Romney Just Cut His Own Throat

[Article 15]

Didn't vote for him. Sorry.

But if you think people who've just been beaten up by the Greed of Wall Street are going to vote for a guy who was one of the worst offenders, you are deluded.

This is why Santorum would be a stronger candidate. He gets it. He's from a blue collar background, he's had to worry about paychecks and house payments.

Totally agree

He started rocking it at the debates after the field narrowed some and he could be heard above the static.

Newt is strong but I just can't picture him on the world stage. Too bull-headed.

I don't feel Romney is a strong enough turn away from Obama's policies.

Here's to hoping Santorum keeps his momentum

Either way you lose to Obama and we take back the House. I only worry about the Senate because we have 10 up for re election and you only have 2.

I think you can kiss the Senate goodbye and the House prolly wont flip unless it's Santorum who gets nominated. Even then it's iffy, IMO.

I do agree that Obama wins either way.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Uh, as the only adult left in the race from both parties, he is trying to tell America the cold hard truth about these entitlements that are going to destroy the country.

Meanhwile you idiots want to keep going headed to the cliff.

Says he will raise retirement age on social security and give people the option to participate in Medicare or not. The nutty bastard doesn't know that as soon as they hear about it 40,000,000 Americans will vote against him, not for him.

 

[DaGoose]

There is only one question that needs to be asked. Is the retirement age sustainable in an increasingly aging population? The answer - to anyone with a calculator and a brain - is no.

Details, I agree, need to be discussed and considered - preferably by rational, intelligent people on both sides.... but hyperbolic bullshit from the whining left is not 'rational' or 'intelligent'.

He did not 'cut his own throat', he spoke the truth. The retirement age is not sustainable. Other countries - and we know how fond the left are of following other countries - know that.... what's taking the left so long to catch up?

Well, a few problems with that.

Are there companies out there really ready to hire a bunch of old people? Really?

When my company let some people go last year, do you know who they got rid of? Employees in their sixties.

As I've said, I have a resume business I run on the side. The clients who have the hardest time are those with years of experience. My advice to them is 1) Dye your hair, 2) Leave out the earlier parts of your career that give away your age.

Now, I suppose in his calculations, leaving old people to fend for themselves so rich douchebags can get more tax cuts makes sense in his world, but not really to the rest of us.

Especially since Social Security is calculated based on your last few years of employment. Making them work McJobs at Staples isn't a good deal for them.

I made no claim about companies hiring 'a bunch of old people', only that the retirement age is going to have to rise. Meaning, my moronic little twit, that if you're working for a company, you are not gonna be able to retire at 65. Not that companies have to 'hire' a 'bunch of old people' but that working people are gonna have to stay working for longer.

I don't have the slightest interest in your life - your work is of no consequence. The fact - whether you like it or not - is that people are going to have to work longer.

Logic is something that you clearly struggle with.

But as Joe pointed out his company (like many) work at getting rid of employees in their sixties. I was at a seminar where the subject was what older workers cost to maintain on payrolls. The speakers point was that once an employee hits that 60 mark they cost a company so much in sick days, accidents and workers comp that it is more beneficial to get rid of them.

 

[DaGoose]

There is only one question that needs to be asked. Is the retirement age sustainable in an increasingly aging population? The answer - to anyone with a calculator and a brain - is no.

Details, I agree, need to be discussed and considered - preferably by rational, intelligent people on both sides.... but hyperbolic bullshit from the whining left is not 'rational' or 'intelligent'.

He did not 'cut his own throat', he spoke the truth. The retirement age is not sustainable. Other countries - and we know how fond the left are of following other countries - know that.... what's taking the left so long to catch up?

Every pair of clownshoes like Dagoof thinks it's sustainable, just raise taxes on the rich....

Please show me one post of mine where I said that it is sustainable. You can either show me or STFU.

And in your sig line you have the nerve to refer to others as liars. You're the fucking liar.

I'll be waiting but won't hold my breath on either.

 

[hortysir]

Didn't vote for him. Sorry.

But if you think people who've just been beaten up by the Greed of Wall Street are going to vote for a guy who was one of the worst offenders, you are deluded.

This is why Santorum would be a stronger candidate. He gets it. He's from a blue collar background, he's had to worry about paychecks and house payments.

Totally agree

He started rocking it at the debates after the field narrowed some and he could be heard above the static.

Newt is strong but I just can't picture him on the world stage. Too bull-headed.

I don't feel Romney is a strong enough turn away from Obama's policies.

Here's to hoping Santorum keeps his momentum

Either way you lose to Obama and we take back the House. I only worry about the Senate because we have 10 up for re election and you only have 2.

Losing to Obama is wishful thinking. You guys won't have the voter turnout we will this time.
Taking back the House? I'd really like to see those numbers.
Bill Nelson will lose his seat in Florida, for one of your 10

 

[JoeB131]

A Santorum headlined ticket could cost the GOP the House

Maybe not.

Retaining the house will rely on high turnout by conservatives. Santorum could bring them out to vote. Romney, meh, not so much.

 

[JoeB131]

Didn't vote for him. Sorry.

But if you think people who've just been beaten up by the Greed of Wall Street are going to vote for a guy who was one of the worst offenders, you are deluded.

This is why Santorum would be a stronger candidate. He gets it. He's from a blue collar background, he's had to worry about paychecks and house payments.

Totally agree

He started rocking it at the debates after the field narrowed some and he could be heard above the static.

Newt is strong but I just can't picture him on the world stage. Too bull-headed.

I don't feel Romney is a strong enough turn away from Obama's policies.

Here's to hoping Santorum keeps his momentum

Either way you lose to Obama and we take back the House. I only worry about the Senate because we have 10 up for re election and you only have 2.

You know what, not really.

What recent elections have shown is that even when an incumbant is retained, there usually aren't huge shifts in the House either way. Bush won in 2004, but the GOP only gained 4 seats. Clinton won in 1996, but the Dems only gained 9 seats. Reagan won in 1984, but the GOP only advanced by sixteen seats. Usually, when the electorate retains a president, they also retain congress to keep him honest.

Now, that said, I think Santorum will actually be a bigger boost to the GOP keeping the house because he'll bring out conservative votes in Republican districts.

 

[Article 15]

A Santorum headlined ticket could cost the GOP the House

Maybe not.

Retaining the house will rely on high turnout by conservatives. Santorum could bring them out to vote. Romney, meh, not so much.

Well anything is possible but personally I think a Santorum headlined ticket motives more Dems to the polls.

But what you were saying in your next post is most likely the case, IMO....that there will most likely be little movement in the House.

I was saying the other day that the most likely outcome in my view is that Obama wins, the GOP takes the Senate, and the Dems gain a few seats in the House.

 

[California Girl]

Well, a few problems with that.

Are there companies out there really ready to hire a bunch of old people? Really?

When my company let some people go last year, do you know who they got rid of? Employees in their sixties.

As I've said, I have a resume business I run on the side. The clients who have the hardest time are those with years of experience. My advice to them is 1) Dye your hair, 2) Leave out the earlier parts of your career that give away your age.

Now, I suppose in his calculations, leaving old people to fend for themselves so rich douchebags can get more tax cuts makes sense in his world, but not really to the rest of us.

Especially since Social Security is calculated based on your last few years of employment. Making them work McJobs at Staples isn't a good deal for them.

I made no claim about companies hiring 'a bunch of old people', only that the retirement age is going to have to rise. Meaning, my moronic little twit, that if you're working for a company, you are not gonna be able to retire at 65. Not that companies have to 'hire' a 'bunch of old people' but that working people are gonna have to stay working for longer.

I don't have the slightest interest in your life - your work is of no consequence. The fact - whether you like it or not - is that people are going to have to work longer.

Logic is something that you clearly struggle with.

But as Joe pointed out his company (like many) work at getting rid of employees in their sixties. I was at a seminar where the subject was what older workers cost to maintain on payrolls. The speakers point was that once an employee hits that 60 mark they cost a company so much in sick days, accidents and workers comp that it is more beneficial to get rid of them.

I don't disagree - which is why I said we need to see what the detail is.... but, the fact remains, Romney didn't 'cut' his throat... he was, as usual, speaking an unpleasant truth. We need to tackle SS. Fast.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

you guys do realize that you are giving the federal government money to hold for you out of each of your paychecks, right? that's YOUR money that you're giving to them. it's not THEIR money. it's YOURS.

 

[amrchaos]

Says he will raise retirement age on social security and give people the option to participate in Medicare or not. The nutty bastard doesn't know that as soon as they hear about it 40,000,000 Americans will vote against him, not for him.

Although a little right leaning, raising the age of retirement will not stop employers from trying to buy out their older employees. Also, giving people the option to participate in Medicare has disaster written all over it.

 

[Zander]

Telling the truth is "Cutting your throat" for liberals.....


quite amusing.

 

[JoeB131]

But as Joe pointed out his company (like many) work at getting rid of employees in their sixties. I was at a seminar where the subject was what older workers cost to maintain on payrolls. The speakers point was that once an employee hits that 60 mark they cost a company so much in sick days, accidents and workers comp that it is more beneficial to get rid of them.

I don't disagree - which is why I said we need to see what the detail is.... but, the fact remains, Romney didn't 'cut' his throat... he was, as usual, speaking an unpleasant truth. We need to tackle SS. Fast.

Well, Romney talking about Working People needing to make sacrifices is kind of like Paris Hilton talking about chastity. Even it's a positive message that has merit, totally wrong person to deliver it.

Making people work longer when teh workforce doesn't really want them to and when they don't want to is not the solution. Sorry. Just isn't. Not unless you are going to back that up with much stronger workers' rights that firing an older worker will almost always result in a costly lawsuit for the offending company.

The ONLY reason there is urgency to the Social Security issue is because the 7 trillion dollar trust fund that should have been put into a "Lock Box" was instead converted to bonds and spent buying bombs and bridges and tax cuts for rich douchebags like Romney.

Of course, if worker's wages had kept up, there wouldn't be an issue. But they've been flat since the 1980s.

Now we are getting to the point where SOcial Security is showing up with some of those IOU's because payouts are exceeding payments in. "Oh, wait. We cant raise taxes to make good on those debts. Grandpa gonna have to work a little longer even though his employer is already measuring out his desk for a younger guy."

 

[JoeB131]

Telling the truth is "Cutting your throat" for liberals.....


quite amusing.

It isn't telling the truth, it's what his solution is.

There are three ways to fix the problem -

1) Raise taxes on the wealthy to make good on those 7 Trillion dollars of IOU's

2) Means Test Social Security in such a way that it's going to those who need it, and not paying a fat check to wealthy retirees.

3) make people work longer, to the point where they never get to retire.


And if you're Mitt Romney, rich jerkwad who made his fortune screwing working folks, guess which one sounds like a good idea to you.

 

[saveliberty]

He really should have stayed quiet or lied his ass off... like Obama did.

 

[hortysir]

Telling the truth is "Cutting your throat" for liberals.....


quite amusing.

It isn't telling the truth, it's what his solution is.

There are three ways to fix the problem -

1) Raise taxes on the wealthy to make good on those 7 Trillion dollars of IOU's

2) Means Test Social Security in such a way that it's going to those who need it, and not paying a fat check to wealthy retirees.

3) make people work longer, to the point where they never get to retire.


And if you're Mitt Romney, rich jerkwad who made his fortune screwing working folks, guess which one sounds like a good idea to you.

Wha????


Just because someone accumulates wealth elsewhere they're not entitled to get their own money back??

 

[saveliberty]

Telling the truth is "Cutting your throat" for liberals.....


quite amusing.

It isn't telling the truth, it's what his solution is.

There are three ways to fix the problem -

1) Raise taxes on the wealthy to make good on those 7 Trillion dollars of IOU's

2) Means Test Social Security in such a way that it's going to those who need it, and not paying a fat check to wealthy retirees.

3) make people work longer, to the point where they never get to retire.


And if you're Mitt Romney, rich jerkwad who made his fortune screwing working folks, guess which one sounds like a good idea to you.

Three ways to take what people earned.



btw, we already have number 3.

 

[HUGGY]

Telling the truth is "Cutting your throat" for liberals.....


quite amusing.

It is for Mormans.

 

[saveliberty]

Romney is the closest thing you guys got to Obama lefties. Careful.

 

[Big Fitz]

People are living longer. Across the world, countries are raising their retirement ages because their social security programs cannot cope with the numbers. He didn't 'cut his own throat', he told the truth. Fucking lazy bastards will have to work longer. Get used to it.

but... my social safety hammock CAN"T be on back order!!!!!