Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seniors vote Republican. The guys they vote for openly tell them they want to reduce entitlements. They vote for that so what is the problem?
How are you defining seniors?
Many, MANY Seniors age 50-65 vote DEMOCRAT and have all their lives. They have worked all their lives as well - paying into SS and Medicare and haven't yet taken one dime.
Seniors age 80-90, I will agree many are (were) Republican.
"who's doing the raping?"
"stuff happens"
now
"get over it"
As a not to far from being senior, I'm all for a means tested plan to reduce the Social Security entitlement provided there's also a tax deduction if you don't receive the SS benefit that you were promised. For example, if I'm due $1000/month SS benefit and the gov't decides that I'm too wealthy to receive it, at least allow me to deduct $12,000/yr in my annual gross income for tax purposes so I get some kind of benefit. Wealthy people don't need SS. I'm fortunate that I don't need it and I'm willing to go without it but give me the tax credit at least.
Of course this type of proposal is career suicide for any elected US gov't official........
Many, MANY Seniors age 50-65 vote DEMOCRAT and have all their lives. They have worked all their lives as well - paying into SS and Medicare and haven't yet taken one dime.
Seniors age 80-90, I will agree many are (were) Republican.
I notice you ignore the ones aged 65-80. They are largely Republican. They made it across the line and as long as they have theirs, they don't care. So if they get voucherized, de-Medicaided, a little Social Security shaved off the top, they should accept that that is the result of their vote. I've seen thousands of posts over the years demonizing every demographic but if someone proposes cuts to Social Security or Medicare or highlights the 4.6 million seniors who or using all the Medicaid, they don't like that at all.
They claim they paid for it but they didn't. Medicare Part D was not funded. Medicaid, which is paying for millions of senior's Medicare was not paid by them. Senior care facilities are largely paid for by Medicaid and the tendency to transfer assets to other members of the family so the government has to pay for it is so common they are having to enact laws, which are apparently still avoidable. No one seems to want to admit any of that.
As a not to far from being senior, I'm all for a means tested plan to reduce the Social Security entitlement provided there's also a tax deduction if you don't receive the SS benefit that you were promised. For example, if I'm due $1000/month SS benefit and the gov't decides that I'm too wealthy to receive it, at least allow me to deduct $12,000/yr in my annual gross income for tax purposes so I get some kind of benefit. Wealthy people don't need SS. I'm fortunate that I don't need it and I'm willing to go without it but give me the tax credit at least.
Of course this type of proposal is career suicide for any elected US gov't official........
what is it with the GOP candidates and foot in mouth disease?
"stuff happens"
Seriously, take the stuff happens out of context and it sounds callous, but in context, Jeb makes a lot of sense. Knee jerk legislation in response to every single crisis that hits our country makes for an over reaching Federal Gov't.
Many Americans like myself are for a small, less intrusive government. Not a government involved in every single aspect of our lives.
That is better than I can say for any Democrat running.
Republicans would be better off selecting someone more palatable from both sides of the aisle (Rep, Dem) rather than someone with such huge unfavorables as Trump, imo. I'm an independent and open to either party - give me someone like Kasich, Christie, Bush and most likely you'll get my vote as an (I). You put Trump out there, I'm outahere - doubt if I'm alone.
As a not to far from being senior, I'm all for a means tested plan to reduce the Social Security entitlement provided there's also a tax deduction if you don't receive the SS benefit that you were promised. For example, if I'm due $1000/month SS benefit and the gov't decides that I'm too wealthy to receive it, at least allow me to deduct $12,000/yr in my annual gross income for tax purposes so I get some kind of benefit. Wealthy people don't need SS. I'm fortunate that I don't need it and I'm willing to go without it but give me the tax credit at least.
Of course this type of proposal is career suicide for any elected US gov't official........
This is why I like John Kasich, he is telling people what they NEED to hear instead of what they want to hear. He is a true leader. He's a straight talker.
Fact is, the current SS setup is not sustainable. We cannot have people drawing benefits for 20+ years in a system that was only designed for people to draw benefits for about 5 years.
I'd be Ok with changing the SS bennie rules IF the people affected have a 10 year "window" to take care of business. Like if a person can retire at 66, those of us 57 or older need to be left alone. But the 66 and younger people WILL have to make the changes needed in their lives so they'd be ready. I'm 50 so I'm 1 of those dudes who WILL have to make the changes in my life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
<--- they need some of this
