Many of the Elderly voted for the Tea Party and to give congress back to the murders of the poor because they don't know or don't believe that these lunatics,who were elected on the virtue that they have no education and no credentials, would actually mean what they say and take away social security:
The Old Geezer
Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason. ~Mark Twain.
I think Mark Twain was right and it's about time for a political change in the United States of America!
Do you agree? Or do you think we should stay the course set by our current administration and politicians?
Are you satisfied with the "Hope and Change" gang that we elected two years ago?
Or do you think congress is due for a diaper change?
The 2010 midterm election will be held on November 2nd with 36 of the 100 seats in the Senate being contested and all the House seats are up for election.
In addition 37 States will elect Governors. Be sure and vote on Tuesday.
Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.
~Franklin D. Roosevelt
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” ~John Quincy Adams
In my opinion there are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen. I was a Democrat for 10 years and a Republican for 30 years. I currently belong to the American Independent Party. I do not vote along party lines. I look at all the candidates and vote for the ones who best represents my Christian values, the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution ~Ron
GOD BLESS YOU AND MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON AMERICA!
This is a pretty unfair argument. Obamam had a couple of years to fix eight years of destruction and total abandonment. The economic system itself was collapsing one could not fix it without doing big things. As long as we have to make a major overhaul anyway, so much was destoryed by Bush, why not make big plans, the job called for big plans. He had very short amount of time, way too short to get anything done. The opposition motivates a bunch of thugs to work up a lynch mob mentality among intolerant forces of stupidity and then when the reformer fails (becuase he was sabotaged) the opposition mocks and ridicules becasue "O he made big plans." what a sin that is! Trying to really change things, you can't find a bigger sin in the American vocabulary.
There are a lot of sources out there showing what the Tea Party really says about Social Security. It's not stretch to prove that the majoroity of these nuts are just chompign at the bits to dismissible all forms of help for anyone who is not rich. This is all based upon the stupid as shit assumption that if they didn't pay taxes they would be millionaires.
Why don't we just look at the words of the people themselves to see what they promise to do.
Senior citizens, revolt against the revolting! If you're going to Tea Parties, you're supporting the destruction of Medicare and Social Security.They are quoting them saying that. what more do you need?
Proof: ask Bob Ellis, organizer of the Black Hills Tea Party/"Citizens for Liberty." He reveals the Tea Party's intent to destroy Medicare and Social Security in comments on the Madville Times, in which Ellis declares Medicare and Social Security illegal and its supporters and recipients un-American:...there is not a shred of authority for the federal government to create a health care system, administer a health care system, create a charity or administer a charity.
...I have countless tims [sic] denounced Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for the un-American, un-Constitutional programs they are.
My postulation IS that Medicare is a violation of the Constitution. That is my postulation because it clearly IS a violation of the Constitution. Can you find a health care system or a system of charity authorized in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution? I certainly can't. That makes it a clear violation of the Constitution [Bob Ellis, Citizens for Liberty, comments on "Russell Olson Loses on GOP Health Care Nullification...," Madville Times, 2010.02.28–03.01].
No way around it: senior citizens, the Tea Party wants to throw you under the fiscal bus.
Consider also that the following people have signed on as fans of Citizens for Liberty, the South Dakota branch of the purportedly grassroots group who would take away Medicare and Social Security:
I'm at least three decades away from retirement, but I am alarmed that half of the people running for our lone House seat would call themselves fans of a group advocating the dismantling of the health and economic security of our senior citizens.
- Chris Nelson, Secretary of State, candidate for U.S. House
- R. Blake Curd, state representative, candidate for U.S. House
- B. Thomas Marking, candidate for U.S. House
- Brock Greenfield, state representative
- Charles B. Hoffman, state representative
- Dan Lederman, state representative
- Jason Gant, state senator
- Dusty Johnson, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission
- Jon Lauck, senior advisor to Senator John Thune
Voters, give the Tea Party an inch, and they will take away your Medicare and Social Security.
Huffinton Post nov 8
Alaska Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller repeated his view Wednesday that the United States needs to fundamentally rethink Social Security.
"Longer term, there has got to be a move outside of that system," Miller told CNN's John King. "Ultimately we want to transfer the power back to the states so that states can take up the mantle of those programs if they so desire."
Miller previously said that the U.S. should "transition out of the Social Security arrangement."
King, noting that Miller's position is something Democrats have pounced on, asked Miller to make himself perfectly clear -- that he wouldn't take away Social Security checks from the people who currently count on them, but that he'd like to do away with the program for future generations. King asked: "Would [a person born the day Miller was sworn in] perhaps grow up in an America where there is not a federal Social Security program if you got your way?"
"Absolutely," Miller said.
Miller, who upset incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska's Republican primary this week, previously suggested that unemployment insurance, part of the Social Security Act of 1935, is unconstitutional. "The Supreme Court has already ruled on the Social Security Act. There was a case in 1937," said Nancy Altman, author of a book on Social Security. "Joe Miller's in a time machine."
If the Tea Party wants to back a candidate they need to start now and be ... Saying end social security will end the R majority in 2012. ...
Here is a list of target the republicans are going after.
Lawrence O'Donnell scored a political coup d'etats on his program last night, interviewing 4 leaders of various Tea Party groups, asking each whether Social Security or Medicare were "socialism". After each said "no", O'Donnell pointed out to them that there was nothing more socialistic than our government directly paying out retirement benefits and medical benefits to recipients. Later in the segment, he was able to get one of them to call social security payments "socialistic", but was still not in favor of eliminating them.
As the Tea Partiers are complaining about "out-of-control" federal spending, O'Donnell asked them each what they would cut. One, representing Dick Armey's Freedom Works, proposed a massive cut of about $1B (!) in spending from a government program helping businesses access foreign markets. Another said that Social Security disability should be eliminated. A third said she had no idea whatsoever.
the government paying for retirement like the the old people didn't work all their lives to get it.
the young Turks
On my way to the polling place sat an older man , early to mid 70's surrounded by GOP / Tea Party signs.
Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, Sandy Adams, every republican imaginable.
The man had been there since before dawn, his vehicle was parked at the edge of the "no campaign" zone. The man was obviously on Social Security, a handicapped placard was in his window. A parking sticker for a local senior center, where my wife does volunteer work occasionally, funded by SSA and state grants was on the bumper.
When I passed, I introduced myself and asked him "what are you going to do when they cut your Social Security check?"
He glared at me and growled " They cant... they WON'T do that."
Incredulous , I asked "You really think so?"
"Yeah, I really think so." he said.
I continued, "Sandy Adams has openly called for the privatization of Social security...Rubio simple wants to eliminate it..."
Interrupting..." No they don't ! "
" Have you been listening? " I asked politely.
"That's just a liberal trick...." with that comment he went back to waving his Scott for Governor sign.
I went back to the car and opened my netbook, connected and did a search on Adams and Rubio. I found their interviews and comments, and ideas on privatization.
"if you have a moment"..I then showed him the material.
"What do you think now?" I asked after the presentation.
"That's just a liberal trick. They will cut earmarks and entitlement spending and balance the budget to create jobs " he looked satisfied with himself at that point and went back to waving his Scott for Governor sign. By this time a small crowd started to gather.
"Social Security is an entitlement " I said " The GOP calls Social..."
Interrupting..."Oh, NO it's not!!!!". Two other people in the crowd mummered in agreement.
"How did you determine that? " I asked.
" He told me..."
The GOP minority leader Boehner has now made it perfectly clear that they intend to raise the SS age to 70 and privatize the program to keep people with other sources of income from being able to collect any SS.
Boehner is under fire for indicating in late June that the retirement
age should be raised to 70 for those who have at least 20 years left
before retirement as a possible way to finance the ongoing wars.
"We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we're
broke," he told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "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."
Loss of Social Security will mean reduction in standard of living
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
buy antibiotics buy augmentin amoxil noroxin zithromax no prescription antibitocs onlinepublic policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal
is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and
control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive,
entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes,
Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental
People with less income could not adjust fully to the loss of Social Security benefits by reduced consumption and increased savings. As a result, they would face substantial reductions in their living standards at retirement:Social Security online: women, Retirement and Security.
What about a less drastic cut in benefits? In the face of a 30 percent cut in benefits, even the highest-income retirees would reduce their consumption by 11 percent. Low-income retirees would reduce their consumption almost dollar for dollar with the benefit cut.
- If Social Security were abolished tomorrow, 35-year-old couples with annual incomes of $200,000 would reduce their current consumption almost 24 percent; but at retirement, they would have 39 percent less discretionary consumption than under the current system.
- Singles earning $100,000 a year would reduce their current consumption about 16 percent; but at retirement they would have about 42 percent less.
- Women Have Lower Income in Retirement than Men -- And Thus Higher Poverty. In 1997, median income for elderly unmarried women (widowed, divorced, separated, and never married) was $11,161, compared with $14,769 for elderly unmarried men and $29,278 for elderly married couples. Thus, the poverty rate for elderly women was higher than that of men: in 1997, the poverty rate of elderly women was 13.1 percent, compared to 7.0 percent among men. Among unmarried elderly women, the poverty rate was significantly higher -- about 19 percent.
- Social Security Is Particularly Important to Women. Elderly unmarried women -- including widows -- get 51 percent of their total income from Social Security. Unmarried elderly men get 39 percent, while elderly married couples get 36 percent of their income from Social Security. For 25 percent of unmarried women, Social Security is their only source of income, compared to 9 percent of married couples and 20 percent of unmarried men. Without Social Security benefits, the elderly poverty rate among women would have been 52.2 percent and among widows would have been 60.6 percent.
- Women Face Greater Economic Challenges in Retirement. First, women tend to live longer: a woman who is 65 years old today can expect to live to 85, while a 65 year old man can expect to live to 81. Second, women have lower lifetime earnings than men do. And third, women reach retirement with smaller pensions and other assets than men do.
- Social Security Will Continue to Be Important for Women in the Future. As the labor force participation rates of women continue to rise, women in the future will reach retirement with much more substantial earnings histories than in the past. Therefore, the percentage of women receiving benefits based solely on their own earnings history is expected to rise from 37 percent today to 60 percent in 2060. However, this means that 40 percent of women will continue to receive benefits based on their husband's earnings.
- Poverty Rates Among Unmarried Elderly Women -- Especially Widows Who Make up 45 Percent of All Elderly Women -- Are High. Divorced women are a growing share of the elderly population, and their poverty rate is higher than the overall elderly poverty rate. And finally, poverty rates among elderly minority groups are unacceptably high.
- Among Current Retirees, Women Have Much Less Pension Coverage Than Men. Only 30 percent of all women aged 65 or older were receiving a pension in 1994 (either worker or survivor benefits), compared to 48 percent of men.
- Pensions Received by Women Are Worth Less than Those Received by Men. Among new private sector pension annuity recipients in 1993-94, the median annual benefit for women was $4,800, or only half of the median benefit of $9,600 received by men. And among women approaching retirement, pension wealth is much smaller: for example, single women had average pension wealth that was 34 percent of the single men's average.
- Among Workers, Women's Pension Coverage Depends on Work Status. Overall, fewer women workers have pensions through work, 40 percent of women compared to 44 percent of men. However, women in full-time jobs are equally likely to have pension coverage as men; in 1997, 50 percent of women in full-time jobs had pensions compared to 49 percent of men. It is important to note, though, that women are much more likely to work part-time or be out of the labor force than men.
center for American Progress
Between 1959 and 1974, the elderly poverty rate fell from 35 percent to 15 percent. This was largely attributable to a set of increases in Social Security benefits. The elderly poverty rate has continued to decline in subsequent decades, reaching 9.4 percent in 2006. Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits continue to play a key role in reducing elderly poverty, especially among women and people of color. If Social Security benefits did not exist, an estimated 44 percent of the elderly would be poor today, assuming no changes in behavior.
These guys are following the myth that the market will always go up. we will just get richer and richer if capitalism is left to do its thing. They think they would be millionaires already if they didn't have to pay into social security. People are good little suckers who buy the idea they are supposed to feed the rich. We didn't learn a damn thing from the last eight years. We saw just got through watching capitalists left to do their thing, their thing was destroying the country. They stole all the houses. They collapsed the economy. The very same pie in the sky there's no limit to the market going up and up was the bull shit in the air when the great depression hit. There's a reason it's not a coincidence.
Stupid Americans so easy to fool. They fools for the rich. Now people have to die because little rich guys need their swimming pools.