting social security and you cannot provide for such a large part of the population that essentially is only consuming without taking more from the younger generations that are still working, personally I am tired of paying into social security especially when all the research says it won't be there when I'm old enough to collect

    July 16, 2010 at 6:28 pm |
  276. charlie

    One thing that needs to be considered is your job description. I work in construction and can't see my self doing this at 70. Think about Deadlest Catch with a bunch of old Guys. We can't all drive the boat.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:28 pm |
  277. Ronald

    Not only this, but also raise the maximum salary ss is paid on, and set the COL adjustment to a more standard calculation. These three steps together, would not be a significant burden on any individual and would fix SS funding beyond the 75 year US gov planning.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:29 pm |
  278. William F. Torpey

    It's not the age of Social Security beneficiaries that's causing a problem, it's the fact that many recipients are double-dipping. Keep the retirement age at 62 and 65. Even though people are living longer, many are not physically able to continue working past that age. If people are able to work longer, that's something else, but it would be tragic to force older people to work who no longer have the stamina, or who have any number of physical disabilities. The other problem is that many people are not retired. They are still working and earning wages or a salary. People who are still working should not be receiving "retirement" benefits.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:29 pm |
  279. Chuck- North Fort Myers FL

    I remember listening to Paul Harvey crow about how well the country was running under Reagan, that in fact the head of Social Security had recommended stopping payrole deduction because our boom had created such a mass of money in the fund . He said it would last untold years.Within a couple of years (Under Reagan) the SS fund was rolled into the general fund....so long surplus......No to raising the age. We fund every silly pet project that comes down the rail, money is there,it's just probably in the wrong fund.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:29 pm |
  280. Tom Badger

    I would love to work until I'm 70, but will the employers be willing to keep their aging employees? As we know, age discrimination is very difficult to prove. Also, I'm in management, so the physical demands are not as great as my employees. I think the simplest way to fix Social Security is to eliminate the $106,000 income cap. Social Security taxes should be paid on all income.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:29 pm |
  281. Betty Davis

    New Port Richey, FL

    Retirement age should be raised for all as soon as Congress elects to adopt SS for themselves.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:30 pm |
  282. Bob Claggett

    I am 59 years old and have been fortunate enough to have worked for one employer for 40 years. I have a small retirement(nothing compared to size of retirements for congressman or senators or many other government employees) and hope to collect on the Social Security I and my employer paid in as part of the cost of my employment.

    I resent deeply the idea that there be a means test to determine if I should get Social Security. For my being frugal all my working life, I would not get what was paid into the government for my later years? Hogwash! There are millions of people who have been on one part or another of the government plantation during my working life, I never have been on any program of assistance, never! I deeply resent someone coming along who along with their predecessors did not manage the money entrusted to them as government employees and then want me to bear the burden.

    Further, why is it that with my and others taxes that pay for the running of the government and their benefits, that their mismanagement of my old age security blanket is brought to the forefront and not the fact that they are paid retirements/pensions much larger and earlier (at ages as early as and including 50, 55, and 60 years of age plans) than I as a private sector employee. Yet we are not talking about their plans being altered to the same degree and same manner. Why not? Something is not right here and we the public could sure use news people to voice our concerns far and wide for all of us counting on social security.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:30 pm |
  283. Larry Bratton

    Quit paying it to all the lazy people under 62 and will be Fine.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:30 pm |
  284. P.Raatib Mann

    They need to clear up all the fraud in Medicare before they do anything else. I am on Medicare I had doctors and suppliers try to force products and services I did no't need. I was ill and needed a hospital type bed. They procured it for me at 146.00 per month rental fee. I couldn't believe it. That week I was at a thrift store, there was the same type of bed selling for 150.00. I purchased it and called Medicare to be reimbursed. After all, I saved them quite a bit on rental fees. Not only did they refuse to pay me they told me that they had to rent the other bed for six months before they could purchase it for me. All they need to do is shut down those contractors who bill in excess and Medicare would be solvent again.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:30 pm |
  285. Gary

    I worked for 40 years and due to various corporate downsizings, SS is all I will have to retire on. Yet I would be willing to see the retirement age extended if Congress would extend the retirement age on thier own government pension plan, which they qualify for in a lot less than 40 years, to the same age

    July 16, 2010 at 6:31 pm |
  286. Scott

    Sure, just pay back all those billions of dollars that were paid into by good working people for the past XX years.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:31 pm |
  287. Arnold MI

    NO! People may be living longer, but technology is replacing the workers and in the coming years we will not have enough jobs for all of the people. This will effect everyone since consumer spending will plummet and take the entire economy with it.

    We need a system that utilizes the technology and pays the people, and Social Security is the way to go and we should make it the only required pension in the country. One system for everyone, and we can quit worrying about our 401's and all of the BS the private sector has jammed down our throats for their own benefit.

    The way to pay for this is very simple. Raise the payroll deduction tax and tax the wall street thieves that would like to get their hands on our Social Security.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:31 pm |
  288. Joanna Clark

    The retirement age should remain at 65. However, I would suggest if the retiree has income from all sources equal to $75,000.00 per year, then a scale similar to the following might be considered.
    Income $0-$75 – No deduction
    Income $75-$100 – For every $5K increase between $75K- and $100K, deduct $25 (Range $25 – $125.00)

    Income $100K to $200K – For every $5K increase, deduct $50.00

    Income greater than $200K – No benefit paid.

    Medicare included irregardless of income.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:32 pm |
  289. Doug, St. Louis

    Absolutely! There has been a demographic shift toward an older population in the US since the inception of SS. There are less people paying and more collecting. At the same time, Americans are healthier and able to live longer. Of course, the epidemic of obesity in this country might just reverse this trend.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:32 pm |
  290. Ave

    Is it time for Congress to raise the retirement age?
    It’s obvious that they’re going to, or at least try to raise the retirement age to a point WAY past the expected longevity age.
    I say it’s time to retire Congress!

    July 16, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
  291. Richard Bolton

    Social Security, If I remember correctly was a promise to the working American.
    If they had not borrowed from it over the years, and not put the money back, then perhaps it would be solvent.
    Working people only that have paid into it ,should be the only ones to collect from it. No one else, get the illeagals away from it!
    Raising the age limit only gets the government the ability to hold the money, because more working americans will die before they ever get any of their Social Security!

    Dick from New Columbia, Pa.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
  292. Lewis, Nashville,TN

    Turning 60 this year, my new reitrement plan is to work until they carry me out in a body bag, can't afford anything else.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
  293. James F. Logan

    It is a bad idea. The people that propose raising the age to 70 have nice indoor sit down jobs. Some people actually work hard, outdoors in all kinds of weather,winter and summer. Working until for 70 does not seem that a good idea at all.
    And it isn't necessary. The people making under $100.000 pay social security on 100% of their pay. But those who really pull down the bid bucks don't pay on 100% of there pay. What is fair about that. In other words there are ways to fix social security without raising the retirement age or making it a welfare program.
    Don't confuse social security with medicare, which requires an entirely different kind of fic

    July 16, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
  294. mary righetti

    Social Security, was started to help the people that retired, not to put them on Welfare Line. Give the young more jobs so they can pay into the program, instead of sending American jobs overseas, and the problem will be solved. Also cut Defense spending, and worry about whats going on at home here in the good ole U.S.A. Us poor people depend on Social Security to make ends meet, I bet the Congress never had to worry about ood on the table , a having a roof over their heads. Thanks Jack , for some reason they always pick on Social Security.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:35 pm |
  295. GK

    Retire at 70??? Employers don't want you after 50, so how are we supposed to work until 70????? Just being squeezed again!
    Why don't they just raised the cap!!!!!!

    July 16, 2010 at 6:35 pm |
  296. Chaney, La.

    Raise the retirement age, let the GWB tax cuts for the wealthy expire.
    Thats a good start.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:35 pm |
  297. M K

    Some jobs wear a person out way earlier than others and ageism is alive and kicking people who want to work.
    Means testing is way too complicated (though it would create a whole new work force). Two other steps would be much simpler. First, levy FICA on more or all wages. Second, any income tax paid on SS benefits should be directed back to the social security trust fund, not to the general fund.

    I noted that at least one person doesn't understand how SS benefits are calculated. The highest 35 years are used, not the last 40 quarters. One needs at least 40 quarters for benefits.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:36 pm |
  298. Loretta

    I wish that they had raised the retirement age back in 1992 when I retired at age 62. I should have continued working. It is so very important to keep active as we mature because it slows the aging process. When you don't have enough to do, that's when you get bored, depressed and you start wearing all those cookies around your hips. With the cost of living today, unless you are wealthy, you better really consider working until 70.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:37 pm |
  299. Dan Leahy

    After reading about half the comments above, it's obvious that maybe one percent of your viewers have a clue about the facts regarding Social Security. I blame you, and the rest of the corporate media, for not telling the truth about this issue. Damn you.
    Dan Leahy
    Santa Barbara

    July 16, 2010 at 6:38 pm |
  300. steve- virginia beach

    How about lowering the retirement age for every politician who approved of stealing from the Social Security Trust Fund? A televised induction into a Hall of Shame a couple of weeks before the election just might help fix Social Security.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:38 pm |
  301. Keith, Bimingham

    The age should not be raised. I think dispersement of Social Security funds should be on a needs basis. While the people in DC are reforming Social Security, they need to tackle Welfare and WIC too.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:38 pm |
  302. Carl W. Sdano

    If the rich were taxed the same for Social Security as middle income workers, the problem would be mostly solved. We have a history in this country of helping those in need, including the elderly. Given that the government has used the surplus in Social Security funds over many years for other purposes, raising the retirement age would be apalling.

    July 16, 2010 at 6:38 pm |
  303. Wanda Reanne Griffith

    True people are living longer, but hard physical jobs take their toll. Age 65 is the age for full retirement benefits and men and women who have worked hard at middle income levels without retirement benefits are "plumb worn out,"

    July 16, 2010 at 6:39 pm |