Type to search

GOP Senators Propose Raising Medicare Age

Memo Pad Politics

GOP Senators Propose Raising Medicare Age


Republicans have been calling for huge spending cuts to resolve the so-called “fiscal cliff” but they’ve been reluctant to actually name the cuts they want, especially to Medicare — until now. The two GOP senators from Tennessee — Bob Corker  and Lamar Alexander — unveiled a plan Friday with $1 trillion in cuts, most of which would come from Medicare.

The plan would raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67 and raise the cost of Medicare premiums for wealthier beneficiaries, which is reminiscent of Mitt Romney’s plan for the popular program that provides insurance to all Americans 65 and older.

“This will sound unpopular. This is bad medicine for many people. But it is part of what we are supposed to do,” Alexander said.

Corker and Alexander’s plan wouldn’t be part of a short-term deal to avert the “fiscal cliff,” which they assume will solve the question of the expiring Bush tax breaks. Rather, it would be used as a tradeoff in order to get Congress to raise the debt limit. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced Wednesday that the U.S. would hit the statutory debt limit on December 31, 2012. At that point “extraordinary measures” would be taken, giving the government two to three months to pay its bills before defaulting.

President Obama has said that he is unwilling to negotiate to raise the debt limit, as he did in 2011. Whether this means he would invoke the 14th Amendment — as Bill Clinton has said he’d do if he were president — or use some other method to avoid default is unclear.

Corker suggested that reforms to Medicare are necessary, as the program will be insolvent by 2024. The Affordable Care Act includes several cost-saving measures for Medicare, most of which Republicans oppose. Scares about Medicare’s impending “bankruptcy” are almost as old as the program itself, which was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.

Rumors that the president was considering a raise in the eligibilty age prompted a progressive backlash in November. While eliminating 65- and 66-year-olds from guaranteed Medicare coverage would save the federal government an estimated $5.7 billion, it would would cost taxpayers, employers and state governments $11.4 billion.

But at least Republicans are now on record saying that they’d like to prevent millions of  Americans from receiving Medicare.


  1. Diogenes67 December 28, 2012

    How will 65 year olds with pre-existing conditions (all of them) get c0verage…especially if the Republicans want to kill Obamacare?

    1. charleo1 December 28, 2012

      Which reveals the Right Wing’s position on the elderly. They really don’t give a damn
      if 3 quarters of this Country has no medical coverage. In fact they are working feverishly
      to privatize every public hospital in the Country. Then, when it’s a private concern, they’ll
      allow the refusal of care for anyone not covered by a health plan, or unable to acquire credit. And, it is not hyperbole to say, people will die, hell, children will die on the sidewalks of this Nation, in front of emergency rooms, simply because they lack the money.
      And if people are under the delusion that this present GOP would not do such a thing.
      They had better pay closer attention.

  2. I Zheet M'Drawz December 28, 2012

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to lower the eligibility age for Medicare insurance?

    Follow this if you will, you spend yur working years paying into an insurance program that is making incredible profits, You hit 65, about the age when you start to use your medical insurance & they dump you on the taxpayer.

    That’s not fair but I digress.

    If they lowered the age of eligibility to 55 & 1/2 then helathy 55+ folks could get in on the insurance & since they statistically haven’t hit the age where they draw on it their premiums are profit to fund the older members of the group.

    Just imagine how many jobs could be created if the eligibility for full SSI payments was dropped to 59 & 1/2. All those geezers hagning onto jobs would bail ASAP & all those over educated un-and-under employed kids would get sucked up by the vacumn created on all the geezers leaving the work force.

    They only stay for the medical coverage.

  3. docb December 28, 2012

    Ignorant anti-American arses …How about we cut your salaries in half , void your pensions and cancel your medical coverage..That makes more sense for America .. and the people..You DAMN sure have not done the job you were elected to do, senators!

    Disgusting trash!

    1. manfred December 29, 2012

      I could not have said it better!

  4. adriancrutch December 28, 2012

    These guys better be wearing a really well made catcher’s cup! Just because states are too enept to run their pensions and such doesn’t mean the federal government needs the same treatment. I PAY THEIR SALARIES!

  5. amarquez647 December 28, 2012

    How easy it is for a person that now has no medical needs to tell someone that does that though they cannot work that they have to wait until they are 67 to get Medicare. Hell they have only worked for 49 years during that time they paid for medicare.

  6. rhallnj December 28, 2012

    Defacing and vandalizing Medicare and SS remains the great white whale for these lunatics.

    1. Dominick Vila December 29, 2012

      Those are the main targets. They also want to dismantle the Department of Education, Department of Energy, the EPA, end Public broadcasting (PBS, NPR) and everything that contributes to a stable society, protects the environment, and helps prepare our young for the challenges of the future. They are, in effect, determined to destroy the USA and to accomplish that they are arming themselves to the teeth.
      In addition to assault rifles, semi-automatic weapons, and high capacity magazines, they are also buying rocket propelled grenades! It would not surprise me if some have Stinger missiles…

      1. latebloomingrandma December 29, 2012

        They also try to warn us of “Communism” (meaning all liberals) while installing a fascist state. Armed guards in every school? I heard the suggestion that this would be a good job for retired SEALS. When we soon have to go through checkpoints to cross state lines, then we will no longer be a free country. I consider a free country where you can go freely wherever you want without fear of being shot. The NRA considers a free country where all are packing heat. How does that work in my town where there are bars on every block? A drunk with a gun—yikes!

  7. Dominick Vila December 28, 2012

    There are no words to describe the cynicism of millionaires like Corker and Alexander, who enjoy the best medical care available in the country. Dropping MEDICARE recipients aged 65 and 66 from the program until they are 67 or whatever age our elected morons decide is appropriate for middle class seniors to become eligible for MEDICARE after paying for it their entire professional lives, to reduce the deficit by a meager $5.6B should be reason enough to impeach these cowards.
    If they are truly concerned with the budget deficits and accumulation of debt, why don’t they cut DoD programs we need like a hole in the head, why don’t they close military bases rendered obsolete by technology, why don’t they suspend all foreign aid with the exception of humanitarian aid, why don’t they merge Federal agencies with similar charters to eliminate overhead costs? Most importantly, why don’t they dismantle their retirement and benefits plans and join Social Security and MEDICARE like the rest of us?
    Let’s make absolutely certain that every congressman and senator that votes for cuts in SS and/or MEDICARE benefits is voted out in 2014.

    1. sigrid28 December 28, 2012

      When other societies, like pre-Revolutionary France, experimented with this kind of feudalism, the aristocracy was virtually eliminated because of the much greater number of middle class and peasant workers, who finally rose up in unison. I think it was a drought that ultimately tipped the balance. Those revolutionaries had the advantage of large numbers, pitchforks, and other sharp objects (ahem).

      With any luck at all, we may not have to resort to such a violent revolution, even though we must all change. Our style of corporate feudalism can be altered with one new judge on the Supreme Court, to overturn Citizens United. We might, as you suggest, pull it off in one election, if Democrats learn how to fight like William Wallace (of “Braveheart” fame, to mix metaphors) for their candidates at all levels in the 2014 elections. Like the wealthy, self-serving Republicans and their benefactors, the French aristocracy had grown soft. We, on the other hand, have youth, new blood, education, and intelligence on our side.

      1. Dominick Vila December 29, 2012

        The distinct possibility of President Obama nominating one or two moderate Justices to the Supreme Court the next four years was one of the driving forces for the robust opposition he faced during the last campaign.

        1. latebloomingrandma December 29, 2012

          Yes—and the possibility of another far-right justice that would would alter our country for the the next 40 years, is what scared me the most about a Romney administration.

        2. jellis December 29, 2012

          Moderate? I would be thrilled with a moderate appointee. Unless of course your idea of moderate is someone a little to the right of say a ‘Keith Olberman’ then I think I’ll pass!

          1. Dominick Vila December 30, 2012

            I was thinking of someone like Justices Breyer and Kennedy.

      2. atc333 December 29, 2012

        All we have to do is require the Filibustering individual to stand up and and actually speak continually against the bill, as once was required, instead of that Politician simply announcing that he is filibustering the bill, and then goes on with his life as usual.

        While you are at it, make it a requirement that all other work of the nation’s Senate grinds to a halt as the objecting Senator speaks his piece. Reinstate that, and the number of filibusters will suddenly decrease, and we might get some serious dialogue on each bill.

        The current system of simply standing up, and announcing “I am filibustering this bill” is simply counterproductive. Put your mouth where your political dogma is, and start explaining why as you tie up and stall the proposed legislation!

        1. puzzled21 December 29, 2012

          Sounds logical and workable to me.

          1. steven c December 29, 2012

            Yeah sure it does, unless your a person turning 65 and you need medicare.

        2. Jill49 December 29, 2012

          I like this idea. Everyone would get to hear what they are actually thinking and the words that come out of their mouths. They couldn’t take that back.

          1. DurdyDawg December 30, 2012

            You must had been asleep during the presidential elections when the Mittwit flip flopped and his coharts denied everything he said prior.. A typical Orwellian mind think from these T-peers.

          2. Jill49 December 30, 2012

            I didn’t say I support t partiers — I do think if someone fillibusters, that they actually have to do something, put personal time and energy into it and stand there and speak and when that’s over, there should be a vote.

        3. mah101 December 29, 2012

          Yes atc333, but how to make such a change? How do we get Congress to change itself?

          What I keep running into is the problem of reforming Congress without requiring Congress to do the reforms. Perhaps a system to run National referenda on issues that would require Congress to act?

          1. Cindy Adams December 29, 2012

            why don’t we limit congress to 2 four year terms ,they stay in there to long forget about the people who put them there

        4. jellis December 29, 2012

          Seems like the party in control is always the party wanting to end the fillibuster until they are no longer in control. Then it becomes THEIR tool to stop unwanted legislation or appointments. Why have a democracy at all? Let’s just put a ruling party in place and resort to a bloody revolution every time the people get tired of the supreme commander.

      3. charleo1 December 29, 2012

        Well, you’re right on the filibuster. And, it seems to me we continue to have a
        revolution of sorts. We could call it a general awakening of tens of millions of
        Americans to the fact that the Country is in trouble. The consensus as to the
        causation of those troubles has been slower in coming, as might be expected
        in a Country as diverse as we are. But complicating the matter further is, for
        the first time in the modern era we no longer obtain our information from a
        more or less, a singular source. We no longer have a Walter Cronkite.
        A trusted arbiter of the truth, to help us make up our collective minds. Today,
        who we are as individuals determines to a great extent how we access our
        information, and the belief in the veracity of that information used to provide informed consent. In other words, we all agree there is problem. But, what we tend
        to believe that problem to be , and therefore, the remedies to fix it, vary
        greatly, depending on which set of general facts one brings to the table.
        I do believe however, that out of the polarization, some coming together, on
        some of the most foundational questions as the recent election demonstrated.

        1. Dominick Vila December 29, 2012

          The accuracy of the information we get from a media controlled by special interests is, indeed, a problem. The worst problem, in my opinion, is our reliance on what the media tells us to form an opinion. Sometimes I get the impression that we can no longer think rationally, that we have lost the willingness or ability to search for the truth, which is amazing considering how easy it is to find factual information these days.
          A large segment of our population has been brainwashed to the point that they believe the most bizarre claims or concepts, and don’t hesitate to take matters into their own hands to protect and advance the interests of the puppet masters even when doing so is against their best interest.
          A similar circumstance took place during the last election when, alleged, reliable pollsters were so far off the mark we have no choice but to think their prognostications reflected what their donors wanted them to say. Thank God for Nate Silver!

          1. charleo1 December 29, 2012

            Excellent points on both comments. Which, judging from the affirmative votes, many agree. And although it is still unclear if those disseminating agenda driven, misinformation, will suffer the consequences of being outed, and be largely dismissed by a wiser, more savvy public. We will see. A couple of watershed moments that may serve
            to further the necessary critical thinking that must become a part of our, the public’s
            process of separating the wheat from the chaff. One instance occurred on election night,
            as the returns came in, it became painfully clear to the Fox host, information they had
            been reporting for weeks as to the closeness of the election, were wildly off the mark.
            Karl Rove, his guest, probably the one person that had as much at stake as any of the
            candidates themselves, and perhaps in a state of profound shock, continued to deny the truth. Another smaller, but nonetheless powerful moment came with the last jobs report
            before people headed to the polls. Republicans had been endlessly describing the economic
            situation in the Country, as dire, and getting worse by the hour. Even as the markets,
            and other indicators had been pointing to improvement for weeks. Finally the friday
            unemployment numbers came out showing the rate dropped below the 8% mark, to 7.9%.
            More psychological than meaningful. Yet, some fairly well respected pundits on the
            Right, suggested beyond all credulity, the Obama Administration had somehow, engineered the numbers. Most notable of these, “financial experts,” was Jack Welch,
            former head of GE. Who of all people, that had run this huge enterprise, depending in
            part on this very government report, knew he was lying. As did a wide majority of
            the voters. And although taken as a single incident, may not have moved the needle. But,
            I think many of the less than credible assertions made by those on the Right, served
            to create the perception of dishonesty. And that, for the middle of the roader, the voter
            just tuning in, that middle 5-6%, necessary for the win, it could have made the difference.
            We do know history often turns on the smallest of events. And it takes the reflection of
            time to see what that event, or events were.

          2. CPANewYork January 2, 2013

            Who is nate Silver?

        2. mah101 December 29, 2012

          To further the problem, we not only lack a reliable source of objective truth to which all (or most) can turn and on which we can rely. We have commercialized the news into a system of entertainment that panders to certain niches and provides them the product that they want (news you can believe in, regardless of how out of touch your beliefs…)

          News is a national interest, not entertainment. The FCC regulates the airwaves – a public asset – why is it that we have such blatant falsehoods, crazies, and propagandists as Rush, Beck, and Hannity? (not to mention the vapid and shallow remainder of much of the rest of the media) Why do they get to fuel such idiocy, paranoia, and hatred with lies on the publicly regulated airwaves?

          1. charleo1 December 29, 2012

            You’re absolutely right! Today we have a product called, “The News.” It is treated in the
            same manner as any other reality show. The commercials that are broadcast between
            dire warnings of what awaits us, if we fall off the, “fiscal cliff,” or what Justin Bieber’s
            love life looks like this week, the ads selling weight loss programs, are more regulated
            for truth, than the, “News.” It has become all about the ratings. News, you can choose!
            If one was for Mr. Romney, they welcomed, and were entertained by higher unemployment
            numbers. Or predictions of them. Bad news is plentiful in a recession. Stories hinting at scandal, like Solendra, or those seeming to support a particular narrative, like the photo
            of two Black Panthers at a Philadelphia, polling place, were run 24/7 on an endless loop.
            Even as there was no story in particular at all, to accompany the picture. The fact that
            Fox subscribers are being mislead by that thing we must call propaganda, belies the other
            truth. Which is, their ratings as a commercial enterprise, dwarf the combined numbers of both CNN, and MSNBC. Which means the battle for the truth in America’s news media, is
            far from over.

          2. jellis December 29, 2012

            And if one were for Mr Obama, everything was cheery except for the evil doings of those nasty conservatives. OWS was grand TeaParty is racist! Don’t confuse the issues with facts – both sides are just as guilty of this.

          3. charleo1 December 29, 2012

            I do have to watch, “Confusing the issue with facts.” However, the facts did not support
            the claim Obama had made the recession worse. But the T-Party’s refusal to allow the
            rise in the debt ceiling did harm the recovery. So, let’s not get further into the weeds with
            another false equivalency. The Right’s proclivity to play hard, and loose with the facts,
            has been a huge disservice to the Country. And Republican’s decision to intentionally
            slow walk the economic recovery for strictly political purposes, is frankly unforgivable.

          4. jellis December 30, 2012

            And the dems refusal to cut any spending is driving us further into debt. Obama wants tax increases now and to talk about cuts “down the road” We’ve seen this episode too many times and it always ends the same.

          5. charleo1 December 30, 2012

            Taxes are historically low. They are not stimulating the economy, and cutting spending
            at the levels the radical T-party is demanding would cost jobs, and bring on recession.
            Plus the Republicans want Democrats to cut SS/Medicare/Medicaid, then go barking
            about how the Dems threw Grandma under the bus. The proper thing to do is a com-
            bination of tax increases, and spending cuts. It makes no sense to undermine the economy,
            reduce the tax base by fewer jobs, and a lower GNP, to protect high end tax breaks
            over ideology.

          6. CPANewYork January 2, 2013

            Hey, jellis: What do you think of eliminating all of the offshore tax shelters and subjecting that money to income tax rates immediatly?

          7. Dominick Vila December 29, 2012

            Bear in mind that the so called Fiscal Cliff is an artificial crisis created by the same politicians who can not figure out how to solve it.
            During the debt ceiling exercise a year ago Republicans demanded an extension of the Bush tax cuts and automatic spending reductions. The TEMPORARY Bush tax cuts were extended until 1/1/13, and the automatic spending reductions were scheduled to take place on 1/1/13.
            There is nothing magical about the date. It could have been 7/1/12 or 7/1/13. It doesn’t really matter. The reason for the tax extension and the automatic spending reductions was to provide the impetus needed to pursue a fiscal solution. A year passed, nothing happened, and here we are in the 11th hour trying to find a last minute solution. It is not going to happen.
            The problem is not that our elected officials don’t know how to solve the problem, but that they don’t have the courage to tell the American people what needs to be done to balance the budget, stop borrowing, and stop accumulating debt.
            I expect a compromise on the tax issue. Most likely, it will only affect families earning over $500K. The automatic spending reductions will be postponed a few months, which means that when the next debt ceiling debate takes place in February we will have that and an unresolved spending reduction plan.
            Ideological rivalries bordering on fanatism, intransigence, the influence of money in American politics, greed, and political cowardice are undermining the ability of our government to function, are damaging our national credibility, and may have disastrous long term consequences on our economy, our ability to borrow, and our ability to influence world events.

          8. charleo1 December 29, 2012

            The T-Party is not interested in governing. They decide each issue in the negative,
            because their goal is the failure of The Federal Government. As the debt ceiling
            becomes a suicide pill without affirmative Congressional action, it makes the perfect
            foil. We can, and we will, destroy the world, financially speaking, if our demands are
            not met. This, of course serves no one. Especially the businesses that funded their
            campaigns. But, they created the monster, and thankfully decent people on both sides
            are forming the framework that will work around the nit wits. As to the debt. I tend
            to agree with the majority of Americans, who agreed with the President. We need both
            a combination of more revenue, and spending cuts that are not so severe as to harm
            the inertia of the improving economy in the short run. And find ways to eliminate,
            or consolidate, overlapping programs. Trim military spending, while keeping faith
            with the troops, especially those wounded. And do the hard work of improving, and
            expanding healthcare, while reducing it’s costs. And not the expedient thing, if your
            constituency happens to be wealthy, and cut costs by denying care to the poor, and
            elderly. That’s if we want to continue to be proud of ourselves, and our Country.

          9. charleo1 December 30, 2012

            Overall, I believe you have the politics right. But, I seem to recall the Bush tax cut
            extensions for two years being agreed to by Obama, if in the lame duck session of ’09,
            long term unemployment benefits were extended, the nuclear treaty Obama signed
            with Russia was allowed to be put to a vote, as was the Dream Act. It failed. But,
            the treaty was ratified, as benefits for the long term unemployed were extended.
            I think Obama did the right thing by the Country, and decided to roll the dice on
            deficits, he would need to explain in his reelection campaign. Easier to do, he may have
            calculated, than explain the 10% unemployment number he would have had, if
            Republicans had bee able to make all the spending cuts they wanted. My opinion is
            Obama won his case in the most American way possible. He took his balanced
            approach to cutting spending, while protecting the economy from contraction due to
            an over zealous austerity regimen. Keynesian? You bet. But no more so than funding
            military programs the Republicans claimed to not do so, would cost jobs. The problem
            the cut spending, and cut it now folks have is, it kills job growth much more than taxes
            on the top 2%. It is flawed logic that more money in the pockets of management will
            result in more jobs regardless of demand. Obama’s case was the economy grows from
            the middle out, not the top down. He won, and the policies ought to reflect the agreement
            of the people on that central point.

          10. CPANewYork January 2, 2013

            Our elected officials aren’t elected. They’re bought.

          11. jellis December 29, 2012

            you left out Schultz, Matthews, Maddow, and a host of others on the left. Misinformation is not only a problem on the right. It is a problem in general. Anyone who does not see that is part of the herd.

      4. Gilbert December 29, 2012

        I concur with you. Something must be done. Why not implement the institution of “Flogging” as a penalty for filibustering??? Hire some guys the size of Shaquille O’Neal and let them administer the flogging, 100 lashes with a length of garden hose on the bare backs of whoever dares to waste the tax-payers time with filibuster… That ought to eliminate a lot of game-playing.

      5. onedonewong December 29, 2012

        a more moral and easier to implement change would stopping those who don’t pay any federal income tax from voting. So that congress truly represents the american taxpayer

        1. Sandra Lee Smith December 30, 2012

          So deny the seniors and vets who are low and fixed income but have served this nation and EARNED that right? That’s reasonable…NOT!

          1. onedonewong December 30, 2012

            How do seniors and vets come in to play??? Obviously your part of that 47% who don’t pay any taxes because those of us that do know that seniors and vets pay taxes. They have always paid taxes

          2. Sandra Lee Smith December 30, 2012

            Low income and they don’t pay income taxes. I am a senior and a vet.

          3. onedonewong December 30, 2012

            How did seniors and vets become part of the discussion?? Had you ever paid taxes you would know that seniors and vets have always paid taxes. Its the leeches of this society that don’t and your part of that 47%

      6. Sandra Lee Smith December 30, 2012

        No , it was a “false flag” FAMINE engineered to achieve exactly what it DID: a blood bath in the streets of France! And it was engineered by the SAME groups with the SAME agenda as are behind 9/11, and every war since and including the French “revolution”! The GOAL is to establish the NWO, and the reign of the SAME one who has been opposing everything good for MILLENIA!

      7. CPANewYork January 2, 2013

        In three revolutions that I’ve read about, the French, the Russian and the Cuban, the rich were caught completely by surprise when the shooting started. They actually thought that they were going to get away with what they were doing to the lower classes forever.

        The result is that they waited too long to leave their respective countries and many perished. That could happen here.

      8. Gary Godfrey January 6, 2013

        The thing you seem to forget is that the French Revolution was started by the nobility who opposed the king, not by the peasants nor even by the bourgeoisie. The peasants in the Vendee fought for the king as royalists, against the bourgeoisie.

    2. Plznnn December 29, 2012

      It is not only Congress, the President is the one not bending on cutting any Spending, only tax increases to Spend MORE. He has no intention of cutting our debt, wants to raise the debt ceiling again, and was the one that took $716 Billion from Medicare. We need a balanced-budget amendment so they can spend only what we allow them, and to keep their hands OFF S.S. & Medicare as a grab bag for votes.

      1. Reddiaperbaby December 29, 2012

        Oh, please…stop with the $716 billion bullshit. Idiots continually repeating a lie will not make it any truer the fiftieth time as it was untrue the first time. You have my deepest sympathy upon the paralysis which has affected your thinking (?) process.

      2. lexi001 December 29, 2012

        I have a news flash for you; in order to get this economy moving money will have to be spent. That’s the way it is whether you like to see that or not. There is plenty of waste out there that is never mentioned in all of this. The politician’s chose to put SS into the general fund. Get it yet? As for the 716B you mention, that money was NOT taken from the user. Stop trying to find crap to stand up for the GOP and trash the President. I think many have done that long enough. I don’t care whether you like him, hate him, loathe him with every fiber of your being, as many do. If you want what’s good for this country, you will support him. That does not mean you must be in lock-step with everything he does. It means you should only hope and pray that the downright hatred for this man doesn’t cause our downfall.

      3. Rvn_sgt6768 December 29, 2012

        The deficit HAS dropped from 2008-9 (last Bush budget year) from $1.8+ Trillion to this years $1.2+ Trillion. Remember Bush ran both wars OFF THE BOOKS so to speak and President Obama rightly put them back in the budget where they belong. Without the two wars and the Medicare Part D (also off the books and unfunded) in a down economy and high unemployment President Obama has still managed to CUT spending. We do NOT need any balanced budget amendment. IT works for states but not for the Federal Government because states do not fund the same things such as disaster relief and wars and healthcare, this money comes from the Federal government. Understand the roles of each before you post nonsense you heard on Faux news.

    3. RSDrake December 29, 2012

      DoD cuts are where the savings are. Last year Lockheed Martin took in $200 billion from the Fed Govt. DoD’s budget is about $655 this year. Looking at the waste, mismanagement and unneeded projects at LM is a good start. F-22 Program – a failure. F-35 Program, over budget, mismanaged, and has so many bells and whistles it will become a maintenance nightmare.

      I served on the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal. The Ranger, a sister ship, had significant operational problems. The Navy removed every person from the Ranger and distribuited them around the fleet. We had to send about 10% of our crew to the Ranger. Ranger’s problems went away.

      I would like to amend Dominick’s proposal to vote them ALL out and start over.
      This is the least productive Congress since 1940.

    4. puzzled21 December 29, 2012

      Can we start a national movement right now to to place them in the same retirement and benefit planswith us common folks. I will be the first to volunteer.

      1. lexi001 December 29, 2012

        The continuous chant about making them go on Medicare and having the same retirement and benefits is really a waste of time. Once entrenched as “politician’s” they do not need any of those things. Their “friends” have steered them to the right investments (think insider trading), have lined up a high (and I do mean High) paying position for them either in lobbying or some ridiculous title in some corporate welfare industry, willingly pay them HUGE sums to “consult” and then they write books (books that sing their own praises) which us fools buy that makes them more millions. Their family, wives, daughters, sons, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are also given well-paying position’s, even if it’s just in title. How do you think the money stays at the top? Do any of you know anyone who can do all this for you? No? I didn’t think so. Think Hollywood; you have all read about some of these high-paid actor’s/actress’es
        ending up on welfare or going bankrupt. Ever hear about one of our elected elite going belly-up? No? I didn’t think so. The GOP now wants the bottom-feeder’s (that would be the rest of us) to now pay the bills for all the thievery, corruption and out-right fraud they have perpetrated. To raise taxes, whether it gets us out of debt is a moot point to me, would be a cardinal sin because they “worked” for it. The guy/gal making minimum wage didn’t work for their’s. Too bad they don’t have some of those “friends”. That’s your problem, not theirs. If some of you folks don’t see how this has destroyed us then you need to educate yourselves. While some of you are screaming about the “moocher’s” try imagine living on $20,000/yr. That’s if you’re lucky! Is that so hard to do? Do those of you who feel this way really have ANY idea how many people work for minimum wage? How many have NO benefit’s? We needn’t even get to the unemployed, whom some seem to believe those on it are enjoying the good life!! BTW, these minimum wage worker’s are the very people EVERY LAST ONE OF US relies on EVERY SINGLE DAY.

    5. Perry Silver December 29, 2012

      I, like you, am mad as hell, and don’t want to take any more of the crap that is coming from our elected officials. Its time for us to stop talking about what they should do, and take the bull by the horns and take steps to eliminate some of the legislation that these officials voted to protect them. Their entitlements are just that, whereas the Medicare and Social Security that the rest of us get, are a result of our having paid into those programs, all of our lives, whereas they simply got elected and get automatic pay raises and great benefits, along with a continuation of their salaries, AFTER they leave office. Lets put term limits in for all of them. The president may only serve for two terms. Why not for congress and senators, as well. Its about time that we get rid of the dead weight and special interests. Lets stop sending billions of dollars to countries who hate us, and only help out for humanitarian needs, plus all of those things that Dominick suggested.
      Is there anyone on here who knows how to institute new bills where we can vote in regulations that would end this mess? I personally like Warren Buffet’s way of solving this fiscal mess.

    6. foster1930 December 29, 2012

      From J FOSTER
      I agree 100% with your comments, how on earth do the American people vote for such politicians that serve the interest of the super-rich. Cut Government spending on the backs of the poor that is their agenda. Many of these politicians support big defense budget, guess what it benefits the Military Industrial complex.

    7. Eddie Powell December 29, 2012

      i agree with you let,s show these dictator,s that we still have a voice in our government and your word,s dominick was well said but you forgot to mention one important idea that is if a congressman vacate to his home state when important measure,s are at hand than he should stay home and don,t bother on coming back in other word,s impeachment procedure,s should be in place bohener and mitch o,connell applie,s these measures when they don,t get thier way

    8. elw December 29, 2012

      You can bet that if they were put on Medicare they would never touch the program except to improve it.

    9. dennis boyd December 29, 2012

      yeah the nerve of these idiots..The President would never sign a bill that will hurt elderly or retiree’s

    10. Jerry Beck December 29, 2012

      Dominick,I have been saying the same thing,lets cut their pay,retirement pay and for sure completely take away their benefits plan. Lets see how much they screw around with Social Security and Medicare than. Lets also not let them vote for a raise in their own pay,should be us voting on that.

    11. Nomoresmoke December 29, 2012

      I am confused too Dominick, how is it that the politicians benefits (retirement, medical, etc) are NOT at risk when taxpayer dollars are covering their hypocritical butts? Tell me, shouldn’t the leadership start out showing Americans that they are first and foremost leading the way and showing by example? I agree that the ONLY way to make sure medical and retirements stay solvent is to put the Politicians in the same plan as the citizens. What better way to have a true watchdog minding their collective asses and actually watching out for their constituents.

    12. 1bythebrooks2 December 29, 2012

      I’ve said that all along. Let them all pay for there own health insurance. When they leave office, that’s it. No salery for life and no heath coverage paid for for life. Maby a small pension if you served 2 terms or more. Think how much of the deficite would be cut then!!

    13. metrognome3830 December 29, 2012

      I’m with you on pretty much everything, Dominick. I just wanted to point out something. I believe that congress, since 1984, has been on the Social Security plan and under the ACA they are required to be covered just like the rest of us. That may explain why they are so determined to do away with the ACA. As for voting them out I will keep trying.

    14. jointerjohn December 29, 2012

      This is a jobs killer.
      Now people like me will cling to our jobs two more years making it more difficult for young people to take our places. I want a twenty-something to come take my job as I exit into retirement. This confounds that.

    15. jointerjohn December 29, 2012

      You wonderful and clear thinking man, Dominick. We can pay for all retirees health care right out of what we are squandering in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    16. Don December 29, 2012

      SSo those 65-67 would be dropped from Medicare. Is that right?

      1. jellis December 30, 2012

        NO! That is not correct, although the writer of this article fails to mention plans to raise the eligibilty age for Medicare are to phase the changes in over time. Those already on Medicare would see no change nor would those near retirement.

    17. Bill December 29, 2012

      Well said Dominick. These ordinary men are elected by the people to represent us. After they get into office, it all changes. Their responsibilites are redirected toward their political party, financial supporters, and desire for more benefits, perks and financial success. Havnt heard of many congressment leaving office broke and destitute. Why are they above the laws of our constitution? Because they can. How can our children and grandchildren stay supportive of the constitution, Bill of Rights, and the american political system when they can see and read such insane behavior by those that are supposed to represent the people. Where is the control of the people over congress and their actions?

    18. Doctor T December 30, 2012

      Am with you, Dom! These people are scum and only want to perpetuate fear and hate and division within the ranks of the people in this country. How, I pray, can we expose them for all of their selfish greediness?

    19. Malcolm December 31, 2012

      I agree, if we the people made it so there was more empathy for the middle class, such as having people in office share the same benefits that we the people share. some need to be reminded of where they came from to this land of the free home of the brave

    20. Craig J Phillips January 2, 2013

      I like what you said Dominick. But one thing……..I wouldn’t wait until 2014. I would vote them out now. But I know I am dreaming

    21. William M Burch January 8, 2013

      great i say an get the parts of the gov that owe ss money with a lot of iou pay today there money back

  8. Sand_Cat December 28, 2012

    The GOP – whether Senators or Congresspeople – wants to destroy the country, starting with the environment, the Bill of Rights, and the powerless among us. They clearly HATE true liberty for anyone but themselves; everyone else needs a government “minder.” Then they have the gall to suggest they’re the party of “small government.” Their whole philosophy is a massive spying program with harassment or worse for all who deviate in any way from their disturbing concept of “normal.”

  9. Urbane_Gorilla December 28, 2012

    Our defense costs (obvious and hidden) account for more than $1 Trillion each year (29.6% of our budget) . Our medical costs at $960 Billion per year (Medicare and Medicaid, and health services) are twice that of any other developed nation in the world. If we cut our absurd defense budget in half and adopted any other advanced country’s health care system, we could trim $1 Trillion off our $3.8 Trillion budget. IMO, that is so obvious and in effect very painless. But these two jackasses would rather have seniors living in cardboard boxes eating cat food than fix our health care or trim our war machine.

    1. Reddiaperbaby December 29, 2012

      Well said!!

  10. TZToronto December 28, 2012

    If employers would cooperate and stop canning people at age 65 (or younger), then perhaps raising the eligibility age to 67 might be reasonable. However, employers love to get rid of older employees (i.e., 55+) because older employees generally get paid more than younger employees–and the younger employees are cheaper to insure.

  11. TZToronto December 28, 2012

    Logic and common sense are the enemies of big government. For example, if illegal drugs were legalized and taxed, drug crime and enforcement costs would drop. Addiction would drop as well. Drug dealers would have to find real jobs. Prisons would empty. The drug cartels would dry up. Has no one thought of this? No. The insanity of doing the same failed thing and expecting different results is how the U.S. government operates. As for health care, if everyone were insured in a single-payer system, everyone would be able to go to the doctor for annual checkups, and they’d be healthier. This alone would cut the cost of health care. The taxpayer would benefit because the uninsured, who Romney said can be treated in emergency rooms (the most expensive health care available), would now be able to get treatment through government-funded insurance (that would set the rates for payment). No more $50 tongue depressors and $50K+ hip replacements.

  12. Lynda December 28, 2012

    The idea or raising the age for folks starting Medicare has been proven to be more costly, so naturally the GOP is in favor of that idea. They’ve run up the national debt in the name of enrichment for their owners for decades so something this onerous is no surprise. The idea of trying to tackle the real problem of ever escalating health cost is beyond them. They have a simplistic world view and bumping up the age makes sense to them. If only the world was a simple as it is in the bazarro world of the Tea Potty.

  13. Richard Stewart December 29, 2012

    What is the Democrat plan to save Medicare? What do the Democrats plan to do to prevent Medicare from going bankrupt so no one has it anymore? We cannot just continue like we are and expect Medicare to be there for all of us. Ain’t gonna happen. So what IS the plan?

    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      The Dems plan seems to be … problem, what problem? There is no problem. Tax the rich and with that 8 day supply of money we have no problem. Plus if we do not create a budget (for 4+ years) there is not a problem with spending … see? NO PROBLEM!

  14. Michael Mitchell December 29, 2012

    This is a heart breaking deal for those 5-10 years out from retirement. Many workers have worked at physically and mentally challenging jobs for years and to keep them in the workforce longer will only require more healthcare costs and it will be deadly and disabling for many.

  15. atc333 December 29, 2012

    Or, instead of this GOP proposal, the Fed could get really serious and determine exactly why we in the US pay twice as much for the same medical care and to four times as much for prescription drugs as other Western Industrialized nations, yet our medical care system is now rated at number 37 world wide for most Americans. Unfortunately, that would “interfere” with the GOP’s version of “capitalism” and “free enterprise” in America. Just think, implement some reforms, and we could cut the massive amounts of money spent on excessively priced medical care, medicaid, and Medicare by a third. Consider what that alone would do for our Federal Deficits.

  16. lydon1930 December 29, 2012

    when are they going to cut their entitlements, health insurance, retirement, etc. once elected they are taken care of for life. Put them on medicare and social security like the rest of us and lets see how they cut

    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      Not totally bad ideas but not all that effective either. eliminate all salaries for senators, reps, and president and you save about $10M a year. This article and comment thread is arguing about a $5 billion figure. It would take 485 years to equal the same.

      Stupid comparison I know, but it does kind of put in perspective.

  17. ivory69690 December 29, 2012

    and one has to wonder how these GOP ding–dong’s are still in office .when are the ppl. going to see just how much the GOP care’s about the ppl. of the country .all thy want is to take away from the ppl. mostly the 98% just to make sure the greedy bastard 2 % have their money thy dont need . when is it that the greedy bastard 2 % mean more then the 98 % of the country ? well ppl are you going to wake up and see just what the GOP wants and are going to do to this country and it’s ppl. ? 2014 the next vote get those GOP ding–dongs out of office so we can more forward . and by 2016 we can get what ever’s left to the GOP ding–dong party of no out and better this country

  18. Grunge45 December 29, 2012

    The usual Republican stance. Screw the little guy, make love to the rich. The reason costs would go UP, is because there would be much greater use of emergency rooms and other available lower cost approaches, thus resulting in a net INCREASE in costs. Furthermore, it cost “shifts”, from the government, to the individual. But who cares? The billionaires will keep their money.

  19. Sara Deleon December 29, 2012

    GOOD morning dear GOP Senators I can believe the most riche Country in the all word do not have the Balance for the next year is ridiculez just because they don’t want to tax the wealthy, we elect you to work for the citizen of your country not help other, very sad work just to keep others happy regular citizen work to pay taxes because we do not have any help if I go To see a Dr, i had to pay ,for everything just to give to people that they do not do nothing Or give our tax money to others countrys to keep then as allies to made wars that we no need ether . Hope our senate fixed this in a good manner for the good family that we work very hard to keep our families living in a good place .God bless America.

    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      8 days Sara … 8 days!
      That is how long the increased taxes on successful Americans will fund our government at current spending levels.

  20. Fever December 29, 2012

    Lets bring to surface exactly what we the Tax Payers are paying to provide the Congressmen and the Senetors with Health Care Coverage and to be more exact lets bring out what their Free Ride on Tax Payers pay in relation to their Coverage in comparison to what people on Medicare receive. Maybe we could scale down their Easy Street Benifits to what Medicare Pays out. In doing this maybe they would have a better idea just what the Tax Payers are facing, remember that when a person receives Medicare that does not cover their spose so lets go futher and say that the Sposes of the Congressmen and Senetors not be covered buy Tax Payer Paid Insurance for their family let them do as we have to and purchase our on insurance. Lets get the Do NOTING Boys in Washington to come down to the Tax Payers level and lets plug up the leak that these people how and I quoate ( Run our Country) it would be better stated in saying they are the ones who are Running This Country into the Ground ! ….. Mr. Baner would then have something to CRY about I am sure he might even give up his Golf games to be able to pay for his own insurance and lesson his travels maybe …… Happy New Year Washington, its time you people come back down to earth !
    James Fontenot in Louisiana

  21. stcroixcarp December 29, 2012

    The republican death squad is at it again. The hope is that 65 and 66 year olds will die before their 67th birthday. That is where the real “savings ” will occur. Seems to me like these scrooges should be clamoring for more abortions because then there will never be any costs to medicare, medicare and Social Security for those individuals who never are born.

  22. William Quigley December 29, 2012

    How about bringing all our troops home from Iraq, Afganistan, and Europe? Savings should be somewhere in the vicinity of 100,000,000,000 dollars per year or a trillion dollar in the next decade. All we are doing in the middle east and Europe is alienating people in this region of the world. In addition to being very ineffective, we can no longer afford this kind of police action. History verifies this scienario in the case of The Soviet Union, An overextension of their military involvement in Eastern Europe killed the Soviet Union economically in addition of earning them many enemies. Our primary reason for being in the middle east is to protect our enegry sources. If we can achieve energy independence within North Amercica (including Canada and Mexico), we will be much better off militarily and econmically. Much of the money spent and Canada and Mexico comes right back to the USA with increased trade.

    1. Reddiaperbaby December 29, 2012

      Good idea, but where will all these unemployed returnees find jobs? I guess the answer will be bigger soup kitchens and more homeless shelters…what a country!!

  23. Raphaelmj December 29, 2012

    We have to make cuts that will balance the budget and reduce the national debt. While we should make the rich pay their fair share, adjustments to entitlements are necessary, because people are living longer. Money does not grow on trees.
    Raphael Maliakal

  24. Snowbeard December 29, 2012

    I question the $11.4 billion figure as being heavily inflated. And I agree with cutting costs. One way to cut costs would be to remove Congress from it’s special status healthcare coverage and place them all on ther same insurance coverage the rest of the country receives. That way, we’d know if they really felt raising age requirements is a sound idea.

  25. Judy December 29, 2012

    I’ve had Medicare taken out of my Social Security check since 2008! I’m 66 now and have not gone to the DR. but 1 time…Breast and Spinal at different places…..THAT’S ALL, Now I’m older and can really use it “THEY” want to cut it or do away with it….I want my premiums back!!!

    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      I don’t believe anyone has proposed any changes for current beneficiaries or even those who will become eligible in the next few years. National Memo’s headlines can be misleading.

      But respectfully, you are part of the problem.
      You say you have been paying in to the system since 2008? 4 years? Yet you have already had what I would guess were rather costly claims.

      I am not begrudging you any coverage you may have received, only pointing out part of the problem … Not all pay in anyway near as much as they take out.

      I hope your health issues are resolved and wish you good health going forward.

  26. Jerry December 29, 2012

    These two idiots know, are should know, People here in Tennessee has worked their life times. And thanks to them the wages here are very low, all people here are against their stupid ideas. We have said leave SS. and medicare alone. Never have voted for one of these and never will.Sure wish we the people could impeach all these idiots.

  27. Boomer December 29, 2012

    The Republicans keep harping about future generations having to pay the current debt and now their solution is to increase the burden on many of them by requiring that they wait longer for Medicare at a time when their medical costs are expected to increase. I suppose Corker, and Alexander, and the other Republicans who have become wealthy while feeding at the public trough figure they will leave fortunes to their descendants that will permit them to afford the medical care they want to deny to the less fortunate. Their cynicism knows no bounds!

  28. Joyce Thomas December 29, 2012

    This is sickening.

  29. turtlewoman1039 December 29, 2012

    TWO unfunded wars of choice, tax cuts for the wealthiest for YEARS, major PROFITABLE corporations who pay little or no taxes, corporate welfare for the oil/gas/coal industries, bailouts for the banking industry/wall st who drove this economy into a ditch….

  30. Perry Moore December 29, 2012

    I think it is time the American people takes back their Country. It seems that we have a few people in Washington that think this country belongs to them when when it comes down to brass tacks they don’t even belong to themself because they are owned by big business and any one with enough money to buy them. And I for one donl’t think they are worth very much.

  31. AaronNashuaNH December 29, 2012

    And the beat goes on as conservatives do their utmost best to protect the rich while fleecing the not-as well-off. But the sycophants who sheepishly continue to elect such dubious public servants, and praise them at the ballot box and in public forums, will
    ensure that this nuttiness and danger will be ever-present in this country.

  32. terry December 29, 2012

    vote republican, stupid old white men

  33. terry December 29, 2012

    oh, rich ones dont forget and dreamers

  34. Liz Feeser-Regan December 29, 2012

    I am 63 without what I would call good health care, I have been waiting to reach 65 so I can go on medicare, I paid into medicare for 40 some odd years, I am very upset. What will happen is that people like me will end up on medicaid.

  35. mpjt16 December 29, 2012

    This change makes perfectly good sense. We are living longer and healthier. Sixty-seven should be the age for Social Security too. And premiums should be higher considering the coverage we get. Too many people collecting on Medicare are getting new hips and knees. One of these operations eats up the dollars we paid in over the years since 1965. They should also charge a premium to upper income vets who use the VA system. Perhaps there should be some option for people who have earned an income of under $50,000/year to still get benefits at 65. It seems that extending the age would most impact those who can least afford to be without care.
    I don’t think they are proposing to drop anyone who is a current recipient but they would phase this in over a couple years.
    No one can say that these are solvent programs. We have all become accustomed to the foolishly small amounts we have paid in to SS and Medicare and somehow think that has paid our way forever. When the reality is that politicians were too worried about their careers so they would never address the demographic shifts or the future costs of these social programs. It is just too unpopular to make needed adjustments. But you can’t get something for nothing forever and we all need to step up, especially those of us who have benefitted most from the wealth of the country.

  36. Billbook December 29, 2012

    OK so we save $5.6B in out of pocket Medicare payments. But note that folks over age 60 are the major consumers of health care dollars in the U. S. So we raise the eligibility age to 67 and people with developing problems delay treatment until they reach age 67 –remember how the private sector is cutting our medical insurance for its devoted employees., So as a result the medical problems which could be handled with low cost at age 65 now are really expensive to treat at age 67. But of course if they die there is no cost.
    We should be moving the age of eligibility to say 62 or lower in order to reduce the overall cost of health care for all of us.
    Dr William Carlson, PHd

  37. jellis December 29, 2012

    So you are all bitchin’ and blamin’ and whinin’, but nobody on the progressive left is offering any real counter proposals. Raising taxes on successful Americans cannot be the only answer. They may be wealthy, but all of the Buffetts in the US can’t buy us out of this mess. Spending HAS to go down and no one (esp. progessive/liberals) will accept cuts anywhere except perhaps defense but even that only goes so far. Wake up and face the real world!

    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      BTW Liz Freeser-Regan … all the proposals I’ve seen to raise the Medicare age have been phased in over time with those nearing the current start up age seeing no changes. As mpjt16 points out Americans are living longer and raising the age only makes sense. People used to receive Medicare benefits for what, 10 years – now many live into their late 80s and older. Progressives/liberals are ‘all about’ evolving rules to meet changing times unless it affects their pocketbook.

  38. commserver December 29, 2012

    The formula in Federal tax cuts = increase in state and local costs

    The state cuts = increase in local costs.

    In the END the local costs goes up.

    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      That may be true to an extent.

      I believe that when it gets to the local level there is an advantage, in that local level spending is more closely monitored and should result in less waste – with the exception of corrupt local governments anything in California 🙂

      So … is the only solution to keep raising taxes and spending more indefinitely? At some point that has to result in disaster such as we have seen in the EU or worse since the US plays such a major role in world economies.

      Or do we make (less painful) changes now to avoid a return to the Dark Ages?

      Can you imagine a world without US as the dominant force for good? When we go broke who will send trillions of dollars to help fend off starvation, disaster relief, and yes protect the struggling masses around the world. What will happen when the aid is cut off? Look at France (a 1st world country) – workers riot because they may have to work a few extra hours a week. What will (3rd world) people do when they no longer have even the slightest bit of hope?

  39. drron100 December 29, 2012

    It seems that the republican representatives think social security and medicare are “entitlements”. However, I paid out of my income, social security taxes and medicare taxes for all of my working career. My employer also paid matched my taxes. That money was money I earned! It did not come from the government.
    Can anyone tell me why the republicans consider this an “entitlement” when the I already paid the money into this progam. Social security and medicare is my money, not the the governments money or the republicans money to be paid out in tax breaks for the rich! To call social security an entitlement is just plain fraud and someone should call out the republicans on this big lie.

    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      True, we have paid into these funds with each paycheck deduction. Problem is politicians have not safeguarded our contributions. In the beginning it seemed as though the money would last forever. MANY more were paying into the fund than were receiving benefits.

      Those that were receiving a return on their investment were not drawing on their retirement benefits for as long and ALL costs were much less. Families took care of their elderly for as long as they could and medical care might not have been as advanced as today but it cost a lot less too.

      Now everything has changed except the system. More are receiving than paying in. Costs have gone through the roof. We receive more than we paid in so in that respect it is an entitlement.

      Republicans are just being honest and calling it what is. The problem with that is we aren’t used to politicians being honest. 🙂

  40. Lovefacts December 29, 2012

    Jellis, one counter measure I’d offer is that the House & Senate pass legislation that allows Medicare to negotiate the cost of medication. It will increase Medicare’s solvency and help seniors’ wallets. The current law that prevents Medicare from negotiating is one entitlement I’d love to do away with.

  41. KENNETH LANE December 29, 2012

    Well now, of coarse those whose age requirement will go up for Medicare deserve it–some of them are Republicans–why should the Uberrich pay anything near the same percentage as the help?

    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      Because … all of the rich people are Republicans?
      Do you really believe that?

      According to HuffPo 7 of the 10 richest members of congress are Democrats. Warren Buffett appears to be a Democrat as does Oprah Winfrey. Many Wall Streeters vote Democrat. Megacorps like GE are run by Dems and a big part of Hollywoods top earners support Democrats. Not to mention the Big Union top level bosses.

  42. elw December 29, 2012

    Do they say in their plans how the millions of people cut off from Medicare will get healthcare coverage? Of course not! There are many ways to save money; I would suggest they can start by eliminating life-time healthcare and retirement to the hundreds of elected congressional representatives that have done nothing for the American Public but push their own agenda and policies which have made them very rich. That should easily reach the 5.6B they will save by raising the age for Medicare. Most of the people serving in the two houses of Congress are millionaires and more. They hardly need free healthcare or help with retirement that provides 6 figures a year and the Country can use the money to pay off the debt. No like the Robber Barons of the past, they would rather keep their own standard of living while taking from hard working Middle-class people and the poor. Their plan is cold and demonstrates the Rights disregard for Middle-class Americans. They are so fast to ask me to sacrifice; I would like to know what their sacrifice will be?

    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      I would guess the Dems would oppose that at least as much as the GOP.

      How is a proposal to gradually increase the age of eligibilty ‘cold’?

      And as much as I agree with your (and others here) sentiments regarding lawmakers benefits … the fact is, those, just like ‘raising taxes on the rich!’ will do very little to sove the problem. They are really no more than Us vs. Them and that helps no one.

      Once again some politicians talk and talk about out-dated laws and principals until it effects them. Years ago our representatives and senators gave up personal businesses to Serve the People so the benefits seemed justified. Now-a-days many politicians maintain their private livlihoods while in office and even profit from their positions. It would be smart for them to recognize this and cut their pay and benefits for appearance’s sake and a few do, but when we are talking about Trillions of $$ the million saved don’t really amount to very much.

      1. elw December 29, 2012

        When it comes to Medicare it is cold to raise the age because it is close to impossible to get affordable health insurance at that age – if they included some measures to ensure that everyone could get reasonable priced coverage it might be more reasonable. I have a number of friends who are independent contractors or small business owners who are paying over 1000 dollars a month in premiums and some who cannot get any coverage because of preexisting conditions. They are counting the day until their Medicare kicks in. They could have chosen to raise the payroll tax (that has happen several times during my lifetime) rather than raise the age, but will not do that because it is a tax.

        I know that cutting them off will not raise much revenue, but neither are their suggested cuts going to bring in much money. But that is my whole point; they seem to think it is alright for them to keep everything and to nickel and dime the middle class. I would like to see their contribution hurt in the same way that kicking children off Medicaid, cutting income for people living on Social Security hurts. I think even if they lose their Bush tax cut, they will not have the pain that their suggested cuts for SS and Medicaid and Medicare will cause.

        1. jellis December 29, 2012

          Well hopefully if the age increase passes, and at some point it will have to, I would think most people would be smart enough to plan for that. Again there have not been suggestions to raise the age IMMEDIATELY but over a period of time. Besides with Obamacare everyone has to be insured or pay penalties so that is supposed to solve that.

          1. elw December 29, 2012

            I worked for health insurance companies, they are going to fight taking on older Americans with every bit of power they have. Remember that most of the members of Congress get big money from the Health Care Insurers. When Obamacare was past it was assumed the people over 65 would be covered by Medicare, it will not help with this issue. You have to remember that seniors are the most expensive group to cover that is why the health insurance industry has refused to cover them for so long (one of the reasons we have Medicare in the first place) Obamacare will not change that.

          2. jellis December 29, 2012

            And once again … nobody that I have heard has suggested changing coverage for the existing beneficiaries or those near retirement age.

            Obamacare requires insurance for everyone so and makes it nearly impossible to deny coverage so has the age limit increase, over time, people will have insurance until they reach retirement.

            If it is too expensive thru private insurers there are public options. At least that is what they keep telling us.

    2. Justin Napolitano December 29, 2012

      Elw, Congressman do not get lifetime healthcare and retirement benefits. Writing stuff like that makes you appear to be less than educated.

      1. elw December 29, 2012

        You are the one less than educated, they do recieve lifetime retirement benefits after as few as five years of service. Their retirement benefits are better than those in the private sector and they can continue with their very generous healthcare coverage if they so choose to continue paying their monthly premiums.

  43. BSB December 29, 2012




  44. Jill49 December 29, 2012

    5.7billion savings – are they kididng? That is 5 weeks of Afganastan war. So again, take their lousy past decisions out on the elderly and middle class. How about cancelling their health insurance and retirement plans permanently. I’d be all for that.

  45. Mary Martinez December 29, 2012

    My opinion is if they really want to same money, then the senate and congress that enjoy retirement and insurance benefits should decline this fringe benefit, so those saving can bring the budget down.

  46. Canistercook December 29, 2012

    Guess its only ‘fair’ to make the ‘rich’ pay more to take care of the obese, the smokers, the drinkers and the gun toting population. Those who take care of their bodies and work hard and succeed in life should be punished for their success I guess. Wonder what it will be like when we all end up living in a 3rd world type country?

    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      Do I detect a little sarcasm? I love sarcasm!

      1. Canistercook December 29, 2012

        You do because that is the direction in which we are heading. I like to help the deserving needy and those that want to turn their lives around, and not prop up irresponsible behavior’ With almost 60% of our society obese, 70% black, 47% Hispanic, 27% white babies being born to single mothers we are heading in the wrong direction. You can tax me and others to support their lifestyle for a while, but in every society propping up irresponsibility has eventually led to that nations collapse. This along with Government Union employees that have learned to use the system along with the votes of low income blacks and Hispanics is leading us to become a far left socialistic state similar to what brought down the USSR and the results are already showing in our falling GNP. I just hope as it continues to fall that some might wake up before the collapse and start demanding of those that can and should become more responsible and join the ‘civilized’ productive world. Even animals and birds provide for their young before they produce them!

    2. Justin Napolitano December 29, 2012

      You don’t have to look far to find people living like those in third world countries. The average worker in America has been screwed for thirty years and the rich are still not satisfied. The top 5% in this country have more wealth than the bottom 95%. The Walton family (Walmart) alone has more wealth than the bottom 100 million Americans. So who should we tax, the poor or those that have it all?

      1. Canistercook December 29, 2012

        We all need a government and those physically able should be in a position to support it. If you are a failure then of course you will end up in the bottom. Perhaps a little more studying and work at achievement would have put you and many of the other 95% into the ‘top 5%’ since that is how most of them made it there. jealousy is a human trait but not a good one! Sure we can look at some that are creating a third world type of environment in our country; don’t work, don’t pay their bills, shoot one another, use drugs, bear children they can’t support but a civilized society requires civilized individuals! Sam Walton was a worker and a good worker! They have it all and pay most of the taxes to support the government YOU need!

  47. BSB December 29, 2012


    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      Why are you only YELLING AT REPUBLICANS? I haven’t seen any dems offering to take pay and/or benefit cuts either. Both sides have gotten us into this mess. Now one side is offering ideas to begin fixing it while the other won’t even pass a budget as required by law. There is plenty of blame to go around, including all of US who aren’t willing to accept any responsiblilty or take any measures to solve the problem instead OF JUST YELLING ABOUT IT!

    2. Justin Napolitano December 29, 2012

      The easiest way to get their pay to zero is vote them out of office.

  48. Maynard December 29, 2012

    Republicans now believe in evolution. Survival of the richest.

  49. Ram121848 December 29, 2012

    Make the cuts on the military , 1Trillion in budget and 1Trillion on the wars per year..stop being the security for big business in these countries…If Big Business needs security let them spend there money, not our tax money…BOTTOM LINE!!!

  50. CYNICALZ December 29, 2012

    The first problem is mind-boggling! Why do we allow government to continue to be in the healthcare business? Is it not enough Medicare is in the drink that we allow The Affordable Health Care forced upon us? How gullible you minions are. Can you not care or can you not reason fundamental theft. If medicare is broke and ACH goes broke, do we have a plan C? Lets continue to regulate with more regulation until “something” works and government administrates your life away. It is evident you are so disengaged it is beyond stupidity. Our socialist government knowingly sells more government, certainly not leadership. It is a conservatorship.

    Here is a real opportunity. Lets establish a federal voters union and exert all that pent up anger for a justifiable cause . Let us strike that no more tax money until government disjoins itself from fiscally devious behavior. Beyond extortion the grievous list is endless. Ask yourself, do you patronize businesses that deceive or not serve your needs?

    Vigilance is eternal-restore freedom.

    1. Justin Napolitano December 29, 2012

      We need a single payer health care program like every other developed country in the world.
      Shy of that the ACH (Affordable Care Act) is the best solution. At least it makes an attempt to contain costs.

      1. CYNICALZ December 29, 2012

        Justin: A single payer just rattles every anti-capitalism bone in my body. (no surprise to you.) It is through competition that translates directly into what (the market) determines we pay. Inclusively, it also stimulates research for the advancement of medicine that is indigenous to the United States, and infinitely superior to most countries. That is why we see an influx of foreigners at our medical facilities. Cost is not the prevailing factor. They want the best without long periods of waiting.
        And, we feed the monster, as government has complete disregard for cost containment. I make the analogy citing their spending addiction as it is corollary to the abuse of Soc. Sec., Medicare, and the majority of existing social programs. Subsequently, our free enterprise is the qualifier for raising the bar, enabling individuals to prosper, and ultimately maintain much improved lives. Conversely, ACH will downgrade our medical status by regulating the amount of patient care by law vs treatment deemed appropriate as currently administrated by a physician. So much for bedside manners. Many doctors are abandoning their practice and more Physician Assistants will need to grow. This is the type of care inmates receive in prison.
        Where credit is due, government mandated private insurance companies now pay an increased percentage of customer premiums to patient health care, and a prorated reimbursement of the unused portion.

  51. Budjob December 29, 2012

    I still haven’t heard any proposal(s) by our corrupt,do nothing,elitists congressional representatives as to what they are willing to concede to help “the cause.”I think they should be made to work 40 hours per week,take a 50% cut in pay and benefits,and pay for their dependents health care benefits!!We,the electorate in this country are a bunch of God Damn fools.Why do they even Think they are entitled to all of these benefits??

  52. howa4x December 29, 2012

    Typical of republicans to raise the age limit on medicare while not touching the taxes of billionaires. If this isn’t a stark representation to all americans on where they stand than nothing will be. Tealiban oppose any tax increases even though they support cuts that will directly affect middle income, and poorer seniors. They can fix the system by means testing for upper income people, to get them off the rolls. All this will do is to push poorer seniors onto medicaid run by the states so this is a game of monty moving the costs under the cups and spining them around from the feds to the states that are already cash straped. Republican show once again there are the masters of double speak.

  53. daffodilly December 29, 2012

    If our country were a family, would we agree to depriving Granny & Grandpa and the kids of healthcare while the other adults eat steak? I don’t think we as a country could rationalize that little trick. Why is it that when cuts are to be made it’s from the young and old that the benefits are taken? Why do the Republicans continue to act as though Medicare benefits haven’t been paid for by those that are eligible at 65 or before if one is disabled? Medicare and Social Security are not some kind of give away to the useless 47%. The benefits are paid for and the contract between the government and recipients must not be broken! Our Republicans want us to behave like their insurance company buddies who collected the premiums but refused to pay policyholder claims!

  54. Elaine Steskal December 29, 2012

    These Republicans who want to raise the eligibility age to 67 for Medicare can go straight to HELL! they themselves do NOTHING! they sit on their stinking butts, only work a third of the year and have the nerve to do this? I hope they are all GONE by 2014.

  55. matroll December 29, 2012

    Time to clear out the whole government and start with normal people!!! Government should give us all the money they stole from SS. These idiots don’t work hard so they think we don’t .That they want to raise the age for Medicare. These idiots get the best health insuranse and pensions from us tax payers then they want to screw us, who pay their high salaries they don’t deserve. They never take anything useless away!!

  56. ZincKidd December 29, 2012

    It won’t save any money, seniors will just delay care, which will likely make it more expensive, OR, they’ll resort to the emergency room, also more expensive. A really stupid idea here.

  57. Andrew Rei December 29, 2012

    What those two Senators said again proves more than one of the GOP’s 8 cornerstones…The 8 are: bigotry, hypocrisy, elitism, fascism, greed, corruption, incompetence and arrogance.
    The Republican Party are all about “small government”, which is the reason behind “Starve the Beast” and Grover Norquist’s treasonous pledge. I recently released a “GOP to English dictionary” on Facebook. When you know the actual GOP definitions to things, you begin to understand why all 8 of the cornerstones are correct.
    Let me give you just one example: hypocrisy. During the Bush 43 administration, Bush 43 and his party added $6.1 trillion to the national debt. So, while Bush 43 started two wars and give two rounds of huge tax breaks, none of which that were paid for, you didn’t hear one peep from these GOP a$$holes. The GOP had no problem whatsoever about raising the debt ceiling, stealing nearly $3 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund (which is the reason why it’s survival past 2037 isn’t assured), etc. But, when the first African-American President is elected, all of the sudden, the GOP has a big problem with deficit-spending. So, not only does this prove GOP hypocrisy, it also proves their bigotry. If you’re a GOPer and can actually read this (not guaranteed… see “incompetence”), you’ll blame the Tea Party Militia for this financial hypocrisy. That is even more hypocrisy as the “Teabaggers” turned out to be just as rich as the GOP “Cons” (Conservatives) and simply went to DC to protect their tax breaks and wealth. By the way: the Teabaggers believe in “Starve the Beast” but differ from the Cons in one respect: they want to see the government starved of money (in taxes) even FASTER than the Cons. Remember that the Cons and Teabaggers are on the same side of the GOP “Civil War”.
    I could go on and on giving examples for why each and every one of those 8 cornerstones of the GOP are true. Only a clueless idiot would deny that they’re true about the GOP. Yet, most of the clueless idiots in this country are or vote for the GOP’s Cons and Teabaggers.
    Finally, if you a Libertarian (Bad Lib) and believe that you’re one notch above the GOP, think again. The extreme fiscal conservatism and radical social liberalism of the Libertarian Party DOES NOT highlight the best of both worlds… just the opposite…the worst of both worlds. In essence, Bad Libs are Republicans with bongs. Should the implosion/Civil War of the GOP leave the party as a “fringe” party, the current party with the best chance to replace them as a major party is the Progressive Party. The Progressive Party is mostly populated with moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats. When the GOP ceases to exist as a major party, GOP moderates will flock to the Progressive Party. The only real question is “when”?

  58. Irene Padilla December 29, 2012

    They do not care about the American people as a whole and their responsibility to Americans as a whole has been a total abysmal failure. As well as embarrassing an humiliating for our country.
    These legislators are supposed to be the intellectuals, well with them having GMO DNA incestuous relationships with chemical, pharmaceutical and oil companies (the top 1%) have left them with no heart or brains or the ability to grow either.
    So for America’s sake, I wholeheartedly agree, impeach these cowards now!

  59. Jim Myers December 29, 2012

    So, at least two GOP stalwarts have enough guts to say “SCREW THE ELDERLY”.

    Now, if only they would have enough guts to say “SCREW THE TOP 5%”, there may be an opportunity to at least negotiate.

    1. jellis December 29, 2012

      This summer it was the evil 1%.
      Then it became the wealthy 2%.
      So now it’s the top 5%?
      Next year will we go after those 1o percenters?
      You know before long we’ll be asking everybody to pay taxes … now that’s a thought!

      1. english_teacher December 30, 2012

        Same old tired comment about having everybody pay taxes. Everybody does pay taxes (e.g., payroll, excise, sales, state, local) but not everybody pays federal income taxes. Research of non-partisan sources would confirm the facts.
        Now if you want to talk about everyone paying their fair share of taxes, then we have a starting point to negotiate.

  60. steven c December 29, 2012

    Instead of taking away medicare from people who have worked their entire lives and raising the age limit when they need it most, why not cut benefits for millionaire congress men and women who do not need it. Why not cut benefits to illegals in this country like foodstamps. Anyone who thinks they are not getting benefits is wrong. Cut benefits like foodstamps and housing support to people in this country on work visa’s and student visa’s. If they cannot support themselves on a visa to this country then go home. Why not force businesses to pay a living wage for people so they do not have to have supplemental income. Cut foriegn aid to countries that have terrorist ties, including Israel, and bring our troops home to guard OUR borders instead of someone else’s borders. Enough with the partisan bullshit and politics. Stop being POLITICIANS and start being LEADERS

  61. Michael Mahan December 29, 2012

    If you raise the medicare age from 65 to 67 now and only raise the age by one year every 3 years after, why, poof! no more medicare. Yep, Republican scam and not very good one

  62. Lester December 29, 2012


  63. Maritza Rosario December 29, 2012

    There are many early retired who can’t afford to pay a health insurance. As early retired, they are not paying (most of them) for MEDICARE; if those persons be able to pay an affordable quote and get the benefits of the program before they get the required age, this will help MEDICARE increase their founds and even help many people who does not have a health insurance because it’s to expensive and does not qualify for MEDICAID because of their high incomes.
    Instead of keep looking how to keep pressing the middle class, these Goddess of the Olympus on Congress should think on how to serve instead of been served.

  64. Maritza Rosario December 29, 2012

    There are many early retired who can’t afford to pay a health insurance. As early retired, they are not paying (most of them) for MEDICARE; if those persons be able to pay an affordable quote and get the benefits of the program before they get the required age, this will help MEDICARE increase their founds and even help many people who does not have a health insurance because it’s to expensive and does not qualify for MEDICAID because of their high incomes.
    Instead of keep looking how to keep pressing the middle class, these Goddess of the Olympus on Congress should think on how to serve instead of been served.

  65. kenny December 29, 2012

    Iam soo sick of these republicans messing with medicare,, The only thing they care about is themselfs the party n the rich!!!!! I will never VOTE FOR A REPBLICAN AGAIN EVER!! These guys make me SICK!!!!!

  66. Minell December 29, 2012

    They should limit their pay. We don’t get paid if we don’t go to work. We don’t get credit cards and cars to show up for work either. This could decrease the debt ceiling by 2 billion dollars alone for just their expenses. They need to vote on that.

  67. Minell December 29, 2012

    Corker,catches a plane to go to work. Don’t pay for the credits cards, gas or car he uses. it is passed on to the tax payers. If he was doing hard labor as most of us do, he would drop the retirement age to 55, like it use to be.

  68. Janice Sonntag December 29, 2012

    I like the sound of that and I agree with it, but until we can get that done we are screwed. Congress would give up their insurance for SS and Medicare. They got to good of a deal. I suggest that when they leave office, their health insurance seize to exist and their income will be cut in half. If they are getting 175,000 a year that would give them 88,000 a year. They can survive on that yearly. But it won’t happen for years to come.

    1. Justin Napolitano December 29, 2012

      Janice, what are you talking about? Congress pays into Social Security and medicare just like everyone else. Their health insurance does not continue after they have left public office and they do not get a pension any sooner than the general public. Please do some research before posting.

  69. Dol5 December 29, 2012

    Sounds like something well thought out Dominick. I stand with you on this. Why do they have a different plan for their benefits than the rest of us? What makes them special? I could go on and on about this but you have pretty well said it. Now keep on saying it!

  70. Walter Gregory December 29, 2012

    Dominick Vila, this is exactly what I’ve been saying ever sense the GOP began their song and dance about Medicare. It would take a very strongly supported referendum to make Congressonal leaders join SS and Medicare like the rest of us. That move, alone, would help reduce the deficit and strengthen both SS and Medicare. These people work for us, why should we have to wait until 2014 to fire them? We need to start impeachment proceedures NOW of any Congressman that would vote to raise the age for Medicare recipients. Right?

  71. Joseph Dobrowolski December 29, 2012


  72. Doctor T December 29, 2012

    Yea! Dom! What is wrong with these people? I don’t get it. There is a basket of money with Medicare and SS and they are raiding it to suit their own vile needs. I honestly am beginning to believe they want people to die off. They care less about their fellow man/woman and will sink to such depths to perpetuate their riches. Something is terribly wrong in this country now and I am sort of glad that I am “over the hill” so to say. I couldn’t endure this BS any longer. The treachery the lies and the self-serving interests are so disgusting to me that I cannot envision life any longer in this country. I cannot even rally up a cheer now to say ” God Bless the USA” because we are being fucked over by the demons in our midst.

  73. puzzled21 December 29, 2012

    What are you talking about? What does your age have to do with requiring the filibusterer to actually engage in the process?

  74. puzzled21 December 29, 2012

    Points well taken, just allow me the satisfaction of knowing al least they are not adding to our bill by recieving those salaries for life.

  75. Fubom December 29, 2012

    End the filibuster now! It is the only way to silence these inhumane bastards in the senate. Then work on getting money out of our elections so we don’t see them sent to Washington in the first place.

  76. Don December 29, 2012

    Looks okay so far. I want to see what others are saying.

  77. Dayal Krsna Das December 29, 2012

    “But at least Republicans are now on record saying that they’d like to prevent millions of Americans from receiving Medicare.

    According to your article, there were only two.

  78. Charvi3 December 29, 2012

    I would love to see a Constitutional lawyer to create a case built on the 16th Amendment…period…and see why the republicans keep wanting to repeal it…it all has to do with the budgetary thing…and how the republicans really don’t want to tax the rich…but, want to tax the hard working earners…please study the Constitution and the Amendments to it..that is all I asked..

  79. lydon1930 December 29, 2012

    Jellis, thanks for your comment, you are spot on but I still would like them to be on the same playing field as we are. The president has just given them a raise and I had 13% taken off my current retirement. They never feel any pain and have no intention of doing anything for the middle class or the poor but we get what we vote for. My area voted out Russ Feingold and replaced him with Ron Johnson. Both he and Sennsenbrenner are like twins and then Paul Ryan is close by.

  80. Clyde Ed Gentry December 29, 2012

    You know What ?.. The Other day I did Some Calculations , And some Research , Did You know That Only 60% of Elders Reach Retirement Age , That Means 40 % Will Die Before Retirement ! Heart Problems , Cancer , Diabetes, Stroke, Anderisms, Car Accidents , Not to Mention Industrial Accidents at Work , Street Crime Causing Death, Many of these Remove Qualified Seniors From ever Needing or Even Claiming #SS , These are Ages Between 40-60 Year Old Individuals People who have paid 20 – 35 Years and even more in some instances Who will never Collect ……..So when All these People talk of the BABY BOOMERS , And what They Will Be Collecting From Social Security / Medicare Benefits , No one Bothers To Consider That Each Day In the United States Over 10,000 People In the Ages Between 40-50 Die Every Day Due to The Causes Listed Above …….. But we Are Told We Are Broke !

  81. kpolicastro December 29, 2012

    Wouldn’t it be heartening if Senators and Congressmen/women took some cuts to their salaries and many benefits? They sure do want everyone ELSE to assume austerity….why not them also?

  82. Pat Martin December 29, 2012

    I agree completely with Dominick Vila.
    It seems like the people we elect to run our country feels like they are entitled to a big
    salary plus their medical and retirement free for life. All the republicans talked about during the election was the entitlements that seniors and the people in need had and taking some of it away and it would just about fix everything that is wrong with our government. Instead of taking away everything that the ordinary citizen paid for we need to get rid of them and their entitlements that they never paid for. It would put a big dent in the debt.

  83. Andre December 29, 2012

    These people or should I say “vultures” are elected to serve the people, yet, we the people of the US are like mere vermin to them. These people in office should all be castigated. Me, I woud like to nail each one to a barn door and whip the sh@t out of each and every one of greedy heartless bastards.

  84. onedonewong December 29, 2012

    Removing Illegals from the rolls of Medicare, medicaid and SS will save $400 Billion a year. its a easy removal and a reduction that every tax payer would support Then remove illegals from transfer payments and over $300B would be saved. Cutting federal workers pay to match the taxpayers would also save another $100B a year

  85. Sally December 29, 2012

    I actually think this will be ok since Obamacare will be available to seniors up to 67. What’s difficult is not having access to health care due to age–like my husband. He’s self employed and because of his health conditions, he’s not insurable. He doesn’t care if he gets on Obamacare or Medicare. He’ll be 65 in less than a year. That’s about when Obamacare kicks in.

  86. Sharlene Piper December 29, 2012

    The republicains have money so they plain do not care about people who depend on medicare like my 88 year old mother ,talk about greed we need to choose better come elections as far as the senate republicains because greed for them selves and they can not do their job after all its the people who pay their wages and if they cant do their jobs let us get new faces in their that can !!!!!

  87. Joe Narusiewicz December 30, 2012

    These right wing nuts live in the stone age to todays new voting Americans and for protecting the filthy rich and wanting the middle and lower classes to foot the bill they will continue to lose at the polls. They can’t or won’t read the writing on the wall. The American electorate do not want their policies and the age of the internet exposes them more and more as phonies and selfish pawns of the 1%.

  88. ridemybroom December 30, 2012

    next thing they would want to do is take away the retirement system and clean that out as well…these old Farts need to stop getting elected…they remind me of children and violent ones at that…the attitude and the selfishness and the inconsideration these people have of their fellow americans are appaling…and you people i bet thought religion caused wars…wrong !….its the old Farts like we have in the house and senate thats causes and create wars

  89. Wouldlike December 30, 2012

    I’ve often wondered why all these congress people and people in government get free medical care and big pensions for doing really nothing. Make them pay for Social Secerity and medicare and maybe they’ll appreciate it more and start doing something about it. We all pay into Social security and Mecicare and yet the republicans want to take that and use it for taxes to support their rich pocket books.

    1. charleo1 December 30, 2012

      You actually answered your own question. Why has government officials made sure
      they have a nice little pension, and healthcare for life? Because that’s what they want.
      That’s what everyone wants, and if we let a few loudmouths scare us out of Medicare,
      and Social Security, well, that would kinda be our fault, wouldn’t it? Call your rep,
      your Senator. Especially, if they are a Republican. Mandatory, if they are a T-Bagger.
      Tell them you will not stand for them protecting a bunch of greedy misers, by cutting
      programs you’ve paid for, need, and have every Right to expect they are going see that
      you keep. Period. Listen, this debt, it’s not the world ending catastrophe they claim.
      In fact, America is in pretty good shape, all things considered. Better than most.
      It’s called, never letting a crisis, even a created one, go to waste. There are people,
      who for ending Social Security, and Medicare, is a religion. It’s their lifelong goal.
      It’s not the debt. The debt has nothing to do with the fact they hate government, many
      of them, and don’t want you to like it either. God knows exactly what kind of Country
      they would like to see. They will never share that vision with you, unless they know
      you agree with their dead end, survival of the fittest, or richest, Utopia. So call ’em up!
      Tell them, I’m watching you, and I’ve got your number!

  90. Sandra Lee Smith December 30, 2012

    Just keep watching; they’re going to make this all look like the “great, last-minute SAVE”! Don’t buy it for an instant! Repbs and Dems are just 2 “heads” of the SAME party with the SAME agenda; and it’s NOT for the good of the American people or any other people for that matter! This whole mess is predicated on EVIL, and perpetuated by LIES, and AMORALITY foisted on us as “tolerance” and “equality”!

    1. charleo1 December 30, 2012

      I often wonder, when I read commentary like yours, what Country would you rather be
      living in? There is actually a great deal of difference in the men, and women serving
      in government. There are people who came from parts of the Country where the actions
      of people that care of nothing but their own fortunes have devastated entire regions.
      They work everyday to bring new jobs to their districts. Cynicism has brought us the
      T-Party, who also believe government is evil. They also believe if children go hungry,
      or uneducated, it’s not worth spending a dime of the wealthy’ money to do anything
      about it. That’s evil, Sandra. This Country’s government made a huge mistake a few
      years ago, listening to a few big bankers, and signed some very unfair trade deals,
      that cost a lot of very good people their jobs. Somebody needs to help pay for that.
      Who do you think it should be? The children? The elderly, or disabled? How about the
      young man, or woman who, full of patriotism, went to fight for their Country. Them?
      The deal hasn’t gotten done because some of the cynical people, elected by other
      cynical people, don’t think the government ought to have the Right to tax, or regulate.
      Just buy bombs, and guns for the military, pass laws that favor the monied elite, and
      legislate, and enforce morality on the rest of us. Now, you want to live in a Country
      like that? That’s exactly what cynicism will create.

  91. bob December 30, 2012

    I do so love the United States Of America, so much so that if asked I would lay down my life if it meant that it would save the country for the future generations of my extended family. To be clear, my extended family is every citizen of our GREAT country. Now, to help our UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in its time of need and it needs help NOW!!! I would be willing to pay some money to get us out of debt,but here is the problem, I have no money to speak of. I am on fixed income and disabled and so is my wife, but we are willing to give what we can to help out. Some people call that giving part of my money” taxes” and they think its unfair that they have to pay taxes to live in this country, oh hell!! its un american to pay taxes on money that they earned, stole, won, got as a gift, or however they got their income. It just ain’t right to have to pay that money to a government that keeps us from harm with the best damn military money can buy.It ain’t fair to pay taxes to pave roads, build schools, maintain and train a police force to protect us from harm, and God forbid, it is so sinful and shameless to help the needy and poor and tell them that they are welfare trash…don’t ask us for money, go get a job. Sometimes we have disasters and people die. If your lucky…you just might lose your home and everything you have worked for all of your life. We will give you a loan that you will pay back for the rest of your life. You know I could go on and on about how our government needs to cut back on all of their wasteful spending and make government smaller so we don’t have to pay them damn taxes. But I will say this and its from the bottom of my heart, if I’m willing to pay some taxes from money that I do not have to help this GREAT country, How many of you out there (especially the rich) are willing to pay their fair share to get the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA back on track . “Think people” its not only a spending problem that this country has… we are not collecting enough revenue to pay for things that are necessary.Lets get on track and not jump off the cliff, then we can start working on eliminating waste

  92. Richie T December 30, 2012

    14 members of the current Congress have been in office over 35 years.
    A current member John Dengell
    A Democrat, has been a Member of the House for OVER 57 .
    They absolutely no idea what it’s like to try and live in this country that they’ve destroyed.
    Members of Congress earn a median wage of $174,000 a year.
    Almost half the members of Congress are millionaires
    Look up how many people actually bothered to vote in the mid term-elections.
    Look up how many new members of Congress that were elected mid-term are millionaires.
    Look up how many new members of Congress that were elected in 2012 are millionaires.
    They don’t elect themselves
    I’m done.

  93. Joyce December 30, 2012

    These people don’t care they want seniors to die. They and their families have the best health care plan, so to hell with the rest of America. Selfish miserable old bats

  94. gargray December 30, 2012

    Lets raise the age of congressmen to 67 before they can draw any benifits from the government and only pay presidents after they reach 65. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Congressemen and the president draw their wages the rest of their life. Plus we pay their medical expenses the rest of their lives and pay spouses benifits. We shouldn’t vote for any republican.

  95. James Curran December 30, 2012

    As I sit here with my jaw scrapping the floor in wonder,I can not help thinking do not these idiots inside the beltway know that,we the people,are the ones who are paying the frieght for medicare and social security.I figured out the other day,as a retired man collecting social security and a small pension(I have been working since I was ten years old delivering newspapers)I pay now at least 400 dollars a month,so how can they say it’s an entitlement.Those fine gentlemen sound like they drank too much of that moonshine they make up in the smokey’s

  96. Sandra Lee Smith December 30, 2012

    @Charles01: I would RATHER be living in the nation our Founders intended for us, than one RUN by a dictator puppet for an EVIL master, with our “elections” RIGGED, and all or nearly all, our leaders OWNED by the CFR, and like organizations which are ENEMIES to all humanity! That’s where I would rather live. A nation governed by MORALS , ETHICS and the rule of LAW, not the rule of MAN ! When I read a post like yours I can’t help wonder how the human race EVER crawled out of the caves and learned anything, because SO MANY clearly have learned NOTHING and believe themselves SO enlightened, while swallowing, hook, line, and sinker, the LIES that are spewed left AND right! While you’re busy blaming the TEA Party {which stands for Taxed Enough Already, btw}, you’re IGNORING the fact that Reid has failed to do HIS job and pass a budget for 4 years, despite the more than 25 budget bills passed by the House, that Obama has FAILED to do HIS job as executive and SECURE OUR BORDERS, as did Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan BEFORE him. Then there are your “occupiers” who are unable to discern the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE, and are demanding the later AS the former,
    The FEW truly decent people who DO manage to get to the swamp either become contaminated by it too, or are so heavily out-numbered by those who ARE contaminated as to be virtually ineffectual. Like it or not, the reason the US IS under attack now is that we were founded on principles that are anathema to the dictators’ master, and he will destroy this nation, literally obliterate it from all memory; that’s part of his goal. The rest is too far over your head still for you to begin to grasp!

  97. Lynda Newman Sadoff December 30, 2012

    Congress wants to save money.., Cut your own salaries, pensions, and benefits… first. How dare you accept a raise for doing far sub – standard job. In fact I’d fire all of you and start from square one. People than don’t manupulate constitutional law to benefit their pocketbooks, and those of their cronies, and those that don’t allow religion to sway their votes to overstep the minority.

  98. atc333 December 30, 2012

    What many people fail to realize is that the GOP approach to fixing our deficit problems, and working to balancing the budget is austerity, and accepting the current distribution of wealth, tax structure, and jobs market as they are today, and simply cutting deficits without improving the lives of 80% of all Americans. The GOP has made no real attempt to pass legislation to create jobs, but rather keep the status quo, and move the economy and budget into Europe’s “Austerity Mode”. At no time do we hear discussions about how the Federal and State governments should create jobs, though rebuilding and new infrastructure, reducing the cost of education (a book at $200.00 is obscene), investing in new sources of energy with less impact upon the environment, creating a real small business administration to oversee new small business start ups, and provide funding for them, or in other words, we have absolute proof that 20+ years of tax cuts for job creators does not work.

    Put the nation back to work by investing in people, and job creation. Raise taxes on the nonperforming job creators, then given them tax credits and deductions for actually creating jobs. Then you will see jobs being created. As lethargic as our economy may seem, Corporate America is making more money than ever before. Why should they invest in creating jobs, when things are just fine the way they are now, an unlimited amount of workers willing to work for less, with two waiting to take the place of anyone who leaves.

    Unfortunately, the GOP is working only for their most favored Citizens, the Rich, and Corporate America, and maintaining the current status quo. It is all about Cut, slash, and burn, maximize profits and income for the top 2%, a true Mitt Romney approach to Government. If you are in the top 2%, it works really well, as that group now owns 44% of all the wealth of America. If you are in the top 10%, then you and your peers own 90% of all American wealth and assets. Considering that the top 2% only owned 8% of all of America back in 1969, what does that tell you about the past 28 years of GOP power and economic policies.

    The reality is pass legislation to put this nation back to work, invest in people and America, cut waste, fraud, and fix our medical delivery system, and the Deficit will absolutely take care of itself, Period.

  99. ribbet124 December 30, 2012

    If we as americans never wish another congress like this exist in the future, vote the ones in there now OUT! We must demand term limits on these performing clowns, we also need to take away they’re power to raise they’re own pay, and eliminate retirements for life. We as americans need to make examples of these brazen stuffed shirts. Get rid of them, people, myself included are sick of the crap congress is putting out.

  100. flipped54 December 30, 2012

    It has always been easy for millionaires and billionaires to cut someone else’s benefits while making sure they don’t “suffer” from any of the consequences. And I say “suffer” with a tad bit sarcasm. Just as Romney was and still is indifferently detached from average, middle class and the poor…. they are of the same thread.

  101. blackmagic50 December 31, 2012

    Here’s a way to save money….stop paying these jacka**es a life-long salary!
    We pay each member of both house/senate $174,000 for Life. The majority/minority leaders (who are responsible for taking us over the “cliff”) makes $193,400 for Life while we pay the speaker of the house $223,500 for Life. These elected officials who are suppose to represent the people, yet it’s the people in the form of seniors they want to cut medical care for while they get paid a life-long salary . Why are we rewarding them for cutting services for the elderly and lousy representation to the constituents that elected them?!! Need to make some cuts??? CUT THEIR LIFE-LONG SALARIES!! Let them live off the stocks, investments and money they received under the table from lobbyists and give the American People a Break!!

  102. CPANewYork January 2, 2013

    I get it: For someone to be elected to the United States Senate from Tennessee, they must first undergo a prefrontal lobotomy.

  103. William M Burch January 8, 2013

    all govt that owes money to ss pay today all iou


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.