and the teabaggers are hoping to keep the old folks on board at least until after the election.

They figure that as long as old retired white people think they'll be taken care of they'll be more than happy to vote against their best interests.

our younger friends and relatives, kids and grandkids....not just ourselves.

Payroll taxes are 6% unless you earn more than $106 000 per year, above which it's CAPPED at $6 000.

That means if you earn $100 000 per year you pay $6000, or 6%
If you earn $100 000 000 per year, you still pay $6000 (or 0.006%)
Where I come from, we call a tax that gets SMALLER the more money you make a REGRESSIVE TAX.

We need to get that message out. Social Security could be fixed and made solvent permanently if we simply remove the CAP. In fact.....*snicker*...this would be an example of (to use the Republicans' favorite talking point) ...an example of LOWERING THE RATES AND BROADENING THE BASE.*** If you remove the cap, there might be enough money to go around if you charge everybody a 4% or a 3% tax, instead of just charging the middle class 6% and the financial elite a fraction of a percent.



***Oh, I'm sorry...does the catchphrase "lower the rates and broaden the base" only apply to charging THE POOR more taxes?

I totally agree.

You should include the portion that is paid directly by the employer. That is your money too. Just because you don't pay it after you received your wages doesn't mean you didn't pay it. When employers figure the cost of employing an employee they don't throw that lump over on their side.

I wouldn't reduce the taxes either. Because your Social Security is based on what you pay in. And I am not sure that what the over $100k would put in would really make it possible to reduce the tax. Because remember, those over $100k would be receiving benefits too.

I think it was on The Last Word with Robert Cay Johnston it was pointed out that fact.

all you have to do is break the promise that you get back according to what you put in.

How much benefit would the system have to pay to a billionaire who paid FICA on ever dollar earned?

No increase in benefits for those making over $110,000?

They'll call it welfare. Then see how fast the "reforms" come flying out of Washington.

"They'll call it welfare."

If they thought that was a smart move they would have done it long ago, given that people at the very low end of the income scale already get more out of it than they put in.

I don't think that would happen. But to make sure it doesn't, the easiest thing to do is to remove the cap, and then have a RANGE of benefits that can be paid out, where higher income earners DO get more, but just not in DIRECT proportion to what they put in. That's already what happens for the low incomes. ie-a multimillionaire contributor might get triple what a middle class contributor gets while having paid in much more than three times what the middle class contributor put in.

We could also point out that NONE of the federal subsidy programs work that way (get out only in proportion to what you put in) BEGINNING with FARM SUBSIDIES and Federal flood insurance.

in between. And those that think the 1% are their friends really need some competent counseling.

Rmoney/Ryan and the rest of the repugs are so full of it. Wasn't it back in the late 80s, maybe 90s, that they raised the wage ceiling on Social Security contributions to fund it a few more decades into the future? It was no big deal. I remember around late October or November my checks would be more because I'd reached the ceiling and they'd stopped taking FICA deductions out. Money I didn't really miss all year. Well, SS has enough to pay full benefits until 1938 I believe now, nowhere near going broke but the repugs go on and on about how we have to change it for those under 55. Well yeah, just adjust the wage ceiling up again like was done back in the day. It's not rocket science. I think it's at 110k now. The problem is they know that that trillion-dollar pile of money is just sitting there and they know their clients (Wall Street, et al) want to get their hands on it so they throw out all this subterfuge to fool enough low info people into going along with their policies and vote for them. JUST RAISE THE WAGE CEILING ALREADY and stop screwing around with peoples' future.

their clients (Wall Street, et al)" It's ALL a bunch of BULL. Damn, why do Americans ALWAYS have to be sooo stupid that many can't see past this charade.

Payroll taxes are added to the general fund, which is trillions in debt. The Social Security trust consists of "special issue securities", which have no marketable value, only a promise to repay what is already spent.

Social Security can indeed be funded with ease, but not as long as we are spending a trillion dollars a year to maintain American empire. A choice has to be made. Which do you think political elites in this country are going to choose?

Americans had better prepare themselves for some of the "austerity" that our government has actively promoted in other countries.

place is far more profitable. I predict a very bleak future for most Americans, trouble is, many still don't get WTF is going on. ... reminds me of one of my friend's father when I was a kid. He was dirt poor and back then an early teabagger decades ago IMO. I asked him once why he always voted republican, and he said, because they know how to make lots of money. And as a very little kid then, I thought to myself, WTF, he's dirt poor, what good are they doing him ...

so we can all just shrivel up and die after our working lives are over.

Why not give it to Seniors today??

Because they know it's a crock. Lyan's full of Mularkey!

and Bush said the same thing 12 years ago, when I was 38 and I still thought it was major bullsh*t.

Basically they are saying "we fear the AARP and will take care of their members, but since there is no AAYWP, you Young Working People are gonna get screwed"

That's an idea right there. AAYWP! Somebody needs to start it.

You'll get a nifty coupon voucher,
which you can take all over town from one insurance company to another
to see if any will insure you.

'course you probably won't get insured if you have a pre-existing condition.
And if you do get insurance, it probably won't cover everything Medicare covers.
And you'll probably have to pay $6,000 plus a year to the insurance company
for the privilege of them taking your cash.
Oh ~ and that coupon voucher.

Welcome to Mitt Romney's America.

like a $10,000 deductible and co-pays up the yin-yang. The bullshit is so deep from Romney/Ryan it's hard to see their faces. And why do we have sooo many fucken STUPID people in America. It's just not that hard to figure out what's going on.

they don't tell you that's what the coupon is good for.

Try getting insurance when you have a pre-existing condition if those thugs replace Medicare with coupon care voucher care. It'll be damn near absolutely impossible.

to understand that. As soon as they put in some phony voucher program it's all over. The shit will hit the fan. They do that, and a whole bunch of us will understand the fact that we can't afford to have one more dime taken out of our checks to pay for someone else's health care. That's probably really what the Republican's are shooting for.

I'm 51. There is no way I will stand for knowing my neighbor gets Medicare and I get some phony voucher. If that happens I will be for shutting it down and cashing everyone out. If you already collected more than you paid in, you're done.

Romney/Ryan. If Romney/Ryan get in the entire F'en place is crashing, it will be Bush on steroids.

and fight over it like crumbs that fall from the table.

They should never be trusted except to do things that will serve only themselves.

I will be f'n pissed off if anyone touches what I've contributed to since I started working when I was 15 years old.

politicians. We're ALL in America and should be looking out for the other guys too. So typical, all the republicans know is divide and conquer, cheat and lie. So, according to the R's then, if you're over 55 you shouldn't give a F about the future of your kids either or anyone else.

...is a lot different from what I was ACTUALLY promised.

And anyone 55 and below should be as concerned as I am, possibly more.

Oh, wait--because it sucks, but they don't want to piss off their old, white, angry base.

Obama should ask Romney this very question at the next debate.

I'm well over 55 but if others don't get taken care of, I won't feel right about any of it. I cannot stand these scare tactics. It's sickening!

and don't care about anyone else. That is exactly why this particular line is used. They expect older people to not give a damn that their kids and grandkids will be thoroughly screwed over. It's insulting.

It's infuriating!

It's like they don't see us. What else is new?

I'm 53, and every time I hear that, it absolutely infuriates me.

It also pisses me off to hear Social Security and Medicare referred to as "entitlements". Since when is something an "entitlement" that I've been paying for since I was 16 years old? Social Security and Medicare are both something that I've paid for and I've earned the right to have - just like the many in this country who have done the same thing.

People are entitled to what is theirs. By right of having paid into it and by right of the social contract promised in exchange for paying into it.

I have been collecting it for a few years now. Yes, it is an entitlement. I paid into it and I am entitled to get that money back.

A GOVERNMENT entitlement, not a special privilege. Government entitlements are guaranteed benefits.

At 52 it UNNERVES me to hear this bullshit. Goddammit WE paid into the system all our lives too and that's OUR money we expect to have when we retire. And it's not a goddamn entitlement. It's a retirement plan.

want to take what isn't theirs to take.

F*ckers!

And in the case of Medicare, give MORE of it to private insurance companies. It's not THEIR money to give to their corprat greedmongers. It's OUR money.

ill be 54 in 12 days. So F--- me.

heck, they've already started

I'm 50 and feel the same.

people take CUTS any less than people born in 1957?

Supposedly those extra payments were to prefund boomer retirements.

Last I checked, everyone born up to 1960 were boomers.

Not to mention that it's not only boomers who paid the extra freight, but anyone who paid into SS from 1983 to the present. Which means *everyone*.

They paid extra, they will take cuts for their generosity. Remind me what the extra payments were for, again?

Looks like it was to fund income tax cuts for the 1% and that's all.

I'd add - Why should we believe current promises when by doing this, they would be breaking old ones?

They are counting on those 55 and above to be relieved that it won't affect them and those under 40 to not be worried enough about retirement to care. Those of us over 40 and under 55 won't be enough to make a difference.

It is the same way they cut benefits for new employees counting on those already working not to care about the new ones as long as it doesn't affect them. We need to stop this BS in its tracks, stick together and quit throwing each other under the bus.

"Hey, it's OK to sell out your kids who have paid into the system. We're only going to rip them off not you."

And yeah I'm 43 but it makes me want to scream too. I love how republicans explain we will have enough time to save and make up the difference. They're joking right? Save in this economy? Where workers have already been forced to accept less pay, less benefits or lost work altogether? Where interest on savings is .25 percent? Where the stock market is a rigged casino that only pay for the well informed or connected? Save in a world where the cost of necessities: energy, food, education and healthcare are steadily going up? How can people save? How is it OK to break the promise to workers who dutifully paid into a system and go back on the deal? It's BS. Bah, I hate republicans!

(Except I'm 45) You took the words right out of my mouth.

They make me spittin' mad!!!

Sure save thousands of dollars while paying more for everything and making less money at the same time...that's possible. People can't afford to keep roof's over their heads these days but they can sock 90K away in the matter of a ten year span for something that they ALREADY paid into for most of their lives...pure BS to the tenth degree!

Relax. It's a bipartisan effort, so it must be good.

From what I understand, we just made it under the wire. But who knows what the Republicans will do it they get in office, and I would be furious if I was 1 yr. younger.

Do you not care that these guys are trying to pit you against the rest of us?

Do you not care about future generations' welfare?

Are you for this creeping "privatization?"

Don't you care about social justice?

You are free to be furious even now.

Are you really not?

Yes the phrasing of my post gave the wrong impression. Yes I am furious that people younger than 55 are seemingly being written off. Those 55 and above are being used as political pawns.Yes we should all be furious whether we are 25 (or younger) or 75 (and older). I am beaming with pride at my 80 yr. old aunt who is getting Obama supporters here in FL. registered to vote. I actually think we should have "medicare for all" or single payer. Also, I wish politicians should stop lying to us about Social Security being bankrupt while they use it for a slush fund. From what I understand, there are relatively easy fixes for Social Security, if we can just get the right people in office.

They will screw you too one they are voted into office. Social security depends on younger people contributing into the program. Once they tell the kids they can keep their money and do what they will with it what do you think will happen to YOUR benefits?

No one is save if Romney/Ryan win.

Anyone in our age group that votes for Romney is a moron.

on this track. Two years later, I'm still rippin' angry about it.

And I don't believe for one freakin' moment that the powers that be will keep the promise to those over 55 if they get what they want for those under 55. We've all paid all of our working lives for Social Security and Medicare. We should all get it.

I was 54 two years ago when I first started hearing this. I felt just the way you say.

Now that I'm 56, though, I feel no safer. They're going to screw us all if they get into the White House.

If you don't understand that I still think they're gonna take away my hard-earned social security, think of this: When is your birthday? Do you think you'll be 55 by the time they enact any of this? If so, does that make you feel any better?

The confusion comes from the fact that the plan cutoff date is 2010 and people born in 1955 happened to be 55 then. So if you're 56 and 57 ...welcome to shit's creek !

Just wondering, since I was born in 1956.

Thanks.

Introduction

Representative Paul Ryan put forward an ambitious plan for overhauling the Medicare program as
part of his 2012 budget plan.1 This plan calls for replacing the current Medicare program with a
premium support program – essentially a voucher program. This new program would first go into
effect for people born after 1955.

www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ryan-medicare-2011-04.pdf

A Roadmap for America's Future

The proposal strengthens this important retirement program and makes it sustainable for the long term.
•Preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.
•Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal employees. Includes a property right so they can pass on these assets to their heirs, and a guarantee that individuals will not lose a dollar they contribute to their accounts, even after inflation.
•Makes the program permanently solvent – according to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] – by combining a more realistic measure of growth in Social Security’s initial benefits, with an eventual modernization of the retirement age.

http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=8521

Just like Nuck Fewt's Contract ON America. Then, of course, there's the bipartisan fucking provided by Simpson-Bowles. See http://strengthensocialsecurity.org .

?1344703936

The reason I think that is because Romney and Ryan keep saying "people 55 and older," implying that what matters is the person's age when the legislation is passed, not when it was first dreamed up. It's possible that when they say "55 and older" they really mean "57 and older," but if that's the case then they're being dishonest, which, of course, is nothing new, but why even talk about what they're saying if you don't believe it? I mean, for the sake of the discussion I think we should take them at their word, whether that be in their official plan or something else they are on record as saying, because otherwise there is nothing to talk about.

Following your first link -- www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ryan-medicare-2011-04.pdf -- I don't know what to think. The cover is dated April 2011 but the introduction, which is the source of the quote "This new program would first go into effect for people born after 1955," refers to Ryan's 2012 budget plan.

Your second link -- http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=8521 -- goes to Paul Ryan's social security page, which says "Preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older." Not "1955," but "55 and older."

Who knows, anyway? One way or another, they're trying to make sure the 1% gets everything.

the next two debates. Not. No one will commit to anything -- we're assured it will all be worked out by Congress (with the 10% approval rate). Lucky us.

lift the payroll limit(to 2 or 3 million) and put SS taxes on capital gains. Problem gone.

was the reason for President Obama's "... And some of you might want to pay attention to this ..." line in the debate.

how cynical and wrong they are. NO senior left behind, including those who aren't seniors yet.

Some of us have kids and relatives and grandkids we care very much about.

What happens when their 55 year old has no insurance or a job and lives with them. I guess that won't effect them either.

That's another thing. Many of these companies nowadays look to get rid of workers in their 50s so that they can hire 20-somethings for a lot less. Well that leaves 50-something workers adrift out there in an already bad job market where they are confronted big time with age discrimination. Just think how you would feel having to figure out how to make it to 62 to file for early SS benefits then they talk about raising the age to be able to qualify.

and as a parent and a human being, I care about their future as much, if not more than my own.

'Course we'll have to pay though the nose to get anything that even remotely resembles the benefit SS provides. But at least all of those financial company CEOs who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps in order to make eight digit incomes will be ok, and that's really the important thing, isn't it?

Born in January of '58, started working for wages in the summer of 1972. I want my forty years worth of payments back.

They say you guys less than 55 don't need to worry and there is good reason for that. They are counting on YOU working until you drop. They figure you guys will never have enough saved or stashed away to retire. And they're going to make sure that happens by privatizing your social security and destroying Medicare and Medicaid. Just take a gander at what happened to those who had money in 401 Ks....like my husband. We took a beating and only recently recovered back to the level it was when the free fall began. It has taken about 4 years. FOUR YEARS to get back where it was before the fall!!! When you get to be our age, every year matters. If our Social Security (which we chose to start collecting at age 62) had been in the same situation as the 401 K, we would both still be working. As it is, we don't live a life of luxury, but we do not have to work and still manage to eat OK, travel and live a decent lifestyle. We could not do that if our Social Security had been cut down to size like the 401 K was.

Don't you younger guys listen to them. They are going to screw you over and tell you that you'll like it.

and can surely relate to your post except for one thing that maddens me every time I hear it and that is the meme that "boomers are just going to have to work longer". Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! That meme/statement makes the assumption that anyone would hire you at 63 or that even if they would, it would be an 18 hour a week, part time job at $8.00 an hour with no benefits. So, what is the likelihood that when those who are 55 reach our age it will be any different?

I'm not berating you or anything, but I have lots of friends who are in our age group and most of them do not have full time jobs with full benefits any longer. They were downsized out of that. The intimation from employers is that at our age you should be thankful for anything you can get.

My advice for those who are in the 55 range now is to learn how to live with very little because that's what you're going to have to do - most of you. I am fortunate that I've never required much materialistically and don't measure my self worth by how much money I make or what I own or where I live, but it can still be pretty damned hard to live on the $985 a month Social Security I receive, a good chunk of which goes to buy my own health insurance.

And as an aside, I can still think of several people in that same situation who will vote for these two jackasses.

that you and I are old enough to remember when there was no such thing as 401k's and the general populace was bombarded with propaganda about how this was going to be the best thing since sliced bread. I believe it was during the Reagan years. I was in my early 30's. Some of my coworkers were practically orgasmic over the idea that they were going to become millionaires and I was furious, trying to get them to see that it was a ruse to allow corporations to do away with the guaranteed pensions that our parents' generation had always had.

Well, we all know how that turned out. I don't know too many people who became millionaires.

The same meme was applied to IRA's. Everyone was going to have a million dollars after so many years. Why are people so gullible? Most of this is just common sense or it always seemed to me. I may have been only 30 but I distinctly remember saying to people, "What happens if the interest rates were earning right now (which was in the double digits) are much lower when we retire?"

I guess it's difficult for most young people to ever imagine being a senior so they can't picture themselves in that scenario.

Same thing they do with the unions. We don't care about PRIVATE unions, we only want to get rid of PUBLIC unions...as if they want ANY unions. They pit one group of people against another. Group A, who isn't being targeted, will happily roll over on/screw Group B. In this case they're pitting the 55+ crowd against the younger generation. They figure the 55+ people will go, "Whew. We're going to be spared. Let's vote for them."

Disgusting.

Judging from all the relief emanating from the 55+ crowd, and on DU even, divide and conquer will again succeed.

"Those lucky ducky old people! Why should they get a better deal than YOU?"

We all stand together or we fall down separately.

We just need a few adjustments to the system
and it will live for another 75 years.

But wait......Millionaires want the money too, that's the biggest problem.
Stop paying SS to MILLIONAIRES and the problem is solved.

After all, it was created to give those with little to nothing, money to survive
on in old age, NOT as a retirement account for everyone.

If you HAVE money, then you don't need SS !

We already needs test through the tax code by taxing a portion of the benefits for incomes above a certain level. In addition the number of individuals with $1M in assets at retirement is very small so the impact will not be that great. Another example would be fairness - a lifetime annuity from a pension for example at $1M does not pay out all that much when you consider that it yields a non-inflation indexed lifetime annuity of $72K/yr when purchased at 65. An inflation indexed annuity (like Social Security) would offer much lower payments (about $52K/yr). You put in the 100% to survivor spouse the value even goes down further (for a 65/65 with 100% survivor and no inflation index the payment would be $60,000/yr).


For a couple at retirement, S.S. is a very valuable as you can see above. It offers a both inflation indexing and 50% survivor (since, if the spouse is using the husband's S.S. over their own earnings they would already be at 50% when they assumed the S.S. of the spouse and gave up their 50% spousal).

If you go after those with assets, you should also consider going after those with pensions of like value. What will happen is most will draw down to the level to avoid the taxes.


I am a strong proponent of removing of the cap though. Currently those making about $55K-$105K are carrying the weight of the Social Security program. Their contributions over about $40K go into the benefit formula at 15% (from 0 to $9K the formula is 90% and from $9K to $55K the formula is 32%). At some point during the 32% bracket individuals begin to subsidize other individuals with their contributions. Now this is ok if all income participates in carrying the weight. That is the best argument for removing the cap (I would offer a sweetener of reducing the withholding rate for that income over $105K to reflect that will not receive any additional benefits from the contributions - in other words putting them in the same category as those contributing between $55K-$105K).

That would change the perception of what the program is and is meant to be.

It's something people have paid into while working in order to get back after retirement. Tying it to income would turn it into a sort of welfare program - or be perceived that way. Next thing you know the people trying to destroy it will evoke 'welfare queens' and drug testing.

I'm 55 and I believe I'm among the first that would be under Ryand voucher plan.

So this was a shout out to them.

They're attitude is, "Screw everyone else".

I am 53, what about me? Do I need to worry? clearly , I do.
I was frustrated when Biden had Ryan on the ropes during the economy discussion when he said ' that doesnt work', and Ryan said yes it does, and Biden said 'no, it doesnt,' and Ryan then said, 'it has worked ,a couple of times...............

that was Bidens opportunity to go in for the kill.


When? what couple of times? .............he had Ryan dead in his sites and he let him off the hook

You are just going to have to be satisfied with working until you drop dead....which was the norm for a huge segment of the population before Social Security. It was either continue working or starve.

The problem is that over the past 35 years wages have not kept pace with GDP...in 2010 the Median wage was $50,200....it should have been $92,000. Think about all the lost revenue for Social Security because wages were held flat ... and no one said a word.

and paid into this system since I was 13 and got my first paper route.

Well at least I did, until I became too sick to work. I have lived on disability since 2003. I also receive Medicare. If R/R get elected will they throw me off of disability? How can I trust them?

This is some scary stuff the right wing is spouting.

I don't want other people screwed any more than I want to get screwed myself.

don't blame all of us old timers.

when I hear their crap. And I generally don't have a problem with high blood pressure. Those of us from age 40 to 55 are in the "sour spot." Too young to have been the beneficiaries of the pensions that most of our parents had, and too old to recoup from the huge hits our 401Ks and home values took in the Great Recession. I'm hanging on by a thread.

My spouse and I are in the category where one of us is over 55 and one under 55 so is it fair for one of us to have medicare and one voucher care?? Honestly though I don't think anyone will be safe. Their goal is to ultimately voucherize everyone and then take away Obama Care too and then who in the world will even be able to afford any health care? What really scares me though is that they can say all this and still convince people they should vote for them.

They're in their mid-30s and have been convinced by the propaganda that there's no hope of their getting Social Security when their time comes. I tell them if Republicans have their way, that's true, but if we can get enough Dems in they'll fix it.

Trouble is, there are so many low-information voters out there....

I worry -- I don't have a bajillion dollar trust fund to leave them. My daughter is a day care provider and I fear she will always be poor. My son is in the tech sector and earns well, but has a health condition that may in time... well, best not go on.

What I am saying is: DO THESE HEARTLESS GOP BASTARDS THINK WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FATE OF OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN? DO THEY THINK WE ARE AS SELFISH AS REPUBLICANS ARE?

Christ on a trailer hitch, the GOP disgusts me.

That Line Romney and Ryan keep using "If your retired or about to, you will see no change" really pisses me off. What about if your 40 or 50 something and have been paying into medicare your whole life?

and Medicare will run short of funds in 2024.

2033 is based upon 20 more years of recession, low GDP growth, faster than normal workforce reductions, No wage growth, which is not very realistic.

according to the 2012 SS Trustees report in the low cost scenario SS is good thru 2090:


Table IV.B3.—Trust Fund Ratios, Calendar Years 2012-90

The Trustees estimate that the trust fund will not be exhausted within the projection period.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/tr/2012/IV_B_LRest.html#219007

To paraphrase FDR

If we take nothing from capital we owe nothing to capital.

Which is why I try to elected intelligent people to represent me in Congress.

I will agree that it is unlikely that the Great Recession will last for 20 more years. One scary thought is that the report you linked to stated:

but i have a grandchild who's only 5! i cannot even believe that that is used as a way to gloss over the damage the republicans plan to do to OUR social security. who could find that persuasive?

The GI bill was gone when I was old enough to serve. I've had 3 pension plans converted to 401K plans from defined benefit plans on me.

When will someone kiss me whilst fucking me?

and i still don't feel safe!

I am not sure whether it would continue for me or not under Mittens plan. He sure as hell better loose.

GOTV

I complete agree with the OP. When they say "this won't screw anybody over 55", why doesn't anybody ever say, "But it is OK to screw people aged 1 through 54?"

How can that statement go unchallenged all these months?

Are all the talking heads over 55? Do they not have any empathy for those under 55?

If it is any consolation, they will find ways to screw those over 55 too. Their plan is to bully people under 55 to get on the voucher program and then step 2 is to start draining resources from Medicare. And step 2 screws all of us. Did I make you feel better?

It's a grenade right in the middle of Medicare and Romney/Ryan are playing with it. Once the Republicans succeed in giving the under-55's a bad Medicare deal, the under-55's will immediately vote for the first person who offers to screw current retirees and other over-55's.

The Republican plan is divide and destroy.

Many of us have parents who are relying on Social Security and Medicare. Do you really think most people will vote to let their aging parents just twist in the wind?

The thing that keeps Medicare working is that everyone thinks it is a good deal. If they make it a bad deal for some, then those people would be easy pickings for privatization schemes and "fairness" appeals. They wouldn't be letting their parents "twist in the wind." They would be inviting them out in the cold with everyone else. And if it is twisting in the wind, and seniors vote to let it happen to 55-and-unders, then wouldn't they deserve it. Wouldn't they be voting to let their kids "twist in the wind?"

That is what the Republicans are doing. They are pitting generation against generation but keeping that fact subliminal. They want seniors to feel greedy but not feel their risk. Most seniors, I hope, won't fall for this ugly scam. But if they do, they will get the short end of it too. They need to see the catch.