20 Replies to “"Cantor: Budget Cannot Be Balanced in Next 10 Years Without 'Severely Impacting' Seniors — Which GOP Won't Do"”

1. Jeff G. says:

   March 9, 2011 at 9:33 am

   If you didn’t hear it yet, go listen to Mark Levin’s opening monologue from last night’s (March 8) show.

2. JHoward says:

   March 9, 2011 at 9:39 am

   Politics are asymmetrical. Ratchets move one way. Republics rise and fall.

   Leftism is a disorder.

   Think, prepare, and act accordingly.

3. Bob Reed says:

   March 9, 2011 at 9:41 am

   Cantor’s a man in need of being primaried.

4. Makewi says:

   March 9, 2011 at 10:14 am

   Cantor also said that Republicans are moving towards reforming entitlement programs “for those 54 and younger”–but will not change the benefits of those 55 and older.

   People 55 and older are better than the rest of us you see. Sure change will be difficult, but that shit is gonna happen later on. Kick the can again.

   Yep, time for Cantor to go.

5. Joe says:

   March 9, 2011 at 10:23 am

   We can rein in spending and do so in a manner that does not result in old people being driven onto shrinking global warming ice floes to drown in the polar bears.

   Just sayin.

6. Makewi says:

   March 9, 2011 at 10:32 am

   Come on Joe. The Boomer voting block is massive. You simply cannot do anything that would cause them to even think of being discomforted. Think of all those votes man.

7. motionview says:

   March 9, 2011 at 10:34 am

   “As I am told, you cannot balance this budget in 10 years without severely impacting the benefits that current seniors and retirees are getting now.”

   Told by whom? I think that’s bullshit. He is conflating “current seniors and retirees”. I’ve got state/federal retirees in my neighborhood in their 40’s & early fifties(and a couple of double dippers on disability). Are their benefits sacrosanct? Sorry but no.

   You can balance the budget within 10 years without impacting the benefits of people who are 65 and over. Whether or not we should is another issue.

8. LBascom says:

   March 9, 2011 at 10:52 am

   A modest proposal.

   I wonder what percentage of Social Security recipients are actually people over 65 that have paid into the system as a working American?

9. LBascom says:

   March 9, 2011 at 10:53 am

   I seem to be having tag problems these days, sorry.

10. Ernst Schreiber says:

    March 9, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Imagine how hard these cuts are going to be when welfare payments comprise 1/3 of all “wages” that are “earned” in this country.

11. Joe says:

    March 9, 2011 at 10:54 am

    Darleen says we need to be kind to Boomers. I get that poltically. That is not what Cantor is doing. He is capitulating and saying it is too hard to cut any without upseting the old folks.

    Of course this news has me a bit upset too.

12. Joe says:

    March 9, 2011 at 10:58 am

    LBascom posted on 3/7 @ 3:33 pm
    I didn’t realize revenue from social security tax was so close to revenue from personal income tax.

    How’s this for a plan for Social Security? Everyone 60 and over continue to receive their benefits on schedule, no one under 60 gets any Social Security. For those 55-60 the retirement age becomes 70. Sorry.

    Those 45 and up continue to pay SS tax, and 45-54 claim benefits at 75. again, sorry.

    Those younger than 45 are dropped from Social Security entirely, pay zero SS tax, credited with zero future SS. Maybe some tax incentives if you pay into a voluntary private pension plan. Sorry.

    Shared sacrifice, my friends.

    I like it, except I would propose those over 45 can opt out now and give up benefits. They can keep what they took and spent.

13. LBascom says:

    March 9, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Yeah, good addition Joe.

14. Ernst Schreiber says:

    March 9, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Joe, I thought Darleen was playing devil’s advocate in that discussion. But yes, this is pre-emptive surrender on the part of Cantor. How nice of him to reaffirm that controlling the language is tantamount to occupying the high ground in politcal warfare.

15. McGehee says:

    March 9, 2011 at 11:52 am

    …except I would propose those over 45 can opt out now and give up benefits.

    Where do I sign?

16. Squid says:

    March 9, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Here’s another headline for you:

    “Squid: Budget Cannot Be Sustained Another 10 Years Without ‘Severely Impacting’ EVERY FREAKIN’ ONE OF US — Which GOP Doesn’t Seem to Get”

17. Stephanie says:

    March 9, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    The Senate voted on HR 1 today… you won’t like the results.

    BASTARDS!

18. motionview says:

    March 9, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Squidline – slang, an archaic journalistic technique in which a headline is true

19. Joe says:

    March 9, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    We cannot tax our way out of this hole. We cannot grow our way out economically. We cannot use demographics to work our way out over time (in fact, we’re barely maintaining a replacement rate of reproduction as it is, and most of that reproducing is among the least productive of our citizenry).

    We cannot vote the problem away. The only solution that would really work — draconian cuts to entitlement programs and a serious effort to pay down the national debt — would require a level of austerity that few Americans have the stomach for. This means that a political solution to this problem is also pretty much impossible. There is no political solution to this dilemma because neither the citizens nor the politicians are willing to do what is necessary. (Nor is it simply a Democrat/GOP divide. As we have all seen in the Social Security threads I and others have posted, even many conservatives bristle when faced with cuts to their own programs.)

    Example: all liberals, and even many conservatives, quail at the harshness of the so-called “Ryan Roadmap”, and insist that it’s not “politically doable”. Well, guess what? The Ryan roadmap is the best attempt by a politician I’ve seen so far at solving this problem — and it barely scratches the surface. Even if every single one of its reforms were adopted right now, it probably would take decades for us to get back on an even fiscal keel. And I don’t think we have that kind of time.

    In short, we are fucked.

20. Joe says:

    March 9, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-09/gross-drops-government-debt-from-pimco-s-flagship-fund-zero-hedge-reports.html

    Tick tock.

Comments are closed.