forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
735,822 comments in 75,693 posts by 10,905 registered users, 7 online now: AllTruth, Blurtman, Booger, curious2, komputodo, lostand confused, socal2

new post

Lindsay Graham "I Will Destroy USAs Solvency Unless The SS age Is Raised"

By 121212   2013 Jan 3, 6:03am   1,516 views   11 comments   watch (0)   quote      

Lindsay Graham: I Will Destroy America’s Solvency Unless The Social Security Retirement Age Is Raised

Although official Washington is currently fixated on the so-called “Fiscal Cliff,” the biggest threat to American prosperity is the debt ceiling, which must be raised in February to prevent economic catastrophe. If Republicans refuse to reach a deal on the so-called cliff, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that they will spark a new recession in 2013. But if Republicans block action on the debt ceiling, they will make that potential recession look quaint. Without raising the debt ceiling, the United States will be forced to embrace austerity so severe it will lead to “a bigger GDP drop than that experienced during the Great Recession of 2008.”
But in an interview on Fox News Sunday this morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threatened to oppose this must-pass bill unless Social Security benefits are taken away from millions of future retirees:
I’m not going to raise the debt ceiling unless we get serious about keeping the country from becoming Greece, saving Social Security and Medicare [sic]. So here’s what i would like: meaningful entitlement reform — not to turn Social Security into private accounts, not to take a voucher approach to Medicare — but, adjust the age for Social Security, CPI changes and means testing and look beyond the ten-year window. I cannot in good conscience raise the debt ceiling without addressing the long term debt problems of this country and I will not.
Watch it:

This is extortion, plain and simple. It is the budgetary equivalent of threatening to break America’s legs unless Congress agrees to break the backs of millions poised on the edge of retirement. Graham’s position is that seniors should have to wait longer for their retirement benefits — even if they work in physically demanding jobs that literally tear the body apart by the time a worker reaches age 65 — and that those benefits should be reduced in the future.
And if Congress won’t agree to this deal, then Graham is prepared to thrust the nation into an economic calamity unheard of since the Great Depression.


Comments 1-11 of 11     Last »

1   Tenpoundbass   971/972 = 99% civil   2013 Jan 3, 6:06am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    


2   121212     2013 Jan 3, 6:07am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

It will cost the government BILLIONS MORE!!

It is not a cost saving measure.

It's a political move.

and ... your are a douche and.. it would hurt this country.. douche bag

3   121212     2013 Jan 3, 6:10am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

The Republicans are going to attempt to end the social contract with Americans. They have no interest in protecting the weak and poor, they want to continue funneling money out of the middle class into the top 1% pocket. How else will the elites make money?

4   Tenpoundbass   971/972 = 99% civil   2013 Jan 3, 6:16am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Wait a minute the Liberals are the elites, and I am finding hard to give a rats ass about the poor, when this administration has thrown the middle class under the bus so far. That when we lose our jobs, there's nothing there to replace it, but an overly politicized unemployment treadmill.
We don't want $550 every two weeks we need no less than $1200 after taxes a week.

We need jobs that don't involve a name badge and a fastfood counter.

When the middle class falls on hard times there's absolutely nothing there for us. We don't qualify for any meaningful healthcare, when we can't afford it. Regardless of working status or not. Meanwhile ever illegal Tom, Dick and Jose stumbles on the beach and staggers into the emergency room and they get Gold treatment and never see one single bill ever.

Fuck the Poor! It's every man for him self, Obama has made that loud and clear. Unless you're with the Goose step boogie. Are you comrade? Have you polished your boots today?

5   121212     2013 Jan 3, 6:21am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

CaptainShuddup says

Wait a minute the Liberals are the elites

CaptainShuddup says

and I am finding hard to give a rats ass about the poor,

CaptainShuddup says

Fuck the Poor! It's every man for him self

FUCK YOU!! CaptainIdiot

6   finehoe     2013 Jan 3, 7:41am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

CaptainShuddup says

Meanwhile ever illegal Tom, Dick and Jose stumbles on the beach and staggers into the emergency room and they get Gold treatment and never see one single bill ever.

And that's why we should increase the eligibility age for Social Security?

7   121212     2013 Jan 3, 7:47am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

finehoe says

And that's why we should increase the eligibility age for Social Security?

The math is that it would cost the government at least $3 Billion a year more if you raised the age.

It would also cost EMPLOYERS $100's Millions more

8   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch     2013 Jan 3, 2:31pm  ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike   quote    

A real conservative would just have the guts to kill pensioners with a screw driver to save on SSA costs.

9   FortWayne   387/391 = 98% civil   2013 Jan 4, 12:42am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

I think they should lose all the corporate and union tax privileges instead. Seniors have no job prospects in mid/late 60's, we shouldn't make them retire on deathbed.

What politicians aren't talking about is that government employees can retire a lot sooner. You can retire at 55 often, or if you are in military even much much sooner... but they only talk about increasing SS retirement age. How is that morally right to screw retirees in private sector who already got it bad?

10   HEY YOU   597/597 = 100% civil   2013 Jan 5, 8:45am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

I'm with Graham.He needs to take it farther.We need to get every ReoConTea off all these social programs.

11   Blurtman   416/416 = 100% civil   2013 Jan 5, 9:16am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

SS has a $2.7 trillion surplus. It is self-funding when cash flow positive. When cash flow negative, as it is recently due to the SS payroll tax cut, the USG has to issue US Treasuries to pay back the trust fund.

Graham is a chicken hawk loonie. He either is a dead beat, and doesn't want to pay back the trust fund, or a typical shit head no "entitlements" for anybody but the rich and military scum bag. Or both.

Comments 1-11 of 11     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home