Social Security

Social Security’s full retirement age was increased one time (by two years) in its 83-year history, while life expectancy has increased 20+ years. Would you favor a gradual increase in the full retirement age from 67 to 69 to extend the solvency of Social Security if the change excluded those currently age 60 and older?

Sponsored by:

If You Enjoy Polls Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Darla F
2 years ago

Hell no! That’s OUR money. The government has spent our money, and now wants to penalize us by cutting it by percentages or by upping the age. Hell fuggin no!

Douglas Malm
2 years ago

All law makers should have to also abide by any and all laws they make including all healthcare programs they inflict on others and their separate “social security which should be combined with the social security funds of the rest of us.

A Kot
2 years ago

Hi I hit the incorrect button for my votr?

A Kot
2 years ago

Oops I hit the wrong button

Mark Richey
2 years ago

Don’t like any of the social security choices. It should not be in the red it is because the government has been dipping into it throughout the years. We should be able to opt out and open our own private savings account.

Bradley Tripp
2 years ago

Pay back what was stolen from us and stop giving benefits to illegals. Then it would be solvent.

2 years ago

If SSI is reduced or age elevated; stop taking our money so we can use it now

Frank Casey
2 years ago

It is way past time to get the SSI out of the general fund and back to it’s own fund and collect all of the IOU’s . The government started the program as a supplement to individuals pensions provided by their employers. It was a plan to help the middle and lower income CITIZENS live a comfortable life in retirement. The plan should have been kept separate from all other plans and it would have survived and enabled reduction of the tax over time.
The CITIZENS who contributed to the fund should have received the same cost of living and retirement increases enjoyed by our Congressmen and women.

Susan Hall
2 years ago



2 years ago

This is good it keeps us well informed, and gives us a voice

3 years ago

I vote no. Social Security should be restored back to where it was originally funded. Our politicians stole the money and put it into the general fund without paying any interest. We need to start balancing the budget without using social security funds. If you don’t put into the fund, you should not get anything from SS. Social Security is not an entitlement. Our government doesn’t put in a penny. They steal the money to spend it on what they want. Any politician or talk show host calling SS an entitlement needs to have their heads examined. I could write a thesis on this topic. However, i’ll Just stop for now.

3 years ago

Social Security was conceived and written as a government sponsored Ponzi Scheme. The money was put into a non-interest bearing “trust” (?) Ask any person with a college degree in accounting or mathematics to explain to you why Ponzi Schemes always go broke. Changing the payout terms will not save a Ponzi Scheme. Adding more investors into a Ponzi Scheme will not save a Ponzi Scheme. Nothing can save Socialist Security because it is a Ponzi Scheme. Ask Bernie Madoff’s Hedge Fund investors. They tried to argue in court that Madoff had sold them shares in a “Hedge Fund”. The court said words that mean exactly this, “Calling a Ponzi Scheme a Hedge Fund, changes nothing about the financials of the scheme. You are experienced investors. You knew from day one that this was a Ponzi Scheme. You have nobody to blame, but yourselves.” Here is the cruel part of President Roosevelts Ponzi Scheme; he did not sell those shares of stock. He forced people to buy them. And the people he forced to buy shares in his Ponzi Scheme were not “experienced investors”. They were regular people who knew nothing about Ponzi Schemes. The people who were “paying into” the Ponzi scheme thought they were “investing in a Retirement Benefit Program”. The court that tried Bernie Madoff would have told you, “It doesn’t matter that President Roosevelt called his Ponzi Scheme a Retirement Benefit Program. Calling a Ponzi Scheme a Retirement Benefit Program changes nothing about the financials of the scheme.” Bottom line? The courts ruled that Socialist Security was mathematically certain to go broke, and was mathematically certain to go broke from the time the first shares were deducted from a citizen’s pay.

OK, what can we do about it? Essentially, nothing can be done. Anyone who has studied Ponzi Schemes will tell you that the only “investors” in a Ponzi Scheme who get any money from the scheme are the people who take their money out FIRST. Anyone who “leaves their money” in a Ponzi Scheme gets NOTHING. That’s right, every tax paying citizen who is “investing” in Socialist Security, today, is destined to get NOTHING.

What can the Congress do to save Socialist Security? NOTHING! Since it is a Ponzi Scheme, any Senator or Congressman who actually passed Finance 101 or College Level Algebra 201 knows that as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, Socialist Security is destined to go broke. Nothing can change that, and nothing will change it. Anymore than there was a way to “save” Bernie Madoff’s Hedge Fund!

Sharon Botto
3 years ago

Has anyone bothered to calculate all the “citizens” that paid into the system, but died before ever being able to collect a dime!

Judy Paladino
3 years ago

60 is too old to make it the cutoff. The age of people affected should not be higher than 55. People 55 and up have been planning their retirement for 35 years or more. It’s not enough time for them to make the adjustments necessary to save enough. Something does need to be done, but I don’t think the options to vote were all inclusive enough. I like the idea of working toward privatizing retirement benefits.

Tim Gossett
3 years ago

Make Congress repay all the money they stole from the SS administration and it will b solvent 4 many, many more years.

Jeff bossert
3 years ago

How about putting the money back that they stole from social security and anyone who ever voted to steal our money should be tried for treason

Wayne Riesbeck
3 years ago

I voted on it but don’t agree with any of the choices. I want the government put back every penny they spent from it with interest. When the program was started, it took money from your paychecks to save for you to earn interest so you would be able to survive after you could no longer work. It was not supposed to be used for anything else by anyone. There got to be trillions of dollars in it so the government started borrowing from it for other things, like Bill Clinton using it to balance the budget and probably used a lot of it for the Clinton foundation. That was our money they took and should have to pay it back with interest. Everyone in Government should forfeit their pay to the Social Security fund until the debt is paid off. They might be a little reluctant to touch that money in the future and Social Security will never become insolvent in the future.

3 years ago

Make the government repay the amount that was “borrowed” (including interest) so many years ago and there would be a lot less issues. Social Security would be solvent today had it not been touched. I would also like to stop having social security called an entitlement. The biggest entitlement going is the lifetime retirement pay and insurance that the house and senate get for all their “hard” work.

3 years ago

Make the thieves who stole our money put it back. No cuts to anyone except illegals. My parents for example would lose $650 a month.

3 years ago

We wouldn’t need to keep changing the retirement age if we #1 stopped giving SS benefits to NEWLY arrived LEGAL immigrants; they haven’t paid one dime into SS, so why give them money they aren’t entitled to?! AND #2 stop giving benefits to ILLEGALS!! #3 Don’t allow government officials to stick their hands it – it was not created to be their secret slush fund!!

It’s PRETTY DAMN simple and yet no one has the balls to do it!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x