Appointed by President Obama, co-chaired by former Senator Alan Simpson and Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles - well known for his elitist cretinism - the group yesterday released it's draft report containing many necessary but politically sensitive recommendations.... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/10/deficit-commission-recommends-changes-social-security/
Working to age 69 and beyond is definitely in my plans anyway and cuts are not being considered until well past my lifetime. I can live with these kinds of measures.
....but just a week ago such measures were the work of radical right-wing "a$$holes", Tea Party whackos and elitist cretins. Fascinating.....
lOl....after going on and on about how you'd paid for your retirement benefits and you didn't want them messing with that...you now say "I got mine, let the rest of them eat cake" Louis XVI's wife would be proud!
NO....let them who has the time....those who have many more years to work before retirement than do I....figure out how they are going to do it. Pay in more to Social Security.....live in a box and eat crackers.... if that's what the GOP wants them to do....whatever. I get tired of people wanting to close the barn door after all the cows are out.
Erskine Bowles is the one who read the report that I heard yesterday. He's a Democrat, the co chair is a Republican. I see that Pelosi has already taken a strong position against moving the retirement age to 69 years old. Of course that isn't until 2075 and will only affect people who are 4 years old or younger now. We will see what happens, doing away with the mortgage deduction will run into trouble.
A guy over on a Longhorn site called Pelosi the best Speaker since Sam Rayburn. He of course is a lib who lives in L.A. He used to work on the Hill back in the LBJ days.
That is not a good representation of Pelosi. Not even a wonder bra could have those to hound dog ears standing that erect.
The far left is already having a hissy fit over this report. The far right, I'm sure, will be right behind. A sure sign that maybe some of these recommendations deserve calm, intelligent deliberation rather than the usual "line in the sand" demagoguery.
I agree. When the election votes are counted these days the winners usually win it seems by the smallest of margins.......meaning there are millions that disagree with the winner's platform. Legislation should cater to both side's ideas and philosophies and leave some on both sides less than satisfied. There is a problem in America today in that a lot of people just hate the other side so much.....want to win so much that they ignore those millions who don't quite feel the way they do. The end result is that if a politician who wins office isn't all the time out to destroy his opposition rather than work with them to create good legislation then his far side constituents start to call for his/her head. It's a stupid.....shallow and dangerous way for Americans to look at things and I hope we can stop this nonsense and start working together.
:lol: You mean like making an effort to read and understand the true nature of their positions and the magnitude of the problems they are trying to solve before branding them radical right-wing "a$$holes", Tea Party whackos and elitist cretins ?
Funny, I can't recall when we had a majority of Dems in the House and a filibuster proof Senate, the left giving a **** about what the millions of other Americans cared about. They excluded Republicans from meetings about important legislation such as the Health Care Bill and incredibly didn't even allow them any time to read the bill before votes. Crap like that is why they had their asses handed to them in the last election. It's so predictable that as soon at the Republicans take control of one of the houses we for the first time hear that hypocritical Dems and their media lapdogs start preaching "moderation" and "compromise." When the Dems win we hear "Elections have consequences" as they ramrod THEIR agenda down eveyone's throat. Now when one shoe is on the other foot it's "legislation should cater to both side's ideas." ******** :!:
Funny. That's what I espouse and why I am a moderate. It's also why I refuse to engage in politically oriented conversation. Although I have friends and family on both ends of the political spectrum, I have no use for their extreme ideologies, neither of which considers the common good. Whoops! I let my guard down and expressed a political opinion. Sorry. My hope for our country's future, long after I'm gone is that there always will be a large moderate/independent political base of voters to provide checks and balances and to assure that if one extreme or the other happens to grab power, like we have at the present time, their reign won't last longer than 8 years at the most, preferrably no more than 2-4 years. In my lifetime, that is what has happened for the most part. Balance. In my view, it's the ever-so-elusive objective.
That is true Gipper....and probably one reason they lost seats in the last election. "Balance. In my view, it's the ever-so-elusive objective." I agree with Sid.....110%.... but I also agree with BT in that on this board I have become a little testy when it comes to the right and I think that is mostly due to the one-sided nature of the board members and the proclivity of some of those members to align themselves so far to the right that they cannot even get a glimpse the other side.