***Instructions: There are 2 responses. Write a 100 word response for each one and must include Biblical Integration.

Response 1:) Jo Ann

In my opinion, it should remain the same. People have worked for their time to retire at 65. However, if a person is physical able and want to continue working it will place more money into their retirement account but a less payout. Longevity has been the question for the Social Security administration concern retirement benefit. Even though most people describe an increase in normal retirement age as a delay in retirement, it is a fact to reduce their monthly pensions.

Social Security was thus never designed so that few people thinking in terms of life expectancy from birth were reasonable in thinking so (Shafritz, & Borick, 2011, p. 56). During the Great Depression, the age 65 was deemed to be the choice. The life expectancy was short-lived for men and women. People were disabled from wars and normal wear and tears of life needed those funding for the duration of their lives.

The Bible tells us of longevity from Biblical people. While Methuselah was the oldest person mentioned in the Bible who lived 969 years. There were others came close to his incredible age. People such as Adam who lived to be 930 years, Seth – 912 years, Mahalalel – 895 years, and Enoch – 365 years. People lived longer in the Biblical earlier years because they were the first generation of humans. They were God’s creation and was perfect until sin entered the human race. The price for sin is death, which cut the phase of longevity. If a person feels the need to retirement after working for it, they should be able to do so.

Shafritz, Jay M., & Borick, Christopher P. (2011) (1st Ed.). Cases in Public Policy and Administration. Longman, Pearson Education, Inc. //ISBN – 13:978-0-205-60742-6

Response 2:) Adrienne

Life expectancy in the United States has increased dramatically since the inception of the Social Security system, and this in turn has increased the financial burden on the system. The Social Security Administration (SSA) substantially underestimate future U.S. populations of age 65 and older. Such a trend has serious budget implications. Is Social Security doomed for my generation? As a 37 year old I am highly concerned about whether the Social Security system will remain financially viable to pay the current level of benefits, adjusted for inflation, to our generation. The 2018 annual report on the status of the social security and Medicare programs suggest that we should be concerned about the future of these governmental programs. Impart it mentions that both social security and Medicare face long-term financing shortfalls under current scheduling benefits and financing. According to the Trustees Report, funds for the retirement benefits are currently set to be depleted by 2034. The trustees recommend that lawmakers take action sooner rather than later to address these short-falls, so that a broader range of solutions can be considered and more time will be available to phase in changes while giving the public adequate time to prepare. According to the report if noting changes as we reach retirement age we would receive a payout of twenty five percent less than those that are currently receiving benefits now. Some would argue that getting seventy five percent of what we have contributed is better than not getting anything at all, however is that fair to those that have contributed a significant portion of their income into social security?