• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans move to address Entitlement Spending

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
32,560
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is huge, and more than a little aggravating. YOU PEOPLE OWNED BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2005 AND YOU RAN FROM THIS ISSUE LIKE SCARED PUPPIES!.

but still, it's nice to see Boehner starting to move on this; it's going to be interesting to see what the Tea-Party-Era Republican Party comes up with for a platform in the 2010 and 2012 elections. I'm thinking with a public increasingly worried about the deficit and the debt, this positions Republicans to look like the grownups in this debate, as opposed to Democrats who seem to have little other than 'raise taxes'


John Boehner: Raise Social Security Retirement Age to 70

House Republican Leader John Boehner said in an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review out today that he would back raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 for those who will not retire for another 20 years... Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee National Press Secretary Ryan Rudominer told Hotsheet in response to the comment that the Republican "blueprint" is to privatize Social Security and Medicare, citing the budget of Representative Paul Ryan (R - Wis.). (Republicans are quick to note that while Ryan's "blueprint" for the future has advocated such measures, he has not put them forward as the House Republican budget.) Liberal group Americans United for Change, meanwhile, said Boehner "hopes to unravel progress made as far back as 70 years by scaling back Social Security"...
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I fully support raising the retirement age to deal with social security budget shortfalls. However, 20 years in unacceptably long to implement it. This is yet another example of how the boomers pass the buck greed screws everyone who comes after them. There is merit in slowly introducing changes in order to avoid shocking the system, but that is a maximum 5 year time period, not 20.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
32,560
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree; but just getting the conversation started is important for two reasons: 1. up until now, only President Bush had the stones to really push this on a national level. Boehner coming out gives his entire caucus cover. 2. if Republicans make reformation of the entitlement system a major platform in 2010 and 2012 and win with that platform, it will do much to dispel the Democrats' we-must-run-off-the-cliff-opposing-entitlements-means-elective-defeat chorus
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I fully support raising the retirement age to deal with social security budget shortfalls. However, 20 years in unacceptably long to implement it. This is yet another example of how the boomers pass the buck greed screws everyone who comes after them. There is merit in slowly introducing changes in order to avoid shocking the system, but that is a maximum 5 year time period, not 20.
Personally, I would prefer that they pass a federal law stipulating that payments into Social Security funds can only be used for Social Security programs. That way, when there is a surplus in the funds, politicians (on the left wing and right win, Republicans and Democrats alike) can't spend that surplus for anything else, like defense or education. That's what I would rather have.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
32,560
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
that is currently the law. those funds are kept. in the form of US Treasury Bonds :doh

so i guess we would have to say it's kept in M1 form?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I agree; but just getting the conversation started is important for two reasons: 1. up until now, only President Bush had the stones to really push this on a national level
And he lost that fight badly.

Boehner coming out gives his entire caucus cover. 2. if Republicans make reformation of the entitlement system a major platform in 2010 and 2012 and win with that platform, it will do much to dispel the Democrats' we-must-run-off-the-cliff-opposing-entitlements-means-elective-defeat chorus
In theory yes. However, Republicans have shown they have no problems defending the entitlement system as it is. Many attacks on the Health Care bill were in the form of threats to seniors' medicare. The GOP was defending the entitlement system as a form of political leveraging. Honesty that party has little of.

I don't see them winning this fight though. When Americans realize what they are personally going to lose, they'll stop it just like they did Bush. We'll be in a deeper hole, but that's what happens. I'd fix medicare/aid first before moving to Social Security. Social Security is relatively easy to patch at least for a couple more decades where we can spread the damage out. Medicare/aid is a beast.
 
Top Bottom