Romney would raise eligibility age for Medicare

[dipsydoodle]

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2012, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

DETROIT (AP) -- Four days before critical primary elections, Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney outlined a far-reaching plan Friday to gradually delay Americans' eligibility for Medicare as well as Social Security.

Romney said the shift, as people live longer, is needed to steer the giant benefit programs toward economic sustainability.

Speaking to the Detroit Economic Club - in cavernous Ford Field, where the Detroit Lions football team plays - he also made a play for primary election support in Michigan, which votes on Tuesday along with Arizona.

Romney said previous steps to toughen government emission standards had "provided a benefit to some of the foreign automakers" at the expense of American companies. He said future changes should be worked out cooperatively between government and industry.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ROMNEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-24-21-35-19

AP subsequently retitled their own link. For original now see here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10111733

[Politicalboi]

1. Go for it Mittens

You assholes may as well. With your war on women, why not start one with seniors, or very near seniors. As Charlie Sheen would say Winning!

[CAPHAVOC]

3. Exactly wrong.

The eligibility age should be lowered to birth.

[abelenkpe]

11. +1 nt

[peacebird]

16. +1

[LoisB]

24. CAPHAVOC

You are absolutely, 100% CORRECT.

[Hayabusa]

39. +1

[Gringostan]

70. YES! It's called national health care

YES! It's called national health care - you know like the rest of the modern world.

[harun]

77. I'd be happy with any Dem saying to lower it even 1 year. Don't hear that though do we?

[CAPHAVOC]

78. I know.

But why? Nobody is promoting it. I think the Insurance Companies have both parties in their back pocket.

[Walk away]

86. More like their front pocket!...nt

[boppers]

2. When we're living to 130, 140, having the benefit kick in at 65 is silly.

Just make it kick in at birth minus 10 months, and be done with the age wars.

[Fuddnik]

34. Just raise taxes 3% and have Medicare for all.

Problem solved.

[boppers]

36. 16%, or many more drastic changes need to be made.

Where did you get 3%? I got 16% from estimates of how much of our GDP is spent on Healthcare.

"Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 16% of GDP, second highest to East Timor (Timor-Leste) among all United Nations member nations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
(which links to: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html ).

[Jackpine Radical]

71. The 16% of GDP figure (maybe 18% by now) is the cost

of the current system. Most civilized countries do it for about 10% by simple expedients such as removing all the for-profit insurance companies & the payment-collection bureaucracies from the system. The savings are enormous. Our Medicare & Medicaid systems operate with very little overhead, & are expensive only because they serve older & sicker populations.

[Fuddnik]

84. HR 676 projects that with an increase of 3.5% of the Medicare tax for Employer and Employee.

Medicare could cover every US citizen with NO copays or NO deductibles, for everything including prescription drugs.

That figure has been out there for years, and it seems nobody in Congress (other than it's sponsors) or the White House wants to discuss it.

[klook]

97. Oh, but that would be a PAYROLL TAX INCREASE!!

The path to sanity on this issue is currently obstructed by the financial interests of the U.S. health insurance industry and its lobbyists.

[madrchsod]

4. it really is sad that he`s one of the republican canidates

one would think there would be someone who can actually think before they speak.

where are you jeb? the republican party needs you!

[lark]

15. Is this sarcastic?

The very last thing a real Dem would want would be Jeb in the race. He's an extremely dangerous partisan who knows how to appeal to Independents. He sounds pretty rational, but when the laws are being written, he's all right wing. He campaigned on repairing the everglades, but soon as the law came thru, he gutted all th effective parts for his friends - the sugar barons. The Bushes are in the vanguard of the group that are destroying america and Jeb would be th 1 person who could carry it out. He's our worst nightmare because he would have a great change of beating Obama and completing the destruction of amrica tht his brother got rolling.

[madrchsod]

23. yes

[crunch60]

31. Thank God the old

Bush lady can't push out anymore of the little shrubs. They are all dangerous and don't give a shit what happens to America or it's citizens. Remember the BFEE
You all probably know this, but I'll post it again.
.
BFEE stands for Bush Family Evil Empire. To me, the term represents the secret government that serves the nation's most powerful and wealthy individuals, the military-industrial-intel complex, Wall Street, the mafia, the ultra-right wing, the KKK and racialists and the NAZIs -- in short the War Party. The BFEE has been involved in much of America's darkest chapters, from the killing of President Kennedy to installing one of its dimmest sons as president.

[Duer 157099]

32. My favorite line of the week:

"Thank god the bush lady can't push out anymore of the little shrubs."

[eridani]

53. Barbara Bush's uterus should be declared--

--a Superfund cleanup site.

[progress2k12nbynd]

50. Uh the KKK barely exist anymore...

They may at one time have been a sizable organization in some parts of the country, but lumping them in with the world's most powerful people and organizations is a bit "tinfoil-hatty" for 2012.

[Webster Green]

52. Just read it as "KKK mentality" then.

There's plenty of that out there, and it's very dangerous, even if the idiots aren't actually parading around in white sheets.

[Yooperman]

99. LOL... funniest line I have read in a long time....

"Bush lady can't......

Priceless!!

[Rhiannon12866]

5. Of course he is, he'll never need it...

One thing, Mittens, seniors vote!

[Kolesar]

6. We Americans in our fifties should be concerned

Voting participation is moderately high among that group. Not as high as retired people, though.

[Ishoutandscream2]

7. Yes, very concerned

Kolesar, I'm finding elections more and more important as I age. We have to keep fighting these Republicans.

[woo me with science]

8. So would Obama.

It was in his proposal to the Super Committee in April.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/obama-medicare-eligibility-age_n_894833.html

The one percent in both parties have the same economic goals. Change is not coming from inside this diseased system. That is why it is so critical that we occupy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/:/www.youtube.com/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1661130

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1660734#1661130

[NorthCarolina]

9. +1

I don't understand the apparent total disconnect here on DU with regard to Obama and Social Security. I guess it's ok if a Democrat supports it?

[DonCoquixote]

55. no

but we know that while Obama may squirm about it, the GOp will simply do it. One, we have a chance of stopping, the other, no chance of stopping, as a GOP president would have no problem using WMD on the lower class if it meant order.

[woo me with science]

62. Utter fantasy re: Obama. Wishful spinning with no basis in reality whatsoever.

There is no evidence for this blind faith in Obama's intentions. None. All of the evidence shows that he works for the one percent and that he uses the Republicans' extremism to help further the agenda they share. They are working together. Open your eyes and look at the past three years.

They are doing all of this together. They did it together with the Super Committee, the Bush tax cuts, the corporate health insurance law, the banking legislation, and the payroll tax cuts. Since Obama came to office three years ago, we have moved as rapidly toward corporate fascism as we did under Bush. Why do you think the ACLU is screaming bloody murder about the record of this administration? Why?

And it is OBAMA who fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to surveil Americans with GPS without warrants.

It is OBAMA who claimed the right to declare American citizens terrorists and assassinate them without trial.

It is OBAMA who claimed the right to imprison human beings indefinitely without trial.

It is OBAMA whose complaint about NDAA was that it didn't give him enough power.

It is OBAMA who signed the bill that will bring the combat drones in Iraq and Afghanistan home to American airspace and make them available to our own police departments.

It is OBAMA who has stood silently while peaceful protesters are brutalized in our own country, and it is under OBAMA that protesters and those who seek anonymity on the internet by using proxies have been labeled potential terrorists.

It is OBAMA who signed ACTA in secrecy, claiming national security to keep it out of the media, and it is OBAMA who is pursuing an internet ID plan.

It is OBAMA who has been pushing these horrifying, insulting gift settlements to the banks and pushing austerity for the rest of us. OBAMA put Medicare age increases and 650 billion in cuts in Social Security and Medicare on the table, and OBAMA colluded with Republicans on these payroll tax cuts that move Social Security toward its eventual demise.

Americans need to wake the hell up and get their heads out of their collective nether regions to face the truth. The one percent are working together in both parties. This is not a red versus blue game anymore. We had better damned well start paying attention to reality instead of mean red and nice blue clouds in our heads, because the one percent are deadly serious, and they are coming after us now.

There is no evidence for the fantasy you are spinning here about Obama's intentions. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. He is not "squirming." He has done all of the above and more quite ruthlessly and efficiently. He is far from an ineffectual President, but rather has been a very effective tool for the one percent. Yes, the red candidate will do it faster and with more blood than the blue one. That is by design, so we keep voting for the option that hurts less. They play us like tools, stupid little musical instruments. Obama has said himself that "this is not a bloodless process."

Vote for the Democrat, but don't write a vapid "No" in response to what the poster above you wrote, because that poster is looking at a reality you refuse to face. All of our little blue votes may keep the train barreling toward corporate fascism slightly more slowly than a little red vote would, but make no mistake about it, we are still barreling toward corporate fascism.

We had better wake the hell up and stop deluding ourselves that blue votes do a damned thing to actually REVERSE the path we are on. We need to find some other way to stop this train, because voting is not enough anymore. We are facing an election with not one, but two candidates who will continue to strip away our liberties and impoverish us, and we had better damned well wake up and realize that voting is not enough. Change is not coming from inside this diseased, purchased system. We must occupy.

[Le Taz Hot]

64. This. n/t

[Carolina]

98. You are sadly

and absolutely CORRECT!

"Change is not coming from inside this diseased, purchased system..." and BHO has certainly proven to be the change we did not hope for.

[NorthCarolina]

73. So, when it comes to Social Security

you said "One, we have a chance of stopping". Is that "chance" REALLY good enough for you? Bottom line is, as far as our choices for 2012 they ALL work for the 1%, they ALL suck...and we're ALL fucked....unless of course you are in the 1%.

[DonCoquixote]

83. A chance is all we get sometimes

Which is better than someone in Syria would get. And if you did not take that chance, is taking CERTAIN DOOM all that better? If you were bleeding, would you say "well, dying sucks, but surgery sucks, so I will choose neither?"

[NorthCarolina]

85. To be honest

when it comes to the social safety net and things like Social Security and Medicare, I truly believe it's certain doom either way. It's remarkably sad , and very telling, that Democrats are asked to support a candidate because there is a "chance" that he may change his mind on cutting these vital programs. I garner the greater "chance" is that he will back cuts to these programs after reelection. Frankly, it all makes me sick.

[still_one]

12. There are some we believe he did that as a ploy to demonstrate how anything his administration did

Even if the repukes agreed with, they would reject

I myself don't subscribe to such fantasy, especially on issues as important as Medicare, though it also could be argued that he believed the HCR would bridge the gap if the age for Medicare was increased

[Warren Stupidity]

17. shhh hush dont speak those things

[stockholmer]

40. +1000, as usual, spot on

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Indeed. nt

[Democrat18]

10. Would that be the Ford Field Millions & Millions?

[abelenkpe]

13. Lemme get this straight

Republicans want to end the EPA, the department of education, deport illegal immigrants, slash unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, social security, make abortion illegal, deny same sex couples the right to marry and now raise the eligibility age for Medicare during the worst global economic crisis since the great depression when more people than ever are in need of assistance and looking for work and stability? How do any of these things address the real problem or help the average person? All of these things increase the burden and hardship on already struggling citizens. Sounds like a winning platform no?

[nobodyspecial]

21. Why let a crisis go to waste?

They see this as their time to recapture the world's wealth and make peasants out of the rest of us.

[NBachers]

28. How do they even get one single stinkin' vote?

[Fuddnik]

35. Propaganda, Faux Nooz, and talk radio work.

I was sitting next to such a voting idiot at the bar the other day. "Newt Gingrich is a brilliant man". "Mitt Romney is a self-made millionaire". Blah, blah, blah.......

And he believed every word of his bullshit, and nobody can convince him otherwise.

[Octafish]

45. They cheat.

5-4.
The October Surprise.
Delaying Peace in Vietnam.

They have to, else they'd never win.

[Historic NY]

51. The Republican are beginning to sound like Greeks....

will just cut everything and still make the bastards pay through the nose...with less money.

[jwirr]

14. The result of that would be to push more of those under his age limit into the uninsured group and

the poorest of those onto Medicaid which would just add to that cost. These people need to get real.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. and get them fired too

older workers below medicare are a huge health insurance cost. Those who are eligible are actually a bargain. So you'll get fired (they'll find a way) and you wont have insurance, and your final years of SS payments will be lower, reducing your benefits when they do kick in.

Thanks 1%-ers, you got our backs!

[former9thward]

18. There is nothing at your link about Medicare.

Where are you getting the info?

[dipsydoodle]

22. I've added to note to the OP

AP subsequently retitled their own link. For original now see here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10111733

[nobodyspecial]

20. So when people lose their jobs after 65 and no one will hire them

and no company will insure them, what should they do?

[xxqqqzme]

25. Alan Grayson was

very specific - die!

[sandyj999]

30. The answer is obvious to me..............................nt

[Harry Back]

103. Same thing that people now over 55 losing their jobs do...

Die
file Bankruptcy
skip meds or go off
skip dr. visits
skip surgeries and procedures

pick any or all of the above...and more

Get a job with no benefits, that's possible. At least you have some cash for aspirin.

Companies won't admit they discriminate against people in their 50's,but they do. Exactly for the reason of health benefits and for workman's comp. They don't want us because of workman's comp claims, and they really won't want the over-65 set.

But, I'm sure the GOP will explain to us how it's the Christian thing to do...

[lovuian]

26. well knock Romney out

All 55 year olds better vote against him or look to wait till your 66 or 67

[Smilo]

27. Alan Grayson was right when he

said the repubes answer to health care is "just die".

[sandyj999]

29. And we can all work until we are 90. What an ass. nt

[Crunchy Frog]

33. A good, effective way to get rid of some of the excess population of older people.

The main reason that lifespans have increased so far into the geriatric years is access to improved medical care. Extend to period of time in which some older people can't access medical care, voila! Fewer old people, who really aren't worth anything to the 1%ers anyway.

[Amonester]

48. It's more like another way to lose the election in the GE if he is the nominee.

Demographics ain't in his favor.

Unless they are all unconscious, hypnotized, self-destroying Republics...

[Crunchy Frog]

74. One would certainly hope that's the case. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

72. Also, the longevity benefits are unequally distributed

across the SES spectrum, with the poor and minorities showing few gains. The Dick Cheneys of the world are the ones who are living longer. Now he has a heart you can't even pound a stake through.

People who do a lifetime of hard physical labor tend to use up their bodies by 55 or so. That makes them both more expensive on healthcare and less able to work into advanced ages. They are the ones who will really suffer.

[customerserviceguy]

37. I really don't see any way around that happening

no matter who wins in November, including Congress. Medicare is headed for a demographic disaster, and while simply raising the Medicare tax rate might stave that off, I have little confidence that any Congress is going to have the stomach to raise that tax to an amount sufficient to keep Medicare on an even keel, just from the tax rate increase. I would imagine that some gradual raising of the age to the same one for full Social Security benefits is going to eventually happen as part of the deal.

Now, that being said, I'm for a graduated age of retirement for full SS benefits. Folks who work physically demanding jobs should get it at 65, pencil-pushers like me who sit at a desk should have to wait until 70 to balance it out. The people who practically kill themselves to earn a living should have Medicare AND full Social Security at age 65, with the rest of us put on a sliding scale based on the physical difficulty of our jobs. Workers' comp records would help immensely with that.

[RC]

38. No! the same ages for everyone.

Desk jobs can be physically demanding also. Ever hear of stress?

[customerserviceguy]

46. Oh, yes

My bosses give it to me daily. Yet, I'm not working on a backache from it, unless you count them being a figurative pain in the ass.

I fully acknowledge that not all work treats the human body equally. I figure it will be way easier for me to sit at a desk at 69 than it will for a motel maid to make beds at 64. I don't begrudge her putting her burden down a few years earlier than 67.

[flamingdem]

57. Why would you agree to any of these changes??

All bodies need a rest, and not all of us can do a desk job until 70!!

Talk about carpal tunnel, back stuff, stress!

[Rozlee]

82. Agree. And not to sound sexist, but often, it's harder on women.

Osteoporosis takes a big hit on the aging female population with 89% of women having it by age 75 compared to 3% of men. I see this little old lady at the Walmart in town that's severely humpbacked, pushing out the shopping carts at the store entrance. Three times more women than men have Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis hits more women than men as well, not to mention the dementias. Even at younger ages than 75, women have already started taking hits to their musculo-sketetal and joint system that will affect them adversely for the remainder of their lives. True, most men pre-decease women, but I can't see the elderly working longer with elderly related problems taking their toll such as high blood pressure, diabetes, decreased mental capacity, etc. Physically, at age 72, my husband is in better shape than a man 40 years his junior, having been in the Army most of his life. But, he's been diagnosed with onset Alzheimer's and there's no way he could ever still hold down a job.

[customerserviceguy]

93. At some point there WILL be changes

And it doesn't matter which party holds the White House, or Congress. We're running into a demographic black hole, and the more we screw around, the harder the solutions get. The longer we wait, the more chance that a Rethug president and Congress gets to make pretty much all of those choices.

We can either decide what we can live with, or hold our breath till we turn blue if we don't get everything we want. Change is inevitable in both Medicare and Social Security.

[stockholmer]

41. without single payer, and a removal of the profit motive from healthcare, the US is fucked

There is no way to 'tweak' the numbers, at the current pace of the growth in costs, it will collapse from close to $100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilties. Health care costs, driven by the current bankster-enabled profit matrix, are increasing at a geometric rate, not a linear one.

One example- here in Sweden a year-long dose of the most current 3 drug combo therapy for Hepatitus C costs the government under 10,000 dollars US. It costs the US government over 100,000 dollars for the exact same drug regimen, because your laws (passed with the majority support of BOTH Dems and Repubs) do not allow 'scales of economy' public price bargaining due to Big Pharma's utter owning of your Congress.

BTW, your 'SS graduated age of retirement' scheme would be seized upon by many scum who would turn it into a war against blue collar workers (the white collar would scream bloody murder that the 5 years earlier retirement age is 'unfair' and the manual labourers are 'parasites'). IMHO

cheers

[customerserviceguy]

47. I'd love to hear the wailing of the CEO's

and their white collar cronies who bitch and moan about blue collar workers getting a break. The blue collar folks could work circles around them.

I propose it as part of the solution, only.

[eridani]

58. Bullshit. The problem with Medicare is the same problem with the rest of our

--health care system. No price controls, and no effective regulation. The rest of the developed world takes care of ALL its people for one half the per capita costs that we do.

[woo me with science]

65. Succinct and to the point. Thank you.

So fucking weary of the bullshit.

[customerserviceguy]

91. Don't get me wrong

there's a lot more that's wrong with our health care system than that, but we do have a form of price controls when it comes to Medicare patients. Being as the reimbursement rates are so low, even with the doc fix, doctors can only take just so many Medicare patients. They have to jack up prices on the rest, especially the uninsured, to make up for it.

And in those other countries that have lower costs, do any of them have a tort system constructed like ours, that injects years of uncertainty for recovery, high fees for expert witnesses and attorneys on all sides, and gag orders to protect the guilty? That's a big part of our problem, too.

[eridani]

102. Their tort systems are pretty much like ours, but people don't use it to sue doctors

At least not very often. Why? Because they have health care as a HUMAN RIGHT! People here sue a lot because of unfavorable outcomes, regardless of whether malpractice was involved or not. People in civilized countries usually don't do that because any further heath care costs due to poor outcomes are not imposed on them, but are theirs as a matter of right. Malpractice premiums average about $100/month in the rest of the developed world. In Japan, that also pays their medical society dues which includes their monthly journal.

Cuts in Medicare just fuck over providers. Real cost controls would control the price of all their inputs as well. My husband got an emergency root canal in the Netherlands in 1996 for 100 guilders, or about $25 American. The dentist seemed to be doing OK, with a nice German car in the building's reserved parking place. But besides setting rates for procedures, the government also holds his cost down by controlling the prices of his inputs. Not to mention paying his educational costs from grade school through dental school--no student debt to pay off.

[Crunchy Frog]

75. We should just start digging ditches to throw old geezers into.

If they're so bad off that they can't make it to age 70 without health coverage, then who needs them around anyway? And the ditch digging would provide some employment opportunities for younger, able bodied people.

[customerserviceguy]

92. The kind of jobs

that are the least physically demanding also tend to have the best health care coverage. I'm trying to advocate for the poor schmuck who might have to dig a ditch until he's 67 under currrent law (rather than the 65 years of age that I advocate full benefits for) and you are blasting me for suggesting that CEO's and other pencil pushers can wait until 70?

[Crunchy Frog]

94. I'm blasting you for suggesting that ANYONE in their 60's

should be made to go without health care coverage. It's bad enough as it is, with people not getting it until they turn 65, but forcing them to wait even longer?! As far as I'm concerned, that's flat out advocating murder of older people. And the sorts of conditions people in that age group are vulnerable to do not just strike the physical laborors. Even pencil pushers get cancer, heart disease, type II diabetes, and other such conditions. You want to make a woman wait an extra 5 years to get her breast cancer treated (like she's going to survive 5 years without treatment) just because she works as a "pencil pusher"?

Hey, I'm willing to make exceptions for CEO's who are worth hundreds of millions or billions (They could buy their own hospital if they wanted to), but ordinary pencil pushers? I'm not going to shove them into the same category and off the fucking cliff. Sorry.

And the ditch digging jobs could be reserved for young people. It could reduce the youth unemployment figures.

[customerserviceguy]

96. I'm for single payer

so I'm not into denying anyone healthcare. But as a practical matter, if we couldn't get that during the first half of Barack Obama's first term, we're not terribly likely to get it, unless the country suddenly comes to its senses this year, or in 2014.

All I'm saying is that we face an age of shortages, and we simply cannot expect the major entitlement programs to keep going as they are going, as my generation crashes on to the shores of retirement age. We can shape those changes with what we can live with, or we can go into denial mode and be excluded from the eventual results.

Of course, I don't expect someone to wait an additional five years for cancer treatment. I expect the person who is employed to have it covered fully by health insurance, with Medicaid for the unemployed, and Medicare for those who have worked physically difficult jobs. Where would you get that from?

[yurbud]

42. my first response: is he TRYING to lose? second response: voters aren't the target audience.

He's appealing to the assholes in the financial sector.

[Sherman A1]

61. Response to your first question is

Yes

[southernyankeebelle]

44. I'm shocked the way they just pass this suggestion as no big deal. Tell that to my

daugther-in-law's grandmother who worked hard all her life and is just trying to hold on so she can use Medicare to get serious medical attention for a heart condition. She lives on social security and is barely making it. She becomes eligable in May but she already got all her paper work done and her cards. Goodness these damn people have no heart. People go to work all their lives and this is the thanks they get. We should treat our elderly better then this. Family are struggling just to make it from payday to payday and they jsut can't take the burden of their parents too. The elderly don't want to depend on their children either. There is a better way.

[Amonester]

49. Oh please, make Rmoney the Republics

nominee!

Say buh-bye to Florida, mittens.

[UCmeNdc]

54. Romney's statement is made to get more Supper PAC money

This is Romney's application for more Super PAC money from his rich backers. Romney is telling them if you give me more money I will bust the Unions, Tax the middle class, cut Social Security, end Medicare as you know it, etc. Mitt just needs to make the rich guys feel secure and they are not wasting their money on him.

[davidpdx]

56. I'm really worried for my mom

She's turning 64 this year and is hoping to be able to retire (or semi-retire) by the time she is 67 or 68.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

59. If he cut the war budget......

he just attacks the poorer

[Rosa Luxemburg]

60. Romney can't connect with real people

[yurbud]

79. fits my Conehead theory: he's really Beldar from Remulak

the Frankenstein forehead is a prosthetic to cover the cone.

[Major Hogwash]

81. ^Post of the day^ Not only highly accurate, but goes right to the root of Mitt's problem.

Romney has been wealthy for so long that he is living in an isolated bubble of money.
He doesn't know how to write a budget for the United States because he doesn't have a budget for his own family!

He doesn't have to work out the details if he can afford a new car in the next 3 years, or a new flat screen tv in the next 2 years, or even pay for all of the groceries his family will eat this year!
Romney's comments the other day about his wife owning 2 Cadillacs show just how disaffected he is from the common, ordinary person's life in America.
Not only did he brag about his wife owning 2 automobiles, but they are both expensive Cadillacs!

Who does that kind of thing when they are running for the office of President??

In 1992 a reporter asked George H. W. Bush how much a gallon of milk cost during one of the debates he had with Clinton. And Bush was so out of touch with the common, ordinary every-day purchasing decisions of most Americans, he had no clue.
He didn't have to pinch pennies since he was born wealthy and he had no idea how hard it was to get by in those days for the rest of us, the 99% that weren't big shot Texas oil millionaires.

Romney won't need Social Security to get by, so he doesn't give a good gawd damn about anyone else planning on having to rely on it when they retire.
Hell, Romney doesn't work today, so he doesn't even know what work is, not really. If he retired this summer, he wouldn't need Soical Security, Medicare, or any other government program to help him meet his needs.
He has Ayn Rand syndrome -- "I got mine, now you get yours."
He couldn't care less how anyone else lives.
Poverty to him is a news story that he watched on tv once.
The poverty level is for non-Mormons, non-whites, and non-Republicans.

Some forum members are complaining about bigotry at the DU, but that's real bigotry when you get right down to it.

"You're not a member of my political party, you're not a member of my race, and you're not a member of my church, so I don't care about you.

Vote for me, anyway."

Fat chance!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

101. and he is an empty suit

[JJW]

63. Obama plans to do the same as Romney

by Nov these two will be twins with the only differences between them being skin color and singing voice. Our election have turned into a popularity contest for imbeciles.

Sad how so forget Obama's cat food commission.

I'm not defending Romney, rather pointing out the clowns from both parties work for the same top 1/10 of 1 percenters. I'm just saying neither will serve the interests of the peasant class, consumer drones, and part time poverty wage earners.

[Faryn Balyncd]

66. In the case of SS, it amounts to the continued theft of FUNDED SS benefits to make Middle Class....

...pay for the general fund deficits caused by giving the 1% a historically unprecedented low income tax rates, combined with high military spending, and continued misuse of the SS Trust Fund (the single biggest lender to the general Treasury fund) to fund the difference,

While Romney says he's making "adjustments to curtail the growth of future benefits for the relatively well-to-do", that is Romney-speak for cutting the SS benefits for the Middle Class Americans who have consistently paid the HIGHEST combined federal tax rates..... so that the really wealthy - the 1% - can continue to benefit from unsustainable, historically low income tax rates.

This is a BIG deal, no matter who does it.

If we don't raise holy hell about it now, we are complicit.




http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002352188

[JJW]

69. In the case of the Obama administration....

they changed the inflation index so that it doesn't reflect to real price increases the elderly see in their every day expenses. Plus they increased fees, co-pays, etc. My 80 yr old mother is really worse under Obama than under Bush....simply amazing and sad, but this is what happens when you sell your soul to Wall Street criminals which both parties have done.

So it seems the Dems will yell and holler if Bush tried to hurt the edlerly but when Mr O does it, both parties are quiet as the rodents that they are.

[Faryn Balyncd]

76. You are correct......and it appears many areresigned to letting this get even worse.

[L. Coyote]

80. So nice of the Republicans to just concede 2012!

Social security is insurance that people have paid for under an agreement with specific expectations. You don't change the rules AFTER you take their hard earned money!

[clangsnwhoops]

87. Non-Republican voters\

Are the primaries open to non-Republicans? We need the Daily Kos' idea to take hold. Let's vote for anyone but Romney to prevent him from winning early. Let's hope for a brokered convention.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

88. Here's a better idea Mitt.

Pay your fair share of taxes.

[lib2DaBone]

89. Oh Shit.. we'll be on our aluminum walkers at Wal-Marts Front Door.

There are not enough jobs for young people.. yet the Republican pricks want to work Senior Citizens another 10 years.

C'mon folks.. enough already....

When do we get to sit down... 70 years old.. 80 years old? I know.. the Republican Pricks hope you die off before you have a chance to collect all the money you paid in your entire life. Money they have have SQUANDERED on useless Republican Bullshit...

jmho

[unkachuck]

95. "...to gradually delay Americans' eligibility for Medicare as well as Social Security."

....I'm so disappointed with slick-willard, the rich wall-street Mormon....I thought he was a compassionate conservative, not a Scrooge....

[Yooperman]

100. My God ....

Why not just get rid of it completely then? I already have family members that can't retire because they don't have insurance as part of their company retirement plans.

I have personally worked with people that the only reason they were working was because their spouse wasn't old enough for medicare forcing the husband to keep working to provide her with insurance. He was 68 or 69 ... could have retired 4 or 5 years earlier and allowed for a younger person who needed a job to have one.

As for SS... there wouldn't be a problem had all the funds allocated for SS been used for SS benefits only! But it has been raided several times putting it at risk.

YM