If they keep tax cuts for the rich and raise the retirement age, what does it mean?

[garybeck]

I was just reading that the deficit commission made a recommendation to raise the retirement age and keep the tax cuts, even for the rich. I realize this is just a recommendation. But what if this actually happens? Is it actually possible, with a Democratic President and Senate?

When I read the article, I almost laughed, not only at the absurdity of such a recommendation -- a commission that is supposed to help reduce the deficit is actually recommending lower taxes on the rich that would cost $60 billion??? But what also made me laugh was the silly thought that it could actually happen with a Democratic President and Senate. Surely that's not possible, right?

But with the news today about Obama caving in and agreeing to extend the tax cuts to the rich, I have to wonder. Was my laughter premature? It seems half of this laughable scenario is happening right before my eyes. This in itself is very disappointing to me.

Now if the other half materializes, to me this would be a blatantly obvious slap in the face for regular working people and a big pat on the back for rich folks. Something I'd expect from Republicans. But with the Democrats controlling the Presidency and the Senate, it's not anything I'd even fathom to be possible. And I'm not sure what I would do.

[somone]

1. They're condemning the working class to lifetime servitude

People will have to work like slaves everyday until they die

[Individualist]

2. Exactly.

[onehandle]

3. Ayn Rand's wildest wet dream. nt

[w8liftinglady]

18. man...you are so right.

"Objectivism holds that the only social system which fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism,<84> specifically what Rand described as "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism."<85> Rand includes socialism,<86> fascism, communism,<87> Nazism,<88> and the welfare state (which she often referred to as the "mixed economy"),<89> as systems under which individual rights are not protected. Far from regarding capitalism as a dog-eat-dog pattern of social organization, Objectivism regards it as a beneficent system in which the innovations of the most creative benefit everyone else in the society. "

[glitch]

4. DLC

It'll help the cognitive dissonance if you stop thinking of them as traditional Democrats.

[nichomachus]

5. It means many people will work until they drop dead

Anyone who is in favor of raising the retirement age has never done an honest day's hard work in his/her life.

I'm 68 and in pretty good health. I couldn't dig ditches eight hours a day. I couldn't spend nine hours a day on my feet in a restaurant slinging hash.

There may be some people who are up to that, but most aren't.

[old mark]

6. It means "our" government is saying "Fuck You" to everyone who works

for a living...


mark

[jtown1123]

7. There's already a big blow to SS in this compromise in the payroll tax holiday nonsense

That will de-fund Social Security leading to a downward spiral of cuts.

[hobbit709]

8. U R Screwed!

and they want you to supply the Vaseline too.

[gratuitous]

9. Of course it's going to materialize

Not only are they going to raise the retirement age, but in the Holy Name of Fiscal Responsibility, they're going to cut social security benefits for future retirees. After all, the "bipartisan" Deficit Reduction Commission recommended it (well, not really, as a final report was never officially ratified or issued), and if millionaires on both sides of the political aisle agree to it, then it must happen.

In fact, this is just another step along the way. Next, we'll be talking about means testing for social security, proposing a cut in benefits for the wealthy. This wil pave the way to talk about social security as a "welfare" program for a bunch of lazy, greedy old folks who weren't smart enough or rich enough to be investment bankers or something similarly lucrative like trust fund baby. And so, in the name of fiscal responsibility, we need to cut off the dangling oldsters who are holding the United States back from the greater glory it could be achieving. What happens to those people is not the concern of the affluent.

[blindpig]

14. Well then, what are we going to do about it?

Are we going to accept our fate and hope it doesn't get worse?

I'm ready to rock and roll.

[gratuitous]

19. First, it becomes necessary to get people to trust their own eyes

But we're fighting an uphill preliminary battle in which people look at one half-way decent aspect of a horrific occurrence ("unemployment benefits were extended for some" or "Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq"), and pretend that that narrow achievement was totally worth the losses sustained because of it.

[blindpig]

21. I'm not sure that's as much of a problem as it was.

Given recent developments and the coming abuse of Social Security the scales are falling from eyes like a blizzard. I think it will be a matter of organization, of which there is presently none. If membership can re-establish control of their unions that would go a long way in providing organization. Or maybe new unions, who knows, as we can see change can come quickly. Interesting times, ready or not.

[gratuitous]

22. There are a lot of low information people running around

And a lot of folks right here at DU who are totally convinced that this is the best possible outcome that could have been achieved, and couldn't be any better. For proof, they point to how happy the Republican caucus is, Obama's approval ratings, and the giddiness of the millionaire reporters.

It's kind of silly, given other polling that shows a majority of folks would have given back their tax cuts in order to raise taxes on the wealthy, too. A lot of people seem to understand the purpose of taxes, but we're in thrall to the anti-tax yammerers who think that running a country is best done for nothing, their political hacks in high office, and the amplified outsize voices of the affluent chattering class, who seem loath to part with even one more nickel of their income.

[blindpig]

23. Not to worry

The cumulative effect will inform many of those in their wallets, in their inability to retire, in the lack of jobs. That is a message that trumps any talking head.

What percentage of the populace supported the American Revolution?

[ladjf]

10. Is there any limit to how much terrible crap can be heaped upon

America's people before they wake up and start voting for someone who will help them?

[garybeck]

16. What happens when you vote for someone you think will help you and they

squash you anyway?

[cap]

11. Walmart greeting jobs for those laid off after age 50

no age discrimination protection.

[Dinger]

12. Can't Say

I want to stay a DUer.

[garybeck]

17. I hear ya. And I'm with ya. n/t

[AngryOldDem]

13. Short answer: You work till you die.

[JackintheGreen]

15. I just hope its the rich fucker

who finds me after I drop dead at 74 scrubbing his toilet. And I hope my bowels EXPLODE.

[Moondog]

20. There's a word for it - it's called "peonage".