OPRRMS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C. Cutler Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Personally I will be proud to work into my 70s.
> I
> > don't mind a bit.
> >
> > Ryan's at least offering an orderly way to
> reduce
> > retirement benefits, which is inevitable. None
> of
> > the government retirement programs are
> affordable.
> >
> >
> > If you prefer the disorderly way to cut
> retirement
> > benefits, look at what will happen soon in
> Italy,
> > Spain, France, and Greece. Or look at what
> > actually did happen in Eastern Europe in the
> early
> > 1990s.
> >
> > It will be very ugly.
>
> From your comments, I gather you don't work in the
> railroad industry (or if you do, you aren't
> covered by Railroad Retirement), since you seem to
> have the often misinformed opinion of how it works
> and how it's funded. Maybe this'll will help
> clarify it for you :
>
> FFEG FLASH: INDUSTRY CLARIFYING RAILROAD
> RETIREMENT FOR HOUSE COMMITTEE
>
> Many of you have seen emails regarding railroad
> retirement language contained in the U.S. House FY
> 2013 Budget Resolution. The budget resolution
> that passed the House of Representatives at the
> end of March contained language in its report that
> stated one way to save the taxpayers $2 billion
> over 10 years was to conform Railroad Retirement
> Tier I benefits with Social Security benefits.
>
> The House Budget Committee got this wrong. Any
> benefits paid out under Tier I that are more
> generous than Social Security are paid for out of
> the Tier II account, which is made up of
> contributions of employers and employees - not
> taxpayers as a whole. Labor and Management are
> aware this language was in the budget resolution
> and are in the process of explaining railroad
> retirement to the Members of the House Budget
> Committee so they better understand how the
> program works. In the meantime, please keep in
> mind that this was only report language in the
> House budget resolution. The passage of the
> budget resolution by the House does not mean this
> will happen. First, the Senate would have to pass
> a budget resolution of their own, which they have
> no plans to do, and a final budget document
> containing this language would have to be
> produced. Then Congress would have to pass
> another bill to make this happen and the President
> would have to sign it into law. We will keep you
> updated on this topic as events warrant.
>
>
> Source: Union Pacific


This is just another reason to vote the republican party out of extinction!!!!Use your vote throw the bums out!!!