|
|
On August 21 2012 04:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 04:31 Souma wrote:
Oh wait, I thought it was conservatives who wanted to use public power to force "good" action, (i.e., abortion, capital punishment, creationism, not supporting the legalization of marijuana or assisted suicide/euthanasia, tough-on-crime conservatism).
Leftists do not want to use public power to force "good" action on the public, they want to use public power to help the public by regulating the private. It's about time you understand that distinction. As to your first point, yes... Conservatives have a tendency to stifle civil or social rights and liberals have a tendency to stifle economic rights. Whether you go extreme right into fascism or extreme left into communism you end up with totalitarianism either way, which is why people believe in a limited moderate government. Your second point is just semantics... You can call welfare "help" or you can call it "forced charity" it doesn't really change anything because it's just spin.
Stifle civil or social rights? Let's be clear... I don't think abortion or gay marriage is something you can lump in with things like slavery *cough democrats*, citizenship, or voting rights. Even our constitution considers them to be distinctly different rights.
To say that conservatives "stifle" those "rights" makes the assumption that someone is entitled to them in the first place. I don't share the views of most in my party on those points, but I feel your argument is coming at the issue from an extremely biased position that assumes righteousness.
|
On August 21 2012 04:25 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 04:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 21 2012 03:52 screamingpalm wrote:On August 20 2012 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:
He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist. That isn't fundamentally leftist, that's fundamentally totalitarian. What's the difference?  LOL that does seem to be the popular view in America.
Well it's popular because it hits at the root of the problem: what is government's role in society?
"The Right" argues that it's merely to keep order and provide security to permit freedom.
"The Left" argues that it's to create as close to perfect equality in all aspects of life as possible while maintaining a functioning society.
From the perspective of the right, leftist = a degree of totalitarianism, as it goes beyond what government's role in society ought to be.
|
On August 21 2012 09:53 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 04:25 screamingpalm wrote:On August 21 2012 04:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 21 2012 03:52 screamingpalm wrote:On August 20 2012 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:
He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist. That isn't fundamentally leftist, that's fundamentally totalitarian. What's the difference? LOL that does seem to be the popular view in America. Well it's popular because it hits at the root of the problem: what is government's role in society? "The Right" argues that it's merely to keep order and provide security to permit freedom. "The Left" argues that it's to create as close to perfect equality in all aspects of life as possible while maintaining a functioning society. From the perspective of the right, leftist = a degree of totalitarianism, as it goes beyond what government's role in society ought to be.
the right seems to forget that humans are inherently greedy
|
On August 21 2012 09:56 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 09:53 BluePanther wrote:On August 21 2012 04:25 screamingpalm wrote:On August 21 2012 04:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 21 2012 03:52 screamingpalm wrote:On August 20 2012 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:
He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist. That isn't fundamentally leftist, that's fundamentally totalitarian. What's the difference? LOL that does seem to be the popular view in America. Well it's popular because it hits at the root of the problem: what is government's role in society? "The Right" argues that it's merely to keep order and provide security to permit freedom. "The Left" argues that it's to create as close to perfect equality in all aspects of life as possible while maintaining a functioning society. From the perspective of the right, leftist = a degree of totalitarianism, as it goes beyond what government's role in society ought to be. the right seems to forget that humans are inherently greedy
How so? I tend to see that as a problem of the left. All that "live in harmony" and "peace forever" bullshit you hear and such...
|
On August 21 2012 09:53 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 04:25 screamingpalm wrote:On August 21 2012 04:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 21 2012 03:52 screamingpalm wrote:On August 20 2012 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:
He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist. That isn't fundamentally leftist, that's fundamentally totalitarian. What's the difference? LOL that does seem to be the popular view in America. Well it's popular because it hits at the root of the problem: what is government's role in society? "The Right" argues that it's merely to keep order and provide security to permit freedom. "The Left" argues that it's to create as close to perfect equality in all aspects of life as possible while maintaining a functioning society. From the perspective of the right, leftist = a degree of totalitarianism, as it goes beyond what government's role in society ought to be. Don't forget that the right also believes the government should enforce particular social norms.
|
On August 21 2012 09:58 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 09:56 darthfoley wrote:On August 21 2012 09:53 BluePanther wrote:On August 21 2012 04:25 screamingpalm wrote:On August 21 2012 04:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 21 2012 03:52 screamingpalm wrote:On August 20 2012 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:
He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist. That isn't fundamentally leftist, that's fundamentally totalitarian. What's the difference? LOL that does seem to be the popular view in America. Well it's popular because it hits at the root of the problem: what is government's role in society? "The Right" argues that it's merely to keep order and provide security to permit freedom. "The Left" argues that it's to create as close to perfect equality in all aspects of life as possible while maintaining a functioning society. From the perspective of the right, leftist = a degree of totalitarianism, as it goes beyond what government's role in society ought to be. the right seems to forget that humans are inherently greedy How so? I tend to see that as a problem of the left. All that "live in harmony" and "peace forever" bullshit you hear and such...
no one except idiots believes in utopia, but without any regulation, the private sector would exploit employees, and many other examples.
|
On August 21 2012 09:53 BluePanther wrote:
From the perspective of the right, leftist = a degree of totalitarianism, as it goes beyond what government's role in society ought to be.
That's why I rarely accept those labels, because most certainly the inverse of that statement can just as easily be said. It only depends on a social vrs fiscal PoV. Moderates try to take a moral high ground on this, but they are often just as bad as anyone else- and a big reason of many of our current problems (Blue dog deregulating Clintonites, for example). Conservatives always complain about "size" of government, but that is missing the forest for the trees when politicians such as Cheyney made a carreer out of expanding the powers of the Executive (of course, Obama has done some of the same). A "smaller" more concentrated form of government is not necessarily better, although totalitarianism is quite efficient.
|
On August 21 2012 10:03 Jumbled wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 09:53 BluePanther wrote:On August 21 2012 04:25 screamingpalm wrote:On August 21 2012 04:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 21 2012 03:52 screamingpalm wrote:On August 20 2012 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:
He wants to use public power to force "good" actions or behavior. This is fundamentally leftist. That isn't fundamentally leftist, that's fundamentally totalitarian. What's the difference? LOL that does seem to be the popular view in America. Well it's popular because it hits at the root of the problem: what is government's role in society? "The Right" argues that it's merely to keep order and provide security to permit freedom. "The Left" argues that it's to create as close to perfect equality in all aspects of life as possible while maintaining a functioning society. From the perspective of the right, leftist = a degree of totalitarianism, as it goes beyond what government's role in society ought to be. Don't forget that the right also believes the government should enforce particular social norms.
My point is that they both do.
|
Here's a good article from The Weekly Standard about why republicans like the Medicare debate that goes into considerable detail about the lay of the battlefield. Here's the most interesting part:
Meanwhile, in the race to fill an open seat in Nevada’s second congressional district in September 2011, Republicans had a perfect test case for their Medicare argument. Democrat Kate Marshall attacked Republican Mark Amodei for his support of the Ryan reforms, and Amodei answered with a series of ads pressing home two points that Republican polling had discovered to be powerfully effective: The Republican proposal would never affect any current seniors, and the Democrats had actually cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Amodei not only won the election, he won the senior vote comfortably and was deemed a more reliable protector of Medicare than Marshall in the final pre-election polls. His standing on Medicare was better after the campaign than it had been before his opponent ever told voters about the Ryan plan in the first place.
Source.
|
From the Politico:
President Barack Obama’s campaign team, celebrated four years ago for its exceptional cohesion and eyes-on-the-prize strategic focus, has been shadowed this time by a succession of political disagreements and personal rivalries that haunted the effort at the outset.
Second-guessing about personnel, strategy and tactics has been a dominant theme of the reelection effort, according to numerous current and former Obama advisers who were interviewed for “Obama’s Last Stand,” an e-book out Monday published in a collaboration between POLITICO and Random House.
The discord, these sources said, has on occasion flowed from Obama himself, who at repeated turns has made vocal his dissatisfaction with decisions made by his campaign team, with its messaging, with Vice President Joe Biden and with what Obama feared was clumsy coordination between his West Wing and reelection headquarters in Chicago.
The effort in Chicago, meanwhile, has been bedeviled by some of the drama Obama so deftly dodged in 2008 — including, at a critical point earlier this year, a spat that left senior operatives David Axelrod and Stephanie Cutter barely on speaking terms — and growing doubts about the effectiveness of Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Source.
None of this is particularly surprising to me given the general lack of focus of the Obama campaign on anything other than Romney's tax returns. What does surprise me, however, is that it has taken democrats this long to figure out that Wasserman-Schultz is an idiot. Some of the people that Obama has surrounded himself with are shockingly inept -- his press secretaries more than anyone else. I still don't understand why Obama didn't replace Gibbs with Bill Burton. That guy was excellent whenever he filled in for Gibbs.
|
On August 21 2012 10:10 xDaunt wrote:Here's a good article from The Weekly Standard about why republicans like the Medicare debate that goes into considerable detail about the lay of the battlefield. Here's the most interesting part: Show nested quote +Meanwhile, in the race to fill an open seat in Nevada’s second congressional district in September 2011, Republicans had a perfect test case for their Medicare argument. Democrat Kate Marshall attacked Republican Mark Amodei for his support of the Ryan reforms, and Amodei answered with a series of ads pressing home two points that Republican polling had discovered to be powerfully effective: The Republican proposal would never affect any current seniors, and the Democrats had actually cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Amodei not only won the election, he won the senior vote comfortably and was deemed a more reliable protector of Medicare than Marshall in the final pre-election polls. His standing on Medicare was better after the campaign than it had been before his opponent ever told voters about the Ryan plan in the first place. Source.
While I understand the strategic aspects of this proposal for the Republican Party, it really infuriates me. So basically senior citizens believe my generation should pay the payroll tax while we work but then not have those programs around anymore when we retire. The honorable thing to do would be to start the cuts with themselves, not their kids/grandkids. Raise the retirement age to 70 for us or something but don't make us pay for the program then never have that part of the safety net there when we might need it.
|
On August 21 2012 10:20 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:10 xDaunt wrote:Here's a good article from The Weekly Standard about why republicans like the Medicare debate that goes into considerable detail about the lay of the battlefield. Here's the most interesting part: Meanwhile, in the race to fill an open seat in Nevada’s second congressional district in September 2011, Republicans had a perfect test case for their Medicare argument. Democrat Kate Marshall attacked Republican Mark Amodei for his support of the Ryan reforms, and Amodei answered with a series of ads pressing home two points that Republican polling had discovered to be powerfully effective: The Republican proposal would never affect any current seniors, and the Democrats had actually cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Amodei not only won the election, he won the senior vote comfortably and was deemed a more reliable protector of Medicare than Marshall in the final pre-election polls. His standing on Medicare was better after the campaign than it had been before his opponent ever told voters about the Ryan plan in the first place. Source. While I understand the strategic aspects of this proposal for the Republican Party, it really infuriates me. So basically senior citizens believe my generation should pay the payroll tax while we work but then not have those programs around anymore when we retire. The honorable thing to do would be to start the cuts with themselves, not their kids/grandkids. Raise the retirement age to 70 for us or something but don't make us pay for the program then never have that part of the safety net there when we might need it.
I agree with you. I have no problem with rolling granny right off the cliff. It's their generation that hosed us anyway.
|
On August 21 2012 10:20 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:10 xDaunt wrote:Here's a good article from The Weekly Standard about why republicans like the Medicare debate that goes into considerable detail about the lay of the battlefield. Here's the most interesting part: Meanwhile, in the race to fill an open seat in Nevada’s second congressional district in September 2011, Republicans had a perfect test case for their Medicare argument. Democrat Kate Marshall attacked Republican Mark Amodei for his support of the Ryan reforms, and Amodei answered with a series of ads pressing home two points that Republican polling had discovered to be powerfully effective: The Republican proposal would never affect any current seniors, and the Democrats had actually cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Amodei not only won the election, he won the senior vote comfortably and was deemed a more reliable protector of Medicare than Marshall in the final pre-election polls. His standing on Medicare was better after the campaign than it had been before his opponent ever told voters about the Ryan plan in the first place. Source. While I understand the strategic aspects of this proposal for the Republican Party, it really infuriates me. So basically senior citizens believe my generation should pay the payroll tax while we work but then not have those programs around anymore when we retire. The honorable thing to do would be to start the cuts with themselves, not their kids/grandkids. Raise the retirement age to 70 for us or something but don't make us pay for the program then never have that part of the safety net there when we might need it.
You can't just cut/reform programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. There are quite a few people who have planned for decades on having those benefits in place. To change them suddenly would be catastrophic for possibly hundreds of thousands of people.
|
On August 21 2012 10:26 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:20 Signet wrote:On August 21 2012 10:10 xDaunt wrote:Here's a good article from The Weekly Standard about why republicans like the Medicare debate that goes into considerable detail about the lay of the battlefield. Here's the most interesting part: Meanwhile, in the race to fill an open seat in Nevada’s second congressional district in September 2011, Republicans had a perfect test case for their Medicare argument. Democrat Kate Marshall attacked Republican Mark Amodei for his support of the Ryan reforms, and Amodei answered with a series of ads pressing home two points that Republican polling had discovered to be powerfully effective: The Republican proposal would never affect any current seniors, and the Democrats had actually cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Amodei not only won the election, he won the senior vote comfortably and was deemed a more reliable protector of Medicare than Marshall in the final pre-election polls. His standing on Medicare was better after the campaign than it had been before his opponent ever told voters about the Ryan plan in the first place. Source. While I understand the strategic aspects of this proposal for the Republican Party, it really infuriates me. So basically senior citizens believe my generation should pay the payroll tax while we work but then not have those programs around anymore when we retire. The honorable thing to do would be to start the cuts with themselves, not their kids/grandkids. Raise the retirement age to 70 for us or something but don't make us pay for the program then never have that part of the safety net there when we might need it. You can't just cut/reform programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. There are quite a few people who have planned for decades on having those benefits in place. To change them suddenly would be catastrophic for possibly hundreds of thousands of people.
I'm totally fine with phasing the changes in. But, if I'm understanding the proposal correctly, it's basically no changes for anyone currently 55 and older, then the rest of us are all expected to have private plans -- while still paying for SS for the older people. Kinda sucks...
|
On August 21 2012 10:53 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:26 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 10:20 Signet wrote:On August 21 2012 10:10 xDaunt wrote:Here's a good article from The Weekly Standard about why republicans like the Medicare debate that goes into considerable detail about the lay of the battlefield. Here's the most interesting part: Meanwhile, in the race to fill an open seat in Nevada’s second congressional district in September 2011, Republicans had a perfect test case for their Medicare argument. Democrat Kate Marshall attacked Republican Mark Amodei for his support of the Ryan reforms, and Amodei answered with a series of ads pressing home two points that Republican polling had discovered to be powerfully effective: The Republican proposal would never affect any current seniors, and the Democrats had actually cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Amodei not only won the election, he won the senior vote comfortably and was deemed a more reliable protector of Medicare than Marshall in the final pre-election polls. His standing on Medicare was better after the campaign than it had been before his opponent ever told voters about the Ryan plan in the first place. Source. While I understand the strategic aspects of this proposal for the Republican Party, it really infuriates me. So basically senior citizens believe my generation should pay the payroll tax while we work but then not have those programs around anymore when we retire. The honorable thing to do would be to start the cuts with themselves, not their kids/grandkids. Raise the retirement age to 70 for us or something but don't make us pay for the program then never have that part of the safety net there when we might need it. You can't just cut/reform programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. There are quite a few people who have planned for decades on having those benefits in place. To change them suddenly would be catastrophic for possibly hundreds of thousands of people. I'm totally fine with phasing the changes in. But, if I'm understanding the proposal correctly, it's basically no changes for anyone currently 55 and older, then the rest of us are all expected to have private plans -- while still paying for SS for the older people. Kinda sucks...
pretty much, yep. you have a better idea?
|
On August 21 2012 11:01 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:53 Signet wrote:On August 21 2012 10:26 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 10:20 Signet wrote:On August 21 2012 10:10 xDaunt wrote:Here's a good article from The Weekly Standard about why republicans like the Medicare debate that goes into considerable detail about the lay of the battlefield. Here's the most interesting part: Meanwhile, in the race to fill an open seat in Nevada’s second congressional district in September 2011, Republicans had a perfect test case for their Medicare argument. Democrat Kate Marshall attacked Republican Mark Amodei for his support of the Ryan reforms, and Amodei answered with a series of ads pressing home two points that Republican polling had discovered to be powerfully effective: The Republican proposal would never affect any current seniors, and the Democrats had actually cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Amodei not only won the election, he won the senior vote comfortably and was deemed a more reliable protector of Medicare than Marshall in the final pre-election polls. His standing on Medicare was better after the campaign than it had been before his opponent ever told voters about the Ryan plan in the first place. Source. While I understand the strategic aspects of this proposal for the Republican Party, it really infuriates me. So basically senior citizens believe my generation should pay the payroll tax while we work but then not have those programs around anymore when we retire. The honorable thing to do would be to start the cuts with themselves, not their kids/grandkids. Raise the retirement age to 70 for us or something but don't make us pay for the program then never have that part of the safety net there when we might need it. You can't just cut/reform programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. There are quite a few people who have planned for decades on having those benefits in place. To change them suddenly would be catastrophic for possibly hundreds of thousands of people. I'm totally fine with phasing the changes in. But, if I'm understanding the proposal correctly, it's basically no changes for anyone currently 55 and older, then the rest of us are all expected to have private plans -- while still paying for SS for the older people. Kinda sucks... pretty much, yep. you have a better idea?
Screw everyone instead of only screwing some people?
|
On August 21 2012 11:01 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:53 Signet wrote:On August 21 2012 10:26 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 10:20 Signet wrote:On August 21 2012 10:10 xDaunt wrote:Here's a good article from The Weekly Standard about why republicans like the Medicare debate that goes into considerable detail about the lay of the battlefield. Here's the most interesting part: Meanwhile, in the race to fill an open seat in Nevada’s second congressional district in September 2011, Republicans had a perfect test case for their Medicare argument. Democrat Kate Marshall attacked Republican Mark Amodei for his support of the Ryan reforms, and Amodei answered with a series of ads pressing home two points that Republican polling had discovered to be powerfully effective: The Republican proposal would never affect any current seniors, and the Democrats had actually cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Amodei not only won the election, he won the senior vote comfortably and was deemed a more reliable protector of Medicare than Marshall in the final pre-election polls. His standing on Medicare was better after the campaign than it had been before his opponent ever told voters about the Ryan plan in the first place. Source. While I understand the strategic aspects of this proposal for the Republican Party, it really infuriates me. So basically senior citizens believe my generation should pay the payroll tax while we work but then not have those programs around anymore when we retire. The honorable thing to do would be to start the cuts with themselves, not their kids/grandkids. Raise the retirement age to 70 for us or something but don't make us pay for the program then never have that part of the safety net there when we might need it. You can't just cut/reform programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. There are quite a few people who have planned for decades on having those benefits in place. To change them suddenly would be catastrophic for possibly hundreds of thousands of people. I'm totally fine with phasing the changes in. But, if I'm understanding the proposal correctly, it's basically no changes for anyone currently 55 and older, then the rest of us are all expected to have private plans -- while still paying for SS for the older people. Kinda sucks... pretty much, yep. you have a better idea?
Phase in an increase in retirement age 10 years from now that goes to 67 or 70. In the meantime, raise/remove the cap on wages subject to FICA, and make investment income subject to FICA as well. Phase out that portion as the retirement age increases.
|
On August 21 2012 11:01 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:53 Signet wrote:On August 21 2012 10:26 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 10:20 Signet wrote:On August 21 2012 10:10 xDaunt wrote:Here's a good article from The Weekly Standard about why republicans like the Medicare debate that goes into considerable detail about the lay of the battlefield. Here's the most interesting part: Meanwhile, in the race to fill an open seat in Nevada’s second congressional district in September 2011, Republicans had a perfect test case for their Medicare argument. Democrat Kate Marshall attacked Republican Mark Amodei for his support of the Ryan reforms, and Amodei answered with a series of ads pressing home two points that Republican polling had discovered to be powerfully effective: The Republican proposal would never affect any current seniors, and the Democrats had actually cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Amodei not only won the election, he won the senior vote comfortably and was deemed a more reliable protector of Medicare than Marshall in the final pre-election polls. His standing on Medicare was better after the campaign than it had been before his opponent ever told voters about the Ryan plan in the first place. Source. While I understand the strategic aspects of this proposal for the Republican Party, it really infuriates me. So basically senior citizens believe my generation should pay the payroll tax while we work but then not have those programs around anymore when we retire. The honorable thing to do would be to start the cuts with themselves, not their kids/grandkids. Raise the retirement age to 70 for us or something but don't make us pay for the program then never have that part of the safety net there when we might need it. You can't just cut/reform programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. There are quite a few people who have planned for decades on having those benefits in place. To change them suddenly would be catastrophic for possibly hundreds of thousands of people. I'm totally fine with phasing the changes in. But, if I'm understanding the proposal correctly, it's basically no changes for anyone currently 55 and older, then the rest of us are all expected to have private plans -- while still paying for SS for the older people. Kinda sucks... pretty much, yep. you have a better idea?
Either phase in an increase in the retirement age + reduction in benefits until the program is solvent, or replace the age qualification with an income qualification (ie, put seniors who didn't save enough for retirement on the same sort of welfare everyone else is on).
http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/23/generational-warfare
And yes, I feel like since it will mostly be seniors who are voting for the politicians who want to make these changes to the system, it would be honorable for them to take at least part of the pain that they're voting on the rest of us.
|
On August 21 2012 10:53 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 10:26 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 10:20 Signet wrote:On August 21 2012 10:10 xDaunt wrote:Here's a good article from The Weekly Standard about why republicans like the Medicare debate that goes into considerable detail about the lay of the battlefield. Here's the most interesting part: Meanwhile, in the race to fill an open seat in Nevada’s second congressional district in September 2011, Republicans had a perfect test case for their Medicare argument. Democrat Kate Marshall attacked Republican Mark Amodei for his support of the Ryan reforms, and Amodei answered with a series of ads pressing home two points that Republican polling had discovered to be powerfully effective: The Republican proposal would never affect any current seniors, and the Democrats had actually cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Amodei not only won the election, he won the senior vote comfortably and was deemed a more reliable protector of Medicare than Marshall in the final pre-election polls. His standing on Medicare was better after the campaign than it had been before his opponent ever told voters about the Ryan plan in the first place. Source. While I understand the strategic aspects of this proposal for the Republican Party, it really infuriates me. So basically senior citizens believe my generation should pay the payroll tax while we work but then not have those programs around anymore when we retire. The honorable thing to do would be to start the cuts with themselves, not their kids/grandkids. Raise the retirement age to 70 for us or something but don't make us pay for the program then never have that part of the safety net there when we might need it. You can't just cut/reform programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. There are quite a few people who have planned for decades on having those benefits in place. To change them suddenly would be catastrophic for possibly hundreds of thousands of people. I'm totally fine with phasing the changes in. But, if I'm understanding the proposal correctly, it's basically no changes for anyone currently 55 and older, then the rest of us are all expected to have private plans -- while still paying for SS for the older people. Kinda sucks...
If we don't, then with the projected collapse of those entitlement programs we'd be expected to have private plans anyway.
It sucks, but the boomers mortgaged our futures a long time ago. Short of mobilizing enough of the vote to justifiably screw them back, there's nothing we can do about that now except try and live with it the best we can.
|
On August 21 2012 11:04 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 11:01 BluePanther wrote:On August 21 2012 10:53 Signet wrote:On August 21 2012 10:26 aksfjh wrote:On August 21 2012 10:20 Signet wrote:On August 21 2012 10:10 xDaunt wrote:Here's a good article from The Weekly Standard about why republicans like the Medicare debate that goes into considerable detail about the lay of the battlefield. Here's the most interesting part: Meanwhile, in the race to fill an open seat in Nevada’s second congressional district in September 2011, Republicans had a perfect test case for their Medicare argument. Democrat Kate Marshall attacked Republican Mark Amodei for his support of the Ryan reforms, and Amodei answered with a series of ads pressing home two points that Republican polling had discovered to be powerfully effective: The Republican proposal would never affect any current seniors, and the Democrats had actually cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. Amodei not only won the election, he won the senior vote comfortably and was deemed a more reliable protector of Medicare than Marshall in the final pre-election polls. His standing on Medicare was better after the campaign than it had been before his opponent ever told voters about the Ryan plan in the first place. Source. While I understand the strategic aspects of this proposal for the Republican Party, it really infuriates me. So basically senior citizens believe my generation should pay the payroll tax while we work but then not have those programs around anymore when we retire. The honorable thing to do would be to start the cuts with themselves, not their kids/grandkids. Raise the retirement age to 70 for us or something but don't make us pay for the program then never have that part of the safety net there when we might need it. You can't just cut/reform programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. There are quite a few people who have planned for decades on having those benefits in place. To change them suddenly would be catastrophic for possibly hundreds of thousands of people. I'm totally fine with phasing the changes in. But, if I'm understanding the proposal correctly, it's basically no changes for anyone currently 55 and older, then the rest of us are all expected to have private plans -- while still paying for SS for the older people. Kinda sucks... pretty much, yep. you have a better idea? Screw everyone instead of only screwing some people?
Hard to get votes that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
