Log In | Register
Ensuring there's enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country's entitlement system, Boehner said. He said he'd favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them.
John Boehner Says In Order To Pay For The Wars, We Need To Raise The Social Security Retirement Age To 70 (VIDEO)
Seeded on Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:35 PM EDT
Article Source: The Daily Bail- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (266)
I don't remember the American people supporting Mr. Boehner's illegal wars ... let your war bond holders pay for it, they made the profit while putting US in a depression.... what a jerk!
- 59 votes
They want wars, they need to finance it themselves...tax the rich and those who directly financially benefit from 'war'...
- 57 votes
Well here is a thought, let's end the Wars all together.
Then we CAN afford things once again, simple.
And @ independentVoter
They are illegal wars, our constitution does not allow for us to be an Empire at all, you may want to review Article 1 Section 8, according to our own infallible document, no standing army shall be funded for over two years. TWO YEARS. We have passed that in 1942 and haven't looked back since, we wiped our but on that part of the constitution so it's not all that important as the right would have you believe. It also states Militias will be the defense of the USA not a standing army, IN FACT , the NAVY is the only branch of service that should have constant funding, The Air Force is another technical illegality , once it branched off the Army they really didn't have the authority to fund it any either, yet here we are lol.
- 38 votes
Also the constitution stipulates congress must provide for "defense", we twisted that word to mean whatever we wanted. But honestly defense is defense and that is all we are supposed to spend on, and the only thing that is protected by that document. We have not used our military for actual defense since WW2
- 27 votes
perhaps if we simply stop giving social security to people who have not paid in, or at least limit those who havent paid to less than 5,000 dollars ever.
my wifes brother collects 900 dollars a month. he hasnt even paid that much total in his entire life. hes in his mid 20's and collect SS and gets Section 8.
would cost less to bury this guy.
- 8 votes
Bet he is first in line to vote for a congressional pay raise.
End the wars. You tell young Americans in our Armed Services that they are fighting for freedom? Who's freedom? Not ours. We are free and now we need to send our sons and daughters to fight for freedom for other countries? While I disagree with dictators killing innocent civilians I think that other countries should have to give their OWN blood, sweat, and tears for THEIR freedom. Also our men and women are being killed over what? Oil, minerals, strategic position in the middle east? Glad we could get our servicemen behind fighting so we could enjoy 50 cent lower gas prices. Sure as hell isn't freedom.
- 21 votes
We have not used our military for actual defense since WW2
How about 9/11?
- 3 votes
"How about 9/11?"
Yeah how about we still invaded the wrong country.
- 48 votes
What part of 9/11 was defense? If my memory serves the bad guys were successful and defense was snafu.
- 35 votes
Another grasping arsole who can't keep his paws off of Social Security, which is not part of the Federal budget as such, and whose funds are not to be used for any other purpose, including being claimed as part of balance that budget. That means, Mr. Bohnhead, that S.S. funds cannot be used to pay for your next bloodletting orgy.
- 28 votes
Here's the easiest way to pay for the wars and the unfunded Bush tax cuts that have already added trillions to our debt:
If Corporations And The Rich Paid Taxes At The Same Level As The 1960s, The Debt Would Disappear
But we know the Koch-funded Repubs will never allow that, because the wealthy funds their campaigns and pad Boehner's bank account:
John Boehner admits to giving bribes from Big Tobacco on the House floor...Why does the media consider him credible?
- 31 votes
Because the media is 'corporate' too...they are all intertwinned...
- 21 votes
Average lengths of employment is 5 to 7 years most people will work for at least 6 to 10 different employers before they retire Average war/police action/ conflict will last 8 to 10 years. employment brings money into the economy while wars take money out of the economy.
most people who retire after will continue circulating money within the economy, while with wars they require more revenue(taxes) to pay the defense contractors and compensation /rebuilding war torn countries created.
Boehners plan for more money for war and less for consumers is another sure fire way of a downward spiraling economy Perhaps shorter wars or no wars will be the best way to go and stricter oversight on defense contractors. As with Iraq besides being a now known unneeded expense, the defense contractors are still getting 100s of billions of dollars with zero return to the US. we entered Iraq at gas being 1.89 a gallon and now gas is 4.00 a gallon. So even as considered only an invasion for resources the American people have not seen any benefit from this war only higher fuel prices, lower benefits, lower wages, and higher inflation.
- 19 votes
How about cutting military spending?! DUH!
Republican knee jerk reaction - you have a fiscal problem, go after Social Security. There is no concept here that the Iraq War should not have happened and Bush, Cheney lied their butts off to get us to invade. How about forcing Bush, Cheney to pay for their war?
We may need to increase the age for Social Security as one of the least obnoxious long term fixes to keep it going in. However, Boehner is obstinately refusing to recognize that the American over the top excessive military spending has got to stop. We are down to accounting for 46.5 percent of the world's military spending after George W Bush's administration accounted for more of the world's military spending than all other countries combined.
We need to SHUT DOWN both quagmires! Then we have over 737 military bases and facilities world wide. Most of those bases need to shut down.
Then you have this type of typical wasteful spending:
Unnecessary extra fighter engine: $3 billion defense spending waste
By John Michael Loh, General, USAF retired - 05/25/10 11:27 AM ET
Congress will soon make a decision on whether to continue funding a defense program that our last two presidents have said they don't want, that our last two Secretaries of Defense have said is wasteful and unnecessary; that the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps oppose, and that the Senate voted 59-38 to end in 2009.
The program is for an "alternate engine" for the Joint Strike fighter. Since 2005, there has been bipartisan administration and Pentagon support to cancel funding for the extra engine, yet Congress has earmarked more than $1 billion for it. According to the latest Pentagon analysis, another $2.9 billion is needed just to complete development of the extra engine. The cost of two separate production lines, supply chains, management teams, and workforces will come later.
Between military industrial complex lobbyists and legislators wanting to keep feeding contracts to the factories in their districts and states, such projects seem to be unstoppable. Despite being a huge waste of money.
Our closest rival in military spending world wide is China at just 6.6 percent. We could cut our military spending in half and still be spending over three times our closest rival.
- 28 votes
Link on that article on the "alternative engine":
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/99711-unnecessary-extra-fighter-engine-3-billion-defense-spending-waste
- 17 votes
Be honest. After 30 years of folks like me telling you that SSI in its present form was a ponzi scheme and destined to fail, how many of you just ignored all that thought the Dems were some how magically going to keep those promises they made at election time.
Maybe you got them mixed up with the tooth fairy.
Well at least you have a scapegoat to make you all warm and fuzzy.
- 1 vote
The Great Depression was not warm and fuzzy, and that was what stimulated Social Security to be invented. That was a true measure of hardship this nation has forgotten. Republicans have opposed it from the start, but then the Republicans and their non regulation enabled to the Great Depression to happen - three Republican presidents in a row, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, most of the time with Republican majority congresses.
The only thing wrong with the Ponzi scheme right now is the baby boomers, more people drawing on Social Security than paying into it. But this is the first time this situation has happened and this situation will go back to normal. Social Security is estimated to be solvent through to the year 2037. It may need a long term restructuring but it should not be a part of the Republican debt ceiling issues.
- 25 votes
Its funds and expenditures are not part of the mainline budget. To use those funds, even as a line on the budget, for the purpose of looking more balanced or less balanced, depending upon agenda, is wrong. It is worse to suggest using SSA funds for any other purpose than those for which they were collected from people's wages. In fact it's illegal to use them for other purposes. The TB.GOP are counting on most not knowing this, and they ain't saying, so they use it as one of their "balance, cut, bleed" targets.
- 12 votes
The government owes 2.68 trillion to the Social Security fund as they have been withdrawing those funds to pay for their adventures. This 2.68T is part of the deficit.
- 11 votes
Retaliation is not defense, not in regards to WWII or 9/11. Color me enmeshed within my own conspiracy theory, but I still think 9/11 was staged.
And I don't understand how this congress expects to extend the working age to 70. Who's going to hire somebody circling the drain? It's hard enough to get hired after 50, let alone age a couple decades more and look like the viable candidate. "Yeah! I'M your choice! I'm up and raring to go! Speaking of 'go', where's your restroom? Never mind. Too late."
Why don't we make politicians follow the same collection policies we do? They collect the same percent they contributed, at the same age we do, with the same Medicare and Medicaid, donut hole and all. These golden parachutes they "earn" because they were the chosen few make me gag on my dentures.
- 12 votes
me too woodie.....911 was staged and planned by Cheney ect from the start...i think that is why Gore did not contest the election any further...he knew what was going to happen so he bowed out
- 8 votes
maybe this sounds crazy, but why dont we just pull out all together. begin getting our men and equipment out.
dont think for an instance that I care about democracy in foreign lands. we got bin laden, we got hussien, lets get out of both.
save social security for the retirement of american residents who have earned their way in the world.
- 13 votes
OBL is dead mission accomplished, though we are broke now. Getting all troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and resisting NATO pressure to engage and support causes like Libya is long over due. At 850 billion dollars for a defense budget 15 percent more then last year it is the highest in the world with China spending 80 billion a far second place. 850 billion dollars in one year for defense spending is insane, and is the near amount to approve the higher debt limit. If the US pulled out of all of these present hell holes, it could cut the defense budget to a third and still be spending near four times as much as the number two defense spending country. Near 600 billion a year could be saved not to mention ending the death and injuries to American troops presently happening.
- 12 votes
What's next, sell off our poor to some other country as slave labor to afford more tax cuts for the rich?
- 16 votes
"If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke? We just need to be honest with people."
By God, I find myself agreeing with Boehner! Unbelievable! I figured sure as hell, he'd find some way of applying the "class envy" bs, to avoid threatening the take of the wealthy!
- 3 votes
Raising the retirement age is counter productive. We need to get the OLDER workers OUT of the workforce as soon as possible so the YOUNGER workers have a place to earn a living.
The above presumes there will be enough younger workers to replace the older workers, so we need to reform our immigration laws to allow more qualified immigrants into our country. (Or, start having a lot sex and babies.)
Raise the % contribution over a period of time to equal the actuarial costs and raise the cap on income.
Social Security is SOLVENT and can be made solvent forever. The thing (U.S. government) that borrowed the money from the SS Trust Fund is broke.
- 9 votes
The government owes 2.68 trillion to the Social Security fund as they have been withdrawing those funds to pay for their adventures. This 2.68T is part of the deficit.
Social Security has been operating at a surplus for years, so other government departments that are running at a deficit "borrow" from Social Security. What that looks like on computer is that Social Security buys US savings bonds at 3 percent interest return. What the government owes to Social Security and others with US savings bonds is called the "internal national debt."
We owe most of the external national debt to nations such as China, Russia, Japan and Saudi Arabia.
John Boehner needs a huge slapdown on this stupid statement. Bush was crazy enough to start two unfunded, multi trillion dollar wars he turned into quagmires while re establishing tax cuts to the rich. How can Republicans defend this as fiscal conservatism? He grew the government/military payroll to gargantuan size. How can Republicans defend this as small government?
How about Bush assets being seized to pay for the war he lied us into?
- 16 votes
Mikes - As I've pointed out before, the "trust fund" went for stuff we collectively wanted, or at least stood by for, when granted by our representatives. We cried like spoiled kids when told we should pay tax to cover it all, or that we couldn't have it all. To expect those same representatives to walk past that "trust fund" without kicking the debt down the road, simply wasn't living in reality. It sounds so comforting to blame that terrible "THEM", but THEM is US.
- 3 votes
Boehner is just like every other greedy criminal in an elected office. They believe we should be their slaves in order to make their lives easier while our lives become more hard.
They don't think we know that Social Security is funded as part of our earnings from our work. Not an entitlement that the government gives us !!!
Ya want to trim the dead beats off Social Security go ahead. I know of some who get it because they knew how to scam the system and make people think they were crazy when they are actually lazy. There are prisoners in prison getting Social Security ?? Why ??? We are already providing for them.
Stop the insanity of empire building while calling it defending America. Look what happened to Rome. We have become the old Roman Empire, in that we expand by war and expect the people to pay for it, while it is the wealthy who gain from it while not carrying the burden they impose. We have become a nation that watches others die in the arenas we choose, we have become worse than the old Roman Empire in that we send our young into the arenas with them.
America is burning while the GOP/Peas in a pod fiddle, and the Democrats wring their hands saying they don't know what to do about it !!!
Bitch slap the stupid son's of perdition and kick them out of office forever.
- 10 votes
Oh, screw you, Boehner, and your stupid worthless not-wars. We have bigger problems to worry about than a ragtag band of nuts halfway across the world -- namely, you and your bonehead buddies in Congress.
- 11 votes
actually if the US got rid of congress more will be accomplished and less spent on discretionary pork projects. One way of regaining global investor confidence <sarc>
- 4 votes
I couldn't agree more, GOZO. I vote we cut Congressional pay and benefits to fund the wars. At least then our leaders might become capable of empathizing with their constituents.
- 36 votes
#2 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:43 PM EDTSick of paying for thier abuse!!!!!!
60 Minutes - John Boehner's Deficit Pledge
Lie From Campaign Obama On Ending The War In Iraq: "You Can Take That To The Bank" (VIDEO)
- 14 votes
Hell why not just make retirement age 76 then by average lifespan nobody will get SS and they can go about robbing it like they have been.
- 24 votes
Right, Keep putting more money into this fund so politicans can keep robbing it. It's their "Cash Cow" and when it depleted just do away with or privitize it. Boehner where are the Jobs?
- 9 votes
Holly: good idea. Too bad it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed.
Another interesting idea is to make those who pushed for and coerced the American people into the war in Iraq pay for it. I say we take it out of Bush and Cheney's (and maybe Rummy's, etc) "severance" pay that we give them for the rest of their lives....
- 8 votes
That's a good idea, but,.... 'retroactive payment' isn't a viable 'legal' option...
Legisalation (with NO loopholes) could be made going forward that anyone who pushes for 'war' should be charged for paying for that war...(I kind of eluded to that in my first comment)...
- 8 votes
Ya know..... I try not to bring up stuff like this, because it's wrong to poke fun at people who just do not know any better, but.......
I caught John Boehner wearing a baby blue shirt with a bright green tie and a grey jacket one day in the last week or so. If you cannot dress yourself any better than that, and you do not have anyone in your life who can help you with it, please do leave my personal retirement business alone.
I'm getting tired of this fella quick.
- 33 votes
#3 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:47 PM EDTwith all your wealth of political practices and history, the best you could come up with is you dont like the way he dresses...
cant wait till your running the country
- 1 vote
I caught John Boehner wearing a baby blue shirt with a bright green tie and a grey jacket one day in the last week or so. If you cannot dress yourself any better than that, and you do not have anyone in your life who can help you with it, please do leave my personal retirement business alone.
That must have looked swell with his oompa-loompa orange skin!
- 26 votes
Maybe John Boehner can quit his tanning bed addiction and donate the money to fund our two quagmires.
- 17 votes
Ya know..... I try not to bring up stuff like this, because it's wrong to poke fun at people who just do not know any better, but.......
You're right. He could have been on his way to his second job "The Circus SideShow". Now get serious.
- 5 votes
Holy cow, people in their 40s and 50s are have a hard time finding work, how are people in their late 60s supposed to get work?
- 25 votes
#5 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:55 PM EDTJohn Boehner needs to take his old tired stupid rich ass to a bridge and jump off it. I'm just a few years from retirement. I've been working all my life and I'm tired and not in great health. I'm looking forward to retiring so I can leave the stressful world of work and rest and enjoy what years I have left. And Boehner wants to take that away from me?
- 35 votes
I wish I knew, xcommunic8ed. But this idea isn't new. Suze Orman has been touting it since-at least 3 yrs. ago. If they want people to work to 70, then they better damn well get this medical fiasco in this country under control. NOTHING SHORT OF UNIVERSAL COVERAGE WILL WORK! Sorry Hillary & B.O. Nice try, but it simply will NOT cover everyone!
- 16 votes
#5.1:John Boehner needs to take his old tired stupid rich ass to a bridge and jump off it. I'm just a few years from retirement. I've been working all my life and I'm tired and not in great health. I'm looking forward to retiring so I can leave the stressful world of work and rest and enjoy what years I have left. And Boehner wants to take that away from me?
hi PIK, did you read the comment I left for you on another seed the other day when you said hello?
I mentioned that I had made 65 in June, and was enjoying life now since I was not afraid to look at the doctor's bill each time I make a visit there for the bit of arthritis in my right foot ( ironic that the problem is in the "right" foot), naturally problematic isn't it? :-)
Anyway, I say that to say this, get out while you can enjoy it.
Unfortunately now there seems to be a movement afoot to pit the seniors (us) against those not yet seniors; I feel it is once again divide and conquer. I have asked people to not fall for this scheme!
I want you to join me as I take a respite from the stress [and it is getting worse] and watch the world from my window. I don't have all of the money in the world, but I don't need it all either. I found out that the more money I had, the more I spent.
I am now in the midst of giving away stuff, trying to make life a bit lighter just in case I decide to relocate. I don't plan to move ANYTHING but my clothes-- and not all of them!
Let me know when you're free! We can talk more and compare notes then. Until then, don't work too hard.
- 16 votes
Hey MaryEllen, I didn't see the comment, sorry. Good for you for making your life a bit lighter. By the time I retire, I plan to own a Roadtrek and preparing to hit the road. Though I've done a lot of traveling, I want to travel without a timeline. I'm looking forward to that. I refuse to let Boehner get in the way of that.
- 12 votes
#5.4:Hey MaryEllen, I didn't see the comment, sorry. Good for you for making your life a bit lighter. By the time I retire, I plan to own a Roadtrek and preparing to hit the road. Though I've done a lot of traveling, I want to travel without a timeline. I'm looking forward to that. I refuse to let Boehner get in the way of that.
Well good for you, PIK!
Traveling without a timeline is HEAVEN! So is eating breakfast, lunch and dinner without a schedule!
It took me almost a year to get used to a new sleeping schedule. I would still wake up at 5:00 a.m. and call people around 6-7:00; until I realized that everyone were still asleep! People did not want to hurt my feelings; it was a bit embarrassing to say the least.
I also had to get rid of all of my watches! As well as my 3 inch heels!
I discovered that I had overbought so much, that I opened a store on Ebay; I still had stuff with store tags on it! Including gold and diamond jewelry.
Since I have retired, I have had nothing but best wishes from those ahead of me, especially here on NV. They promise that I will enjoy life now even better, and so far they have been correct.
I wish the same for you and if you have that choice to stay or go, GLADLY take the one to GO! You won't regret it.
- 10 votes
Boehner hypocrisy. He has been in congress for decades. When he retires, we will be a millionaire with a lavish tax payer paid for pension. The Republicans issue with Social Security as tax payer paid for "socialism." But what do you call the lavish congressional pensions?
Its called "socialism" when we are talking about the peasants but not when Boehner gets his lavish pension.
- 20 votes
It occurred to me a few years ago---and I'm only 48---that I probably will die on a job somewhere, retirement is basically a myth if you're my age or younger, and that Social Security is picking my pocket.
None of the above applies, however, if you're already sitting on a few million. God blesss you if you are. Since I'm not, I figure it's time to either "break a few rules" or face at least two more decades (give or take) of serfdom. No thanks!
John Boehner, like most of Washington, is so out of touch with everyday working people that he might as well be at Starfleet Academy or something. Anything to protect Wall Street and Corporate America from paying that 15%...
At least, IMO, with more of the "socialism" so many are crying about, the average American might have a chance at something better than what these clowns are offering, because they're offering nothing.
What a moron.
- 14 votes
Powerisknowledge and MaryEllen, I'm right there with you. I'm looking at retirement in the next 3-4 years, and I'm old and tired. I've paid and paid, too.
I've got plans for my "retirement," as well. I'll still be working, but it will be for myself, and on my schedule. (You're not the only one looking at eBay!) Nevertheless, I have no wish to be dropping dead at the request of any of our politicians so that social security might be "saved." I've paid toward retirement since I was 15 years old. I think fifty years (more or less) is a pretty fair shake at employment; and I figure I deserve a little of it back.
Some of the others out here on the vine have a different viewpoint, but when they get much closer to where we are, I think they might come around to our way of thinking. We've worked (hard) all our lives, I think taking a well-earned rest is in order.
Funny thing about that arthritis in the right foot, I've got it, too!!!
Baron: Out of touch is an understatement. Different planet is more like it.
- 8 votes
@zapper,
Actually, my "retirement plan" is very similar to yours. In fact, God willing and I will be "retired" about two years from now...:D If I stuck with the "program" the powers-that-be have for me (and a lot of others), I figure I'd never reach that "magical retirement age," because they'll keep moving the bar. I'n not exactly old, but I too am tired...tired of the BS, mostly. These politicians don't have a clue. Differrent dimension, perhaps?
After 50 years of working, you HAVE earned more than "a little bit of it back." No question!
@Michelle,
Thank you!
- 3 votes
That's my boy Boner!! Why not just say, John; the new retirement age shall be determined by the depth of the hole the recipient is being buried in?? I was waiting for this one.
- 14 votes
#6 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:58 PM EDTHow about this, Boeher. We force the upper class to pay their taxes. That would solve a lot of our problems with debt.
- 27 votes
#7 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:59 PM EDTAbsolutely agree that the rich should pay more in taxes and lose their loopholes. How about some means testing as well? Do millionaires really need to collect this money? OK to raise the retirement age down the road. It was raised in my lifetime to 66 and that is not a problem for me.
- 9 votes
It may not be a problem for you but what about those who see it as a problem. One thing you might want to keep in mind is that it is not about you.
- 19 votes
PowerisKnowledge: No one asked me years ago if I minded if they upped the full SS retirement age from 65 to 66, but I am living OK with it. The people who retire in 20 years at 67 will be no different. Most will be fine with it then like I am fine with 66 now.
Some people need to retire when they are much younger, but most of us are living much longer and healthier lives and 67 or even longer will not be a big deal when the time comes.
- 1 vote
My wild guess is if the IRS went after all of those tax evasion offshore bank accounts of the rich and super rich, we could pay down the entire national debt over night. Why are we giving them a tax cut when they have already given themselves a tax cut with illegal offshore accounts to evade taxes?
The recent UBS court case is an example. This Swiss bank was discovered to have over 4,000 rich Americans with tax evasion accounts. And that's just one single bank.
- 18 votes
mountain: You may be correct. But then, we'd have to get the IRS to start going after the wealthy again. A little known fact is that the Bush administration directed them to ignore corporations (and presumably the wealthy) and go after regular individuals instead. We must protect the wealth of the top 2%, after all! /s
- 5 votes
Re-7.4...While most people don't like it, the PA's 'banking portions' do help out in that respect MM...it makes it legal to challenge other countries 'banking' of American citizens 'assets'...just about one of the few provisions that 'help' us to find and confiscate those 'monies'...under the 'anti-money laundering provisions'...It gives the US the ability to go after Americans accounts overseas...
- 5 votes
Why doesn't Obama pick up the phone...and stop all hostilities..and bring the troops home? One phone call to the Sec of Defense.
- 7 votes
#8 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 1:03 PM EDTThat is a congressional decision and no one wants to leave and see the insurgents immediately take over Iraq and the Taliban take over Afghanistan.
But I do support a fast track of withdrawal from both quagmires.
- 14 votes
John Boehner Says In Order To Pay For The Wars, We Need To Raise The Social Security Retirement Age To 70
Then don't pay for the wars!
Where are the jobs the TeaPublicans promised while campaigning?
Last year when Democrats attempted to pass a jobs bill, Republicans in the Senate blocked the measure for no other reason than it was not their bill. The bill gave tax breaks and incentives to small businesses for new job hires, but Republicans were anxious to deny Democrats any more legislative accomplishments before the midterm elections. When President Obama and Democrats attempted to eliminate tax breaks for companies that move Americans' jobs to Korea, India, and China, Republicans blocked the bill because it did not reward corporate outsourcing.
- 21 votes
#9 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 1:04 PM EDTI read somewhere that the GOP blocked 420 bills passed by the Dem-led House between 2009 and the 2010 election.
These guys need to go.
- 24 votes
That sounds about right...
Nancy Pelosi was a very busy speaker in the 111th Congress and every piece of legislation was fought tooth and nail by the GOTP in Congress causing them to do 'filibusters a record number of times'...
Jobs bills and budgets were only some of the things that didn't get passed the 'filibusters'...
- 24 votes
The filibusters were done and the American voters thought the repubs did a great job - See Nov 2010 for proof.
- 3 votes
Boehner's only jobs program is for people to volunteer and go fight in his Mideast quagmires.
- 14 votes
@mountainmike,
Emphasize the volunteer part. When the debt ceiling zombie comes back, and if the Democrats totally lose, then these folks may find themselves facing IEDs, sniper fire and other fun and not even receive their paychecks. Maybe they should just do it for the experience.
- 6 votes
Volunteer? It seems to be the only jobs program from the Republicans for over a decade - go fight, get maimed or die for their quagmires, access to oil and military industrial complex contracts. Republicans are always for war others fight for them.
If there had been a draft, there would have been Vietnam War style mass demonstrations in the streets. Bush and Cheney most likely would have been impeached out of office for lying their butts off to get war powers.
- 10 votes
God damn it. Why is raising taxes or closing loopholes a complete no-no? I don't understand it. They act like raising taxes on anyone by any amount is akin to taking a @!$%# on the Bible.
- 18 votes
#10 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 1:05 PM EDTIf corporate profits and further increasing wealth concentration is your Bible, then yes, it is
- 14 votes
Why is raising taxes or closing loopholes a complete no-no?
Because raising those corporate taxes are also kickbacks that would come right out of TeaPublicans pockets. Until Lobbyist/Corporate funding is made illegal we will continue to have corrupt politicians like Boehner!
- 21 votes
Because they are power and money worshippers. They may cloak themselves in the flag and carry a bible, but thery are actually doing Satan's work
- 18 votes
I'll be happy to take a @!$%# on a bible if it'll help. I've got one right here, KJV.
- 5 votes
The rich, super rich and corporations are rolling in profits right now. There is no valid excuse for tax cuts to the rich and tax loopholes for corporations. That's the Republicans sucking up to potential voters and money contributors to the GOP.
- 20 votes
We have to raise the SS age to pay for Libya?
- 3 votes
#11 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 1:07 PM EDTAnd no doubt a few more of Obama's wars if he is reelected.
- 1 vote
And if Obama hadn't gotten involved through NATO, Gadhafi with have slaughtered his own people and the right wing Obama bashers would be complaining in the opposite direction.
- 22 votes
As I recall, they WERE bitching about him doing nothing for the people of Libya until he DID send help, then of course they bitched and called him a warmonger, effing unbelievable.
- 9 votes
I don't care what he wears (frankly those dark blue uniforms with white shirts and red ties really get boring), but I am truly amazed that he cries so easily and so often. How incredibly unprofessional for anyone in his position to have no control over his emotions. If he were a woman, he would be lambasted (like former Rep. Patricia Schroeder was, who only cried once).
- 10 votes
#13 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 1:19 PM EDTscrew you John,, pay for it yourself... I've never been infavor...
- 20 votes
#14 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 1:27 PM EDTThere is no denying it any longer, John's on CRACK!
- 11 votes
#15 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 2:04 PM EDTThere is no denying it any longer, John's on CRACK!
LOL, I think Boehner is on a bad trip of Acid, because he is crying way to much!
- 8 votes
He does remind me of a hormonal driven teenage girl, "nobody understands me!"
- 6 votes
Ensuring there's enough money to pay for the warwill require reforming the country's entitlement system, Boehner said.
Oh hell no. Boehner, YOU AND YOUR kids can pay for the wars out of YOUR retirement and THEIR delayed retirement. In fact, your little 'caucus', and House majority, the tea baggers, along with all your collective corporate buddies can pony up for the wars. Those wars are expected to cost at least $3 trillion after it's all said and done. YOUR guy started them and lied to get us into one of them.
Keep your greasy flippin' hands off Social Security or maybe there'll be a bill out there which takes away the retirement accounts of all in Congress since "we're out of money". THOSE are paid with taxpayer dollars while we, the people, are barely making it on earnings or retirement. A whole lot of us would LOVE to be able to take 5-week vacations three and four times a year.
Your corporate buddies have reduced wages to the point that few can save enough for their own, individual retirement accounts. Heck, most can't even make present-day ends meet after food, gas, and housing prices have skyrocketed.
Your party's policies led to the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Your party and the tea baggers want to gut social programs; you've already tried repealing health care reform.
Your party and the tea baggers played games with everything from health care to women's rights, to the country's debt ceilings and haven't done one d@mn thing to create jobs.
In fact, everything you've done has cost this country MORE jobs.
Millions of college grads, who racked up incredible debt for their own educations - to make themselves more marketable and more desirable in the work force - are unemployed and facing default.
Your party has done nothing but rack up 60% of the deficit, split the country into groups of 'others', denigrated the President, blocked every single thing he tried to do or got done, despite your f-ing filibusters and stone walling, and now you want to take MY KIDS' retirement away?
Not. A. Chance. We'll pass. Clip THAT to your CPI.
- 19 votes
#16 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 2:24 PM EDTFunny now that Boehner's baggers took tax increases off the table that he now has to find out where to get more money.
- 12 votes
I can give him a suggestion - start with the salaries, allowances, health benefits, perks, retirement, and staff budgets in Congress.
Or, hey, why don't we just eliminate that pesky branch of government called Congress; "we're broke" - like the right wing wants to eliminate all social programs.
- 9 votes
Congressional pay, like military pay and social security benefits, should all be tied in to the same cost-of-living allowance.
Soldiers and retirees can't simply vote themselves a raise, neither can you or I. Why should congress be allowed to?
If soldiers and retirees get a 5% raise, then so does congress. If soldiers and retirees get a 0.02% raise, then that's all congress gets.
Simple.
- 12 votes
Reforming the entitlement programs while completely ignoring the need to cut military spending. America currently accounts for 46.5 percent of the world's military spending compared to our closest rival, China, at just 6.6 percent. We could cut our military spending in half and still be spending over three times more than China.
- 6 votes
I think they should be paid whatever the national median salary is. That ties it to the wage structure and they get a good taste of what their policies are doing.
For 2010, that median was $47,777.
- 5 votes
Boehner is an asswipe, the bigger asswipes are those mindless @!$%#s that voted for him!
- 20 votes
#17 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 2:38 PM EDTAll I can say is Bull @!$%#.
- 14 votes
#18 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 3:25 PM EDTThanks to the Republicans holding the debt ceiling vote hostage, we were close to not handing out the paychecks to our troops on the battle field. Those are Republican quagmires they were happy to find others to go fight for them. I suppose not paying the troops is a small sacrifice they are willing to pay in order to grossly over indulge the rich with tax cuts and corporations with tax loopholes.
- 11 votes
@mountainmike,
This may be an apocryphal story...
I knew an older fellow who was USMC at Khe Sanh. When payday rolled around, and someone asked where the payroll officer was (this was, for those who don't realize, in the days before Direct Deposit and electronic money trasfers were everyday, easy things to do), his unit was told that they wouldn't be paid because---due to the siege---a payroll officer could not be brought into the camp.
They threatened to give the place to the NVA/ Viet Cong. A payroll officer, and a pilot carzy enough to fly him in, was brought in.
Fast forward forty years---we've got many folks in the service because they couldn't find gainful employment anywhere else in the US economy. Many are in harm's way right now in order to provide for their families. I'd be willing to bet that these folks will, to put it mildly, get really, really rowdy if they couldn't do that because a bunch of asshats in DC want to play politics. By "pay for the war,' what're we talking about----making sure the contractors get their money, or the soldiers in the field do? I'm sure Boehner doesn't lose much sleep over whether or not some young military family can pay their rent. Could I be wrong? Sure? But I doubt it.
I don't question the patriotism of our armed forces---regardless of an individual's motivation for joining up. But I don't think they'll fight for free, and they should not be asked to. That this has not occurred to Boehner, and so many others, is really scary...and really sad. My respect for the GOP, and Congress in general, gets lower every day.
- 7 votes
If Boehner really wants to support war..... maybe he will support a tax on all of his supporters for the war effort rather than place the burden on seniors again.
- 18 votes
#19 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 3:29 PM EDTYour party has done nothing but rack up 60% of the deficit
Under Obama, the government over the last two and a half years has borrowed on average about $4 billion each day. That staggering sum is far in excess of the $1.6 billion per day borrowed during the eight-year tenure of George W. Bush.
- 3 votes
here we go, you right wing bs
Would you care to back up your response with facts? Independent Voter gave numbers..if you disagree then where are your numbers to repudiate it?
- 1 vote
I have posted and posted the numbers, you want it YOU get it.
WORK for it.
- 13 votes
Independent Voter gave numbers..
Anybody can write numbers! 60%, 70%, 10% SEE! Where is IndependentVoter's source to back up what he claims? Nobody needs to repudiate unsubstantiated numbers. Besides Bush didn't have to pay the interest that we currently have to pay because he didn't inherit nearly as large a debt! He also didn't have to deal with the loss of revenues that happens when people become unemployed until the tail end of his presidency.
- 20 votes
renee
You notice they do not give a link as proof,
They write it down on a peice of paper and say "They read it somewhere"
- 13 votes
- 3 votes
Trying to keep us out of the depression OsamaBbush put us in ..... fought two wars off budget .... well guess what? Congress put it back in the budget and they want to pay for it with your social security .... the only asset you have left.
- 16 votes
Here is what the GOP did ON PURPOSE, held us hostage and us Lefties tried to warn you
Well it's true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mitch
McConnell Admits That Hostage-Taking Is Exactly What the GOP Did
8/3/11 at 2:06 PM
Photo:
Astrid Riecken/Getty Images
“I
think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you
might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did
learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the
Congress on something that must be done.” — Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, on the GOP. Don't call them terrorists though.
[WP via Political Wire]
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/mitch_mcconnell_okay_fine_were.html
Alex
Seitz-Wald | Wonk Room
Wednesday, August 3
McConnell
Admits To Taking Debt Ceiling ‘Hostage’: It’s ‘Worth Ransoming’
In a stunning bit of candor,
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) admitted in the Washington Post
today that his party had taken the debt ceiling "hostage... Read
Full Blog Post »
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/3/1/mcconnell_admits_to_taking_debt_ceiling_hostage_its_worth_ransoming/
Mitch McConnell admits to GOP political terrorism
Posted
on
Wednesday, August 3, 2011,
4:38 pm by GottaLaff
Of course he’s
not! Scandalous! How could anyone ever believe such a thing about any member
the GOP? Outrageous!
Thank goodness Mitch McConnell can
set the record straight!
“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a
hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t
think that. What we did learn is this –
it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the
Congress on something that must be done.”
– Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-KY), quoted by the Washington Post, on the debt ceiling negotiations.
Source: Taegan, of course.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/08/03/mitch-mcconnell-admits-
- 15 votes
Boehner can keep his hands off my money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not waiting til I am 70
- 17 votes
To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.
Reading what amounts to an Oped piece is absolutely hilarious. I reread it over and over again and I was trying to figure out what the hell he was saying. He compares Bush's total figure to Obama's and says how Obama is spending 1 trillion more a year than bush....huh? I think these comparisons would be valid when Obama is out of office and the writer has an actual total instead of a projection. He completely glosses over the fact(he mentioned himself) that the debt doubled under President Bush. (Sure he says "So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all")
If Obama gets 4 more years, but works to reduce the national debt so that it closer to that 10 tril mark, this professor is going to have to eat his words.
Look what Clinton was able to do.
What I find most amazing about this is all the number throwing and magical razzle dazzle everyone is doing. At this point I wouldn't trust Republicans OR Democrats. He correctly mentions that Obama shouldn't be held accountable for the 2009 budget. So basically his first statement I pasted is null and void. He says instead to use 2010 and 2011 projected. So he only has 1 real year of numbers to work with to compare to Bush complete numbers which are already on the books.
It's like me buying a house. The first year I am going to be spending a lot of money on repairs, accessories etc. Imagine someone telling me I am a "overspender" based on that year and that year only? Obviously, in that scope yeah it would look that way.
Am I insane or is he?
- 8 votes
So IV and UC, how fast can you stop or even slow a speeding train. I will give you that our debt has continued to grow since Obama took office, but its not like Bush gave him a federal debt that was on the decline. It was rising quickly even as Obama took office whereas when Bush took office it was on a decline. Now, if Obama had taken office with the federal debt on the decline and sent it skyrocketing right off the bat, then maybe you would have a case but your linked article is not comparing apples to apples.
- 11 votes
Upscheidt Creek
Your source says (by the way hardly an unbiased source and frankly the guy talks out of his ass leaving out some very important factors) that Obama has increased the debt by about 5 billion/day. You do realize that the interest payments alone on just Bush's legacy is over 1 billion/day? Couple that with the fact that about twice as many people are unemployed resulting in a huge decrease in revenues what exactly do you think is going to happen? Even if the spending would have remained at exactly what it was during the Bush administration we would have accrued debt much faster because of the mess Bush left.
- 10 votes
OMG - The Bush blaming didn't end after 1 year or 2 years, or 2.5 years, according to the dems it will not end after 3 years, after 4 years, after 5 years, after 6 years etc.
Hey left wingers, you are hurting your own ability to lead by blaming. How about manning up and doing your GD job and take responsibility.
- 1 vote
What the Republicans will not tell you about the national debt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1bZ-TiX8rA
Reagan and the two Bushes account for $9.2 trillion of the national debt, over $11 trillion with interest added in. That's about 78 percent of the total debt.
Both parties have contributed to the national debt. Just saying that the Republicans have no holier than thou high ground to criticize the Democrats from on the issue of spending. The Republican formula for fiscal disaster has been, is and will be tax cuts to the rich, tax loopholes for corporations with excessive military spending. That's called voodoo, supply side, trickle down Reaganomics. It has NEVER worked, and that is exactly what Paul Ryan and the Republican budget proposal seeks to repeat all over again.
- 13 votes
How long will Reagan be held in a falsely rosy light as some sort of demigod? When will the TB get the eff out of the way and let the Democrats to their GD job?
- 8 votes
And in the meantime, Eisenhower is the role model for paying down the national debt. He had no hesitation to tax the rich and corporations. He paid down most of the war/national debt in his two terms in office. If he had been president instead of GW Bush, there would not have been an Iraq War or an Afghanistan quagmire and military contractors would have been eliminated.
The 1950's had one of our best economies ever. War time full employment production of tangible goods with no outsourcing was translated directly into peace time full employment production of tangible goods with no outsourcing. Its taboo for Republicans now to mention that because Eisenhower does not fit the voodoo, trickle down, supply side Reaganomics.
In short, what Teapublicans in 2011 might regard as a libtard, leftist, socialist, commie. Coming from them, that would be a good recommendation.
- 7 votes
nospin,
When you are tring to solve a problem it is important to know where and how it began. So as not to repeat those same errrors. The problem didn't start with Bush the worst of it actually started with Reagan, but Bush continued on with the same failed policies of supply side economics, coupled it with war mongering and managed to throw every bit of progress made by Clinton out the window.
So blame Bush, only to the degree which he followed Reagan's footsteps, which unfortunately was HUGE! He didn't just build weapons he made sure to find a use for them and in the process lost a lot of American lives, for what? Oil? Revenge? The saddest part is the revenge wasn't even against Osama bin Laden it was against Saddam Hussein.
You can't seriously believe that a huge part of the mess this country is in doesn't rest squarely on George W. Bush's shoulders do you? If the shoe fits wear it!
- 8 votes
nospin: When we stop hearing the righties talk about how Carter, or Clinton, screwed us and caused this or that, then you can bitch about Bush's name being brought up. Until then, I suggest that you get used to the FACT that Bush was a REPUBLICAN, and he's the one who kept two unfunded wars, a horrible prescription plan AND tax cuts to the filthy rich off the budget (along with the unfunded but federally mandated "No Child Left Behind" monstrosity). Cheney is also the one who famously said, "deficits don't matter" when warned beforehand that the Bush tax cuts would bankrupt us. It's so very nice and convenient for you righties to "forget" about Bush and the mess he made of this country. He's your albatross, so own it.
- 6 votes
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/who-spent-more-average-bush-vs-average-obama-spending-per-day-proves-obama-most-re
LMAO, "From a Conservative Perspective"
I have had ENOUGH of conservatives,
Post something NEUTRAL and maybe I will look. Right wing BS can't fly.
- 7 votes
rene 20.18 - Continuing to blame the past and not taking responsibility after over 2 years is idiotic at best. Time for the dems Obama to man up.
- 1 vote
Who is not taking responsibility? The problems we are facing have been years (about 30) in the making! Lets look at the causes and fix them. The only thing being offered by conservatives at this point is the same failed policies of the past! Like I said we are supposed to LEARN from history! Nothing that Obama has tried to do for the economy has even been allowed to be implemented because conservatives fear its success. It would only serve to underscore how wrong they have been for the last 30 odd years.
The stimulus package was not spent how it was intended states chose to use it to cover their own rotten management instead of on the projects that would have provided jobs. Like the infrastructure and green energy.
Continuing to blame the past and not taking responsibility after over 2 years is idiotic at best
What is really idiotic is not learning from the past!
- 3 votes
What has Obama learned from the past that he has taking corrective action on? Blaming states for stimulus ineffectiveness is just spin. Continuing to pin the actions of the Obama presidency toward others is certainly not learning from the past.
BTW - The American voters have elected the repubs and dems as they saw fit for the last 30 years and centuries before that. Are you now blaming them for Obama's inadequacies?
- 1 vote
Who is doing the blaming? That is all I hear coming from conservatives. What have his policies done it's been 2+ years and nothing is better (you want to talk about spin)! Wow you actually think 30 years worth of failed policies, 2/3 of which have been full steam ahead with failed supply side economics, are just going to be washed away in a little over 2 years?
And yes conservatives deserve the blame for not allowing hardly any of the changes to even get past the House with record numbers of filibusters. Changes the American people voted for! The American people are sick of policies that have done nothing for creating jobs here, but have actually enabled companies to leave.
They are sick and tired of the ultra wealthy and the corporations in this country who are profitting by billions of dollars who don't think they should have to give back anything to the very country that gives them the oppurtunity to make huge profits.
BTW - The American voters have elected the repubs and dems as they saw fit for the last 30 years and centuries before that. Are you now blaming them for Obama's inadequacies?
How is anyone supposed to know whether he is inadequate or not, whether his "changes" will make a positive difference, when he has had to deal with what is the most uncooperative bunch of corporate whores this country has ever had the misfortune to deal with?
Learn from history not to repeat the same mistakes! The very definition of insanity "keep doing the same thing over again expecting a different result" That is the Republican answer to the problems we are facing as a nation INSANITY!
- 5 votes
Renee - The American people voted the dems out of power in 2010. That fact shows that the repubs filibustering was in fact just what the American people wanted. They did not want the dems policies to pass unchecked. Learn from history is what the public did that in 2010.
It is your privilege to disagree with the American election system
- 1 vote
Sad to say but that is not true! It is a well known fact that the majority of Americans do not vote in mid term elections. The only thing that the 2010 election proved was that the Tea Party did a better job of getting their rabid faction out to vote! But then it is easy to inflame people who are radical in their beliefs. The Tea Party is nothing more than a bunch of Political terrorists!
- 5 votes
Those who choose not to vote leave the decisions up to those who do. The result is that those who care enough to vote are the ones who elect the leaders. Those who do not vote, have relinquished their right to have a say in the future of America.
- 2 votes
I agree, so most likely the American people will remember the lesson and get out and vote the Tea Party out on their as*%s!
- 6 votes
Republicans and conservatives love wars ... they make so much money from the contracts.
- 13 votes
#21 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 8:11 PM EDTRepublicans should pay for Republican wars. And after raking it in, they complain about taxes.
- 14 votes
How about taxing the military industrial complex multi billionaire corporations? They are the ones getting rich off of these wars. And many of them are not paid up on back taxes.
- 12 votes
mountainmike: Not to mention, many have also been found guilty of FRAUD ... yet, we still pay them and continue to contract to them.
- 7 votes
For example, KBR which was caught cooking the books, bribing others for contracts, taking kickbacks, overcharging, charging for services not rendered, violating their contracts with the government by hiring Blackwater Security, electrocuting troops in their showers, gang rape of female employees, etc...
- 7 votes
Let the A hole get as job on GWB's ranch spreading his Sh_t in 2012!
Must have been been coached by Cheny.
- 9 votes
#22 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:07 PM EDTPart of me thinks I should be impressed that a Republican actually wants to start paying for the wars now, 10 years after the fact.
- 10 votes
#23 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:33 PM EDTExcept it was Obama's Idea, He is bringing the troops home, remember, The GOP didn't want them to come home , Remember, The gop gave more funding to the military, remember??????
- 13 votes
WASHINGTON -- As it considers steep cuts to domestic programs in an effort to slash the deficit, the House is set to consider a defense spending bill on Wednesday that increases the Pentagon's budget by $17 billion.
The Defense Department appropriations bill includes $530 in base Pentagon spending, which is $8 billion less than President Obama's request for fiscal year 2012. There's an additional $118.6 billion for overseas contingency operations -- a $39 billion drop, reflecting the expected drawdown in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Republicans announced in May that they were going to try to cut $30 billion from federal agencies' operating budgets in order to deal with the growing deficit........................
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/gop-boost-pentagon-budget-domestic-slashed_n_891205.html
_____________________________________________
The GOP presidential candidates are now “pro-BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW” party!
I smell Karl Rove. Do you?
When the democrats had their debate a couple of nights ago, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards (the top 3 picked by the republican owned media, of course) could not say for sure that they would be bringing the troops home by 2013, because they weren’t sure what would happen between now and then. They appeared to be towing the neocon line when they did this. Well…
…guess how the republicans are spinning this in their favor?
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2007/09/28/the-gop-presidential-candidates-are-now-pro-bring-the-troops-home-now-party/
FLIP FLOP
- 10 votes
My nephew just got back from Afcrapistan. He said the private contractors over there outnumber the soldiers by at least 3 to 1.
He spoke to a civilian who served them breakfast each morning- that civilian got paid more than double what my nephew (a fighting soldier) was getting paid.
The guys in his unit wanted to build a few picnic tables to eat at. Simple, right? Wrong. His commanding officer said it wasn't allowed. He said they'd be required by regulation to order the lumber from a company in Germany, and hire private contractors to build the tables. It would've taken a month, and cost over $3000 per picnic table, for something my nephew and his pals could've done in an afternoon for about $50.
Want to save some money? @!$%#can the private contractors and let soldiers do the job. Want to save even more money? @!$%#can the wars.
- 17 votes
We are currently paying those contractors in Afghanistan for projects to improve their "infrastructure." For example, a $200 million contract to build a hydroelectric plant in a region controlled by the Taliban. Us taxpayers funding electricity for the Taliban?
And if someone proposed the same type of hydro electric plants here in America to create green energy jobs the Republicans would obstruct the legislation.
- 18 votes
JKiff @ 23.3: Two of the anti-union bunch's biggest complaints have been featherbedding and payroll padding. I guess it's okay when you're a big GOP-connected company and you do it overseas and shaft military and civilians alike in the process.
- 13 votes
#1 No raising SS age or cutting it
#2 Just where are the jobs for people over 50?
#3 Where are the jobs for people under 50?
- 12 votes
#24 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 10:10 PM EDTThey are currently telling soon to be Social Security covered individuals that they can get a higher monthly payment if they delay getting retirement for a few years. For example, a projection of payments started at 65 compared to payments at 68 or 70 years old. Many people will elect a delay to get higher payments. That seems reasonable.
- 6 votes
Charger - For that matter, where are the jobs, period? (Drop a bit of cold water into a hot pan. It makes a lot of fuss and produces a pretty little cloud of white vapor, but nothing's left when the show is done. Such are TB promises about jobs: Sputtering & hissing and hot air, without substance.)
mountainmike - I could live with an extra year or two if it meant a >inflation increase in the payout. (Presumably the funds in question would be earning enough more to cover this.)
- 7 votes
To Bohner and his Repuglicon pals War is a top priority . The poor and the middle class exist only to fight their Wars . I wonder when his drunk ,pompous arse plans on retiring ? Of course its been a long time since he broke a sweat off the golf course so he is good for a few more years . 70 ? Sober up .
- 10 votes
#25 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 10:50 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
