General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRomney couldn't care less about SS and Medicare; makes sense he's oblivious to the shitstorm coming
. . . from his choice of most seniors' #1 political target and nemesis when it comes to defending their benefits.
Should I imagine for a second that Romney consciously chose to pick Ryan because actually he wanted to pick a fight in this election with seniors and retirees -- some of the most effective, prepared, organized and explosive bloc of interest voters that exist in the legislative arena?
Or is this just another clueless and backward decision made off the top of the head of the hapless Romney?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Whatever the hell those things are.
To Mitt they are nuisance sounds that he wishes would go away.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,607 posts)Once we hand him his well-deserved defeat this November.
demosincebirth
(12,536 posts)Too bad the book of Mormon doesn't have what Jesus said to his disciples in Matt 19:24 about the rich, the eye of the needle and a camel.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)age, raising the SS payment by 35% now and automatically linking COLAs to real inflation.
They should also run on lowering the Medicare age to 0.
After they take back the house they should Pass Public Financing, Hand counts and paper ballots, and the SS and Medicare changes.
bigtree
(85,996 posts)ties the national campaign against benefits to their local efforts against their republican challengers.
'Here's the face of the republican Congress looking to further that agenda in the WH; the face and clear intention of all republicans,' they can now argue without any equivocation at all.
I agree they should take advantage of the political opening to push for changes needed and other protections. Shouldn't have any trouble rallying benefit voters.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Ever since the Great Recession began (you can argue that it's ended, but I wouldn't believe it) the Social Security System has paid more out in benefits than it has taken in from FICA taxes. Rasing the cap just raises the amount of the maximum benefit that people who already have pensions and 401K's will get to collect.
Entitlements are heading for a day of reckoning, it's just a matter of whether it's our side or their side that is in control when it happens, or what we'll do versus what they will do to manage a soft landing.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Eliminating the cap will fund SS for ever.
Lowering the Medicare age to 0 would finally control Medical cost inflation.
Whining about "entitlements" is what the RW losers do.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)is money Congress has borrowed, and replaced with "specialized Treasury securities" that even Bernie Sanders once referred to as "IOU's" that are not redeemable or negotiable on the open market.
They're of the same status as the mortgage for $500K on the house that currently has a market value of $100K. If the borrower who signed the note will actually pay back the $500K, then that mortgage has worth. If the borrower decides to hand in the keys and walk, then you have a problem.
I don't see Congress putting together budget surpluses by raising taxes on rich people or cutting out futile Asian wars anytime soon.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)and the money paid out over the years.
If you have no faith in US Treasury Certificates you can feel free to sign them all over to me.
The fact that they " are not redeemable or negotiable on the open market"
is a protection guaranteeing US that they can only be used to PAY US what we are due.
What world do you live in that this guaranteed protection becomes a fault?
The protection is why they can only be used to pay us, in effect guaranteeing the "note".
What purpose does your attack on the full faith and confidence in US Treasuries serve?
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)No one, not even the Social Security Trust Fund, can sign them all over to anyone. They're completely non-negotiable, unlike a regular Treasury note or bill. They can only be redeemed at the whim of Congress. Right now, I don't see a lot of will on the part of that body to either raise taxes or cut spending for futile Asian wars to run the budget surplus needed to redeem them without further borrowing or printing fiat money through another QE.
This is simply a fact, money has been borrowed by a debtor (the US government) which has no current means or willingness to pay it back. In fact, the Simpson-Bowles commission was designed to keep funnelling money into it, in order for Congress to have additional slush funds to pretend that they're working towards a balanced budget, when the exact opposite is the case.
Romney-Ryan are about to sell that on the national stage, in order to convince younger voters to go along with the Ryan plan. Unless we come up with a counterproposal, I fear they will be successful.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...give one hoot about a $2000 monthly check? That is laughable.
His wife wore a $2,000 t-shirt on a Fox News interview.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)that, in their puny minds, belongs in their own offshore accounts, not the bank or credit union account of some hapless, hardworking saps like "you people."
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)it just got misplaced.
marlakay
(11,457 posts)or semi retired like me have the time to volunteer .
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)because they won't get much else - may be the white young men
DearAbby
(12,461 posts)Some Daddy Warbucks funding his campaign.....