GOP proposes raise in Medicare age....and, of course, no tax increases for the rich

Must not be an election year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...offer/1743307/

theyre practicing not getting reelected for the mid terms, leave them alone.

theyre practicing not getting reelected for the mid terms, leave them alone. Originally Posted by CJ7

how would you solve the problem?

I have a very difficult time understanding why an increase in the Medicare and SS ages is not already a done deal. We are living far longer and the current ages have outlived thier original purpose.

I find it exceedingly frustrating that both parties want to play politics with a piece that should be a given.

What people just don't understand is that at some point the entire system collapses and the people that need it the most won't have anything. Do you remember Hostess? The unions kept wanting, then all of a sudden the jobs were gone. This is the same concept, people keep wanting yet won't face the reality that at some point the system is gone. For god sake if you want to look at STUPID politics the Democrats are against mean testing medicare. If you don't understand that concept, that means they are AGAINST rich people paying more for Medicare. You wonderfully intelligent libs please explain that? Again the arguments by libs are just random thoughts with no real meaning on almost every political thread I go to.

I have a very difficult time understanding why an increase in the Medicare and SS ages is not already a done deal. We are living far longer and the current ages have outlived thier original purpose.

I find it exceedingly frustrating that both parties want to play politics with a piece that should be a given. Originally Posted by Old-T

I don't have a problem with it either. But, it should go hand-in-hand with tax increases on the wealthy. It's ridiculous and offensive that the Republicans are willing to cut health-care benefits for the poor via Medicaid reductions and make elderly people work longer while waiting to qualify for Medicare but can't see their way clear to agree to let the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 per year. It's really quite unbelievable.

They'll give eventually.

how would you solve the problem? Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

lockbox the fund and tell the warlords to find some other way to pay for their streetfights.


you?

``````````````````

Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.

How would I solve the problem? (Yes, I know everyone has been waiting for my take.) Turn the funding and administration of the programs over to the states, where they belong. Let the states tailor the programs to meet the needs of their residents, or eliminate the programs altogether, if the voters so choose. It's not the federal government's job.

How would I solve the problem? (Yes, I know everyone has been waiting for my take.) Turn the funding and administration of the programs over to the states, where they belong. Let the states tailor the programs to meet the needs of their residents, or eliminate the programs altogether, if the voters so choose. It's not the federal government's job. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

In other words, chaos.

How would it be turned over?

Turned over to who in a state....specifically.

What would happen to all the federal funds currently marked for the programs? How would those be transferred to the states?

What if you moved from one state to another?

What if one state offered better benefits and programs than another state? Could everybody move to the state with the most benefits? Or, in your case, the state with the least benefits?

Will Rick Perry get to be in charge of the program in Texas? If he wants to eliminate the programs, will he be able to remember the names of the programs?: thumbsup:

How would I solve the problem? (Yes, I know everyone has been waiting for my take.) Turn the funding and administration of the programs over to the states, where they belong. Let the states tailor the programs to meet the needs of their residents, or eliminate the programs altogether, if the voters so choose. It's not the federal government's job. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

create a larger government within the state in other words .. you dont want the government involved , so you want the government to run the program


bet that makes perfect sense to you eh COF?

Mark, why did you photoshop OBama out of that picture?

CJ7 - I thought the liberals are the ones who keep saying SS is OK? Why does your footnote say otherwise?

Mark, why did you photoshop OBama out of that picture?

CJ7 - I thought the liberals are the ones who keep saying SS is OK? Why does your footnote say otherwise? Originally Posted by satexasguy

opposed to the cut cut cut mantra that echos down the hall at the GOP HQ, my footnote is a suggestion (and a fact) that would keep the program in full swing after it reaches its decline in 2033? is that right?

nonetheless, IMO if people want to keep SS solvent and keep the government out of it, then they should be willing to pay for it. Its that simple ... $9 a week for someone making 40K a year means skipping Starbucks for a monthly check after they reach 65 ... ask the poeple what they would rather have rather than let politicians piss on each others feet and swear its raining ..

create a larger government within the state in other words .. you dont want the government involved , so you want the government to run the program


bet that makes perfect sense to you eh COF? Originally Posted by CJ7

No, I want the states to be able to choose. Read the Tenth Amendment, asshole. Then read the Constitution as a whole. You might understand, but I doubt it.

This is not a power granted to the Federal government. Sorry, it's not there.

No, I want the states to be able to choose. Read the Tenth Amendment, asshole. Then read the Constitution as a whole. You might understand, but I doubt it.

This is not a power granted to the Federal government. Sorry, it's not there. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

state GOVERNMENT, dumbass ... youre doing nothing but shifting responsibility from one hand of the government to the other ... if the government cant run the program, the government cant run the program

can you imagine Perry dealing with SS after he balked his way to a $20 bllion dollar state deficit ...

if people want SS they pay for it, plain and SIMPLE

farkin idgets like you go to vast extremes to get past the obvious, most reasonable solution to the issue