Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

Raising the retirement age to 70 to pay for the wars, agree?

Would you agree with raising the retirement age to 70 to pay for the wars...

This supposedly would only apply to people more than 20 years away from retirement

Do you agree with this?


Asked by sweet-a-kins at 8:08 AM on Jun. 30, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (67,502 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (43)
  • why take it out on the poor old people who have worked all their lives? How stupid!!!

    Answer by shay1130 at 8:52 AM on Jun. 30, 2010

  • No, I do not agree with this. I might be more open to these types of suggestions if the government hadn't already spent at record levels, with no signs of slowing their spending habits. It isn't sustainable and their plans have not worked like they promised. I did not expect them to, but then again, I didn't expect record level spending. When I have been broke in the past, I quit spending money on things I didn't absolutely need at the time. I think all of our politicians should be required to take a home economics class before being sworn in (and yes, they have to pass).


    Answer by QuinnMae at 9:45 AM on Jun. 30, 2010

  • The income tax was enacted to pay for the Civil War. It was suppose to faze out. How did that work out? Once the people who write that pesky tax code (Charlie Rangle, Barney Franks and company of recent times) get their hands on your money, they are reluctant to follow through and let it go. Once the money is taken away, they are in a hurry to get it back (tax cuts running out) Once they raise the retirement age to 70, they have your money, they have you working so no Soc. Sec. or Medicare is to be paid because we will work until our life expectancy.           History of income tax.


    Answer by jesse123456 at 9:52 AM on Jun. 30, 2010

  • I don't care about WHO proposed it.

    I asked if we're not sure that it wouldn't be to pay for entitlement programs and/or the retirements of government workers.

    Or bailouts for unions?

    Etc.,. ad nauseum..................

    We are up to our eyeballs in bills, lately..........

    Answer by mustbeGRACE at 8:21 AM on Jun. 30, 2010

  • This sounds a lot like what Greeks have been hearing from politicians every day since the IMF stepped in.I should know,I live in Greece.Looks like many countries have started to reveal the finacial skeletons in the closet.

    Answer by MyrMar at 8:33 AM on Jun. 30, 2010

  • No I would not

    Answer by mamaofficer at 8:39 AM on Jun. 30, 2010

  • Well, he is a smarty pants making sure it only affects those with at least 20 years to go. Would want to affect that HUUUUGEEE voting base otherwise known as the Boomers.

    If they're going to cut off social security and increase the welfare program (which is what they're doing if they're saying they're only going to give it to those that "need" it), they should say so. And they should do it now, before all the money runs out paying for the largest group of retirees coupled with the smallest group of employed people ever. That would save some cash.

    Answer by Bezu at 12:14 PM on Jun. 30, 2010

  • Are you sure it wouldn't be to pay for ALL of the entitlement programs?

    Or for the retirements of government workers?

    I'm confused now.

    Answer by mustbeGRACE at 8:12 AM on Jun. 30, 2010

  • no, not really.

    Answer by samurai_chica at 8:12 AM on Jun. 30, 2010

  • oops,sorry "financial".

    Answer by MyrMar at 8:35 AM on Jun. 30, 2010