Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 03:01 PM Aug 2012

Romney 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?

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
1. He has mansions and car elevators to tend to. He doesn't have time for SS and Medicare.
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 03:03 PM
Aug 2012

Whatever the hell those things are.

To Mitt they are nuisance sounds that he wishes would go away.


demosincebirth

(12,536 posts)
3. The rich could care less about SS & Medicare. They have theirs no matter what, so fuck the rest.
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 03:10 PM
Aug 2012

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)
4. Every Democratic candidate should come out now on: eliminating the SS Cap, lowering the retirement
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 03:10 PM
Aug 2012

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)
7. perfect for congressional races
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 03:23 PM
Aug 2012

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)
9. And just where would that money come from?
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 04:17 PM
Aug 2012

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)
11. If SS has been paying more than it took in how would it have a $2T Surplus? Quit lying.
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 04:23 PM
Aug 2012

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)
13. That so-called surplus
Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:59 PM
Aug 2012

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)
15. "That so-called surplus" is the difference between the money I and people like me have paid in
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 06:34 PM
Aug 2012

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)
16. That's the problem
Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:16 AM
Aug 2012

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)
5. So true, why would Golden Mittens...
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 03:15 PM
Aug 2012

...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)
6. they care about it in the sense that they see a big pile of money
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 03:20 PM
Aug 2012

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)
8. I have been saying that for years...Republicans believe the cash in your pocket is really theirs...
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 03:38 PM
Aug 2012

it just got misplaced.

marlakay

(11,457 posts)
10. He doesn't seem to realize that we retired folks
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 04:20 PM
Aug 2012

or semi retired like me have the time to volunteer….

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Romney couldn't care less...