To Those Of You Who Think They Will Be One Of The "Safe" Ones.

[Ikonoklast]

After the Republican Party enacts their Randian Agenda of eliminating the safety net for those who fall under a randomly defined cutoff age, they will then come for you.

You see, even still your demographic has a fairly large amount of accumulated wealth and assets, and there is no way that Wall Street will allow the Republican Party let that money go to your heirs intact without getting a crack at stealing it.

Once Medicare and Social Security are eliminated for those of us still working, their sights will be turned onto you. You will have no real way to stop them. You threw everyone else under the bus in order to save your own benefits, and in doing so, lost anyone who cares one bit about what then happens to you.

They will not care how big a Teabagger, Objectivist, Rugged Individual, Self-Made Man, Republican, of Free Market Worshiper you happen to be.

You are NOT part of the 1%, and are therefore fair game to be stolen from.

After stealing all that they can from those still working, they will take from you the last shreds of the social safety net by totally eliminating Medicare, throwing your health car to the whims and vagaries of private insurers, which will guarantee you go bankrupt in the process.

The assets you worked your entire life for will go to strangers, your children and grandchildren will see exactly nothing.

But make sure that you pull up that ladder in the desperate hope that you will remain safe, and vote Republican.

You might get three years out of it, tops, before they come for you, too.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Yup.

This is the kind of appeal that, if it doesn't just bounce off the chitinous shell of denial which which the 'baggers protect themselves, might make a dent in their vote.

For the rest of us geezers, who have some empathy with our fellow humans, it suffices for us to realize how badly hurt so many others would be if the Ryanites have their way.

[Ikonoklast]

3. There are selfish people who don't care what happens to those coming up behind them.

Just look at the two-tier union contracts that were agreed to that were nothing but current employees selling out new hires, thinking they saved their own wage scale in the process.

They never thought that the lower wage scale would then become the upper limit for all employees, over time, as the new hires then voted in THEIR own self-interest, throwing senior members under the bus.

But that is exactly what happened.

The same thing will happen to those that are members of the "I Got Mine, Screw You!" club.

[mitchtv]

33. I know how it works

I've seen it happen a lot. It has become standard in the union busting gamebook.

[Ikonoklast]

35. I saw it happen first-hand, waaay back in 1988.

Even though I had seniority and was a top-tiered employee in wages and benefits, I wanted nothing to do with a tiered wage system, a blind man could see where that would take us.

Some of us fought hard against it, but the selfish and short-sighted out-voted us.

To their great regret, they ended up cutting their own throats.

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. I spent three years trying to get IT workers to unionize in the mid-90's.

The nearly universal response was some variant on "I'm making great money and my company loves me, why would I want to do that?"

And with each new step toward the elimination of the middle class was taken, the denial only became more intransigent.

[mitchtv]

58. sounds like the retail clerks in SF Macy's, Emporium,et al

guess wwho ended up the in the minority? top tier of course. It was around that time.

[GP6971]

2. I think 3 years is generous

Closer to 2

[Ikonoklast]

5. My actual feeling is that it would be done in the first year, if they got a majority.

Like the states whose legislatures and governors were targeted, the ALEC agenda was the first order of business, the very first day the legislators convened.

[Jackpine Radical]

50. You are absolutely right.

They have nothing to lose by front-ending with all the draconian shit, just like Scott Walker and the ALECbots did here.

Why wait? They won't.

[lunasun]

72. Agree- they will have been given a mandate and have an obligation

to see it through....
..ooops you meant everyone except you??? too late - you voted them in and they are busy at work right away wasting no time or money including their voters

[Jackpine Radical]

77. The legislation is already written

and ready to go.

They won't even need a bulletproof majority in the Senate--50 + Holy Joe will do just fine.

Dem Senators are just so NOT INTO that filibuster thing…

[Big Blue Marble]

4. Divide and conquer.

That's how works. And from what I have seen, it works quite well.

[RKP5637]

26. Yep, that's what it's all about! That, it their modus operandi. n/t

[October]

74. Yes, it does. The nation is divided, and workers are divided, and it goes on and on.

It is their one and only strategy.

Divided we fall -- and they know it -- and they capitalize on it.

[Webster Green]

6. Indeed.

I'm guessing you wont mind if I post this on my Facebook page.

I have a lot of family members who need to read this, and hopefully think about it.

[Ikonoklast]

8. It is yours to use as you see fit.

What happens to the least among us affects us all, it is supposed to be "We The People", not 'Me Me Me!".

[ElboRuum]

7. The 1% would steal...

...from each other if they thought they could get away clean. How anyone can feel "safe" as you put it with these clowns around mystifies me.

[Ikonoklast]

10. The end result of Randian philosophy would be one Superior Strong Man owning all.

If we had nothing left of value worth stealing, they would then resort to robbing each other.

After all, it's the quickest path to accumulating enormous wealth there is.

Only a fool works hard for a living in their world.

[Odin2005]

12. RW "Libertarianism" is in fact super-authoritarian.

It would result in a monarchy where the King owns everything.

[Jackpine Radical]

73. Exactly.

Time to bring up Bob Altemeyer again:

Free pdf book at
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

From the website:

“It ties things together for me,” people have said, “You can see how so many things all fit together.” “It explains the things about conservatives that didn’t make any sense to me,” others have commented. And the one that always brings a smile to my face, “Now at last I understand my brother-in-law” (or grandmother, uncle, woman in my car pool, Congressman, etc.).

[chowder66]

9. There is a level of greed and dishonesty that supports this.

I've been saying this for a while now, you put it into a bigger context which I appreciate. Thank you.

Romney and the other 1%'ers that are so blatantly desperate to get into the Whitehouse and effect changes that benefit them by taking from the poor, the elderly, students, the middle class, minorities, etc (and covers all political affiliations) will dry up quick enough. Then they will start the next phase and be looking for the next chunk of cash they can get for themselves. These people do not have any compass that will make them stop, their desire for all the money they can steal and the power that they will gain will not be satiated. They will keep going.


I'm glad you touched on this....
"You threw everyone else under the bus in order to save your own benefits, and in doing so, lost anyone who cares one bit about what then happens to you."

[JDPriestly]

11. Absolutely right.

Remember the "ownership society."

A Republican lie. "Pownedership society" is more like it.

This was the promise:

Crane to Rove: Ownership, Ownership, Ownership!
"Bringing his call for adding more personal control to Social Security retirement funds to his 20th state in two months, President Bush told a receptive audience here Tuesday it was time for Congress 'to stop playing politics with the issue and come to the table,'" reports the Charleston Gazette. "Franklin D. Roosevelt 'did a good thing when he created Social Security,' Bush said. 'It's worked well, but now it needs to change. ... People ought to be able to consider having the opportunity to have more control over their retirement funds -- to watch them grow in a savings account.'"

In a memorandum from Cato's president Ed Crane to the President's Senior Advisor Karl Rove, Crane criticizes the Bush administration's emphasis on solvency, rates of returns and transitional costs when the real focus should be on ownership and freedom when advocating reform: "Seriously, this should be an emotional issue about liberty and opportunity, not solvency dates. The concept of an Ownership Society is brilliant. Unlike the New Deal, the New Frontier or the Great Society, Ownership Society actually means something -- something integral to the essence of America. That essence is a respect for the dignity of the individual, which is axiomatically enhanced when one has more control over one's life. That is what personal accounts provide."

Crane adds: "In addition to more control over your life through personal accounts, all the ancillary benefits of ownership should be enthusiastically played up by the President: the pride one has in having provided for his or her own retirement, as opposed to being a supplicant of the state; the security of knowing the government can't take the money away (which they do whenever they raise the payroll tax or push back the retirement age); and perhaps most of all, the knowledge that your loved ones may benefit from your labor."

http://www.cato.org/special/ownership_society/

And then, there was the reality:

Deepening market trouble was just one piece of the economic havoc that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told senators would ensue if Congress lags in acting on the administration’s proposal to rescue tottering financial institutions.

“I share the outrage that people have,” Paulson said. “It’s embarrassing to look at this. I think it’s embarrassing to the United States of America. There is a lot of blame to go around.”

But without the bailout plan, Paulson and Bernanke sketched out a dire scenario for senators at a contentious daylong hearing: Neither businesses nor consumers would be able to borrow money, and the world’s largest economy would grind to a virtual halt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26850571/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/bernanke-paulson-congress-must-act-now/

We don't want to try Randian economics, Romney's and Ryan's supper menu for Americans again this year. We had enough warmed over refried beans. They are great every once in a while, but we have had a steady diet since Bush crashed the economy with his "Ownership Society" back in 2008.

I do not understand why anyone continues to fund the CATO and other self-proclaimed think tanks on the right. They failed. Their theories failed.

It's unbelievable that anyone would try to resurrect the dinosaur of Randian and Chicago School economics. They did not work for the 99% of the population.

How dare they?????

Do they really think that such a large portion of the population is that forgetful???


Check out the interest rate that B of A is now paying on a savings account?

Platinum Money Market Savings (Not Available Online)†
Platinum
Rate(%) APY(%)†
Less than $10,000 0.15 0.15
$10,000 - $19,999 0.20 0.20
$20,000 - $29,999 0.25 0.25
$30,000 - $39,999 0.30 0.30
$40,000 - $49,999 0.35 0.35
$50,000 - $99,999 0.35 0.35
$100,000 - $249,999 0.35 0.35
$250,000 and over 0.35 0.35

For further product information, refer to (Banking Center) Deposit Rate Sheets and Personal Schedule of Fees for this product.

http://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/checksave/index.cfm?template=ecommDepRates

Try living on that. Social Security is great. Trust me on this.

[Ikonoklast]

24. It is so much easier to rob people one at a time, than trying to do it all at once to millions.

Easier to keep off of the radar that way, but it takes longer.

They are getting impatient.

We are getting wise to them, so they must try to steal as much as they can all at once from as many as they can, before their window of opportunity passes.

[Odin2005]

13. The logical end-point of Capitalism is an absolutist monarchy.

In the end the Capitalists will consume themselves until there is one person left on top of the hill who owns everything. At this point the economy will look little different than the State Capitalist "Socialism in one country" of Stalin.

The drive towards absolute liberty leads to its opposite of no liberty at all because of the paradox of freedom, you cannot keep on increasing your own freedom without eventually enslaving others.

[Ikonoklast]

18. The ascendancy of the rights of the Corporate State over the rights of Individuals

will spell the loss of all individual rights if allowed to continue.

The end result of individuals becoming second-class citizens subordinate to corporate power will be the purchase of a controlling interest in government in order to consolidate all political and economic power among a Corporate Aristocracy.

We are damn close to that scenario right now.

[proverbialwisdom]

31. It does appear that way, doesn't it.

"The drive towards absolute liberty leads to its opposite of no liberty at all because of the paradox of freedom, you cannot keep on increasing your own freedom without eventually enslaving others."

- Odin2005

Brilliant!

[gulliver]

14. That's what is going to nail Romney/Ryan and all Republicans this election

Current seniors can't possibly think that they can get away with feeding under-55's to the wolves. Hell, I'm under 55. If current seniors vote in a bad deal for my generation's seniors, I would have no problem at all voting in a worse deal for them.

Current seniors aren't that unfair or stupid. They are going to see the writing on the wall. Republicans have made a mistake.

[demgrrrll]

15. You are absolutely right and your message needs to be shouted far and wide.

[catbyte]

16. Those of us over 55 aren't out of the woods

How many seniors receiving MEDICAID will be devastated by this ungodly budget? How many Alzheimer's patients will be thrown out of nursing homes? I am 57--how long will it be before they welch on their "over 55" promise?

This would be a fucking disaster.

[Ikonoklast]

20. The Republicans liken life to two people being chased by a hungry lion.

The first guy says to the other, "We'll never be able to outrun him!"

The second guy says to the first, as he trips him, "I only have to outrun YOU!"

[smirkymonkey]

23. +10,000

a perfect description.

[Volaris]

36. That, of course, is the Randian Model...

The problem with that model is that is undermined by Human biological evolution. Our ancestors figured out that there is a greater chance of INDIVIDUAL survival if the entire GROUP thrives...figured out that 2 or 3 or 20 people stand a better chance against the loin than one selfish narcissist ever will, no matter HOW many people that fucker feeds to the lion. Social Darwin-ism cannot exist as a functional construct unless you first have a SOCIETY, and you can't have a society unless you have biologically-driven empathy. This means the entire model is self-undermining; in other words, it is based on a negative argument, and you can't build a Science (in this case, Economics) on a negative argument. This is why the economy collapsed in the first fucking place, and why Objectivism it is NOT EVER the philosophy of people who passed high-school Science classes with any deep understanding of the source material.

[magical thyme]

71. yup. nt

[A Simple Game]

17. Perhaps you should be a little more careful who you accuse of throwing people under the bus.

There are very few seniors on DU that are selfish enough to advocate for only themselves.

Perhaps you could provide a link to an example of a senior DU member doing what you say.

[Ikonoklast]

19. Then this post does not pertain to either you, or them.

Please do not think this post is a criticism of the vast majority of any of our members.

DU is read by many who are not.

[A Simple Game]

38. Please be careful what size brush you use when painting a picture.

This picture is particularly ugly. Try rereading your posts before posting.

Once Medicare and Social Security are eliminated for those of us still working, their sights will be turned onto you. You will have no real way to stop them. You threw everyone else under the bus in order to save your own benefits, and in doing so, lost anyone who cares one bit about what then happens to you.

[Ikonoklast]

39. And you try reading the OP a little more carefully.

They will not care how big a Teabagger, Objectivist, Rugged Individual, Self-Made Man, Republican, or Free Market Worshiper you happen to be.

If none of those labels apply to you, then you needn't worry.

If they do, it must sting a bit, and I am not sorry nor will I apologize if that is the case.

You have yourself a nice day.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

49. Good for you.

[jeff47]

42. Oh please.

Read the title. Do you think you are one of the safe ones? No? Well then why the fuck are you getting yourself all hot and bothered by the OP? It's not directed at you.

Get off the fainting couch. This message needs to be spread to all the people who DO think they are the "safe ones".

[A Simple Game]

47. Do I think I am one of the safe ones? The only safe "ones" are the

1%ers. If you are referring to the age range the OP is denigrating, yes, I will be 62 in December. I am one of the people the OP is railing against. Do I feel safe? Not hardly! No one is safe, I'm sure they even want the gold from your teeth before you are planted.

You can defend an ageist if you want, I don't like it, nor do I deserve it. I defend Social Security for myself and everyone else including people not yet born. Social Security is sustainable and I will not let the talking heads tell me different. Most people I know my age are not selfish. Do you know a lot of selfish seniors?

What good does it do to give younger people the impression that older people are trying to sell them down the river? I'm sure some seniors are, but very few and they are probably either real stupid or wealthy.

Do you know any common everyday seniors that want to change Social Security? I don't. Do you know any common everyday younger people that want to eliminate Social Security? I do. Why would you want to feed their fears? We need to educate the younger people, not scare them.

I answered your questions, if you aren't going to answer mine don't waste my time by responding.

[DonCoquixote]

48. the purpose of this op

was to use on those who DO think they can sell us down the river. I realize that few if any DU seniors are trying that, but go to Tal Radio and you have tons of people who ARE, and say that openly.

[jeff47]

54. You know, someone said something mean about hispanic women who happened to be my age.

Called them nasty things about being women and Latina. Now, I'm a white male. But I'm deeply offended that someone is talking bad about people of my age!

Your complaints make as much sense.

You can defend an ageist if you want

YOU are the one trying to turn this into an ageist attack. It isn't. It is an attack against complacency. You are not one of the complacent. It is not directed at you.

This isn't about you, despite your efforts to make it all about you.

I answered your questions

Nope, you just hurled more accusations based on your insistence that this is about you. So I really don't see how answering your intentional misunderstanding is a good use of my time.

[riderinthestorm]

59. I'm 50, my Rethug mom is 80. She's precisely who the OP is targeting and I appreciate the advice

She's a Faux Rethug brainwashed senior and having all the ammunition at my disposal in rebuttal to her inevitable diatribes is helpful.

This OP clearly doesn't apply to you but it does to some people, and certainly to a whole lot of us who are dealing with senior Rethugs of the ugliest sort. I appreciate this kind of thought since it helps me in sorting out my responses to her.

[nichomachus]

21. No one is safe -- not even the one percenters

Once the ones at the top have enslaved us, they will start on each other. This is going to come as a shock to those who aren't in the .001%. These millionaires who enabled the coup are going to be a little upset when the billionaires come after their money.

[Walk away]

57. I think the 1%ers are pretty safe.

[JoeyT]

22. K&R

It isn't like we haven't seen it before. We fought cutting assistance for the poor by telling the middle class that once the poor had nothing left they'd be next. Now we've got to try to keep them from destroying the middle class and finishing off the poor by telling the retirees that once the middle class is bled dry they'll be next.

Next up: Trying to keep them from bleeding the retirees dry by pointing out to the 95th-99th percentiles that they'll be next on the block.

It's f'ing depressing.

[McCamy Taylor]

25. They will saddle you with your parents' medical and nursing home debt.

They can already do this legally in half the states.

[Live and Learn]

27. I liken their philosophy to a Monopoly game.

A deadly real life version of the board game.

In the end there can only be one winner. Usually the board game ends with others quitting or throwing the game in the air. I would think that in the real life version it ends with revolt.

[liberal N proud]

28. Their greed keeps them coming back for more!

They will not be satisfied until they have it all.

I just wonder who the will turn on once they have bled the middle class into poverty?

[PDJane]

29. frankly, before that comes, there will be fascism.

It's already on its way; if you look carefully, the police state to suport it is already well on its way.

The will institute a third world dictatorship before you can manage to turn around and look. I have wondered for a long time if that's the reason that the US spends more than the rest of the world combined on the military, and denies veterans benefits. The military isn't there for protection from the outside.

[thucythucy]

30. Eliminating Medicare for those under 55

(or whatever the arbitrary cut-off will be) will also undermine political support for continuing the program for those not immediately affected by the slashing. For this reason alone, it's enormously self-defeating for anyone over 55 to think they'll be safe, once the erosion of the program begins.

We're already seeing this with all the "Social Security/Medicare won't be there for you anyway" blather that the GOP has been targeting at under 40 voters for years now. The whole idea is to divide one generation from the other. So you can be sure that if they end the program for those under 55, in two, five, or ten years from now they'll come back saying to the rest of the electorate,"why should those elderly people be entitled to something that isn't there for you?" The danger will increase year by year as those still on the original Medicare program grow older, more ill, fewer in numbers, with less political clout.

I'm generally skeptical of "slippery slope" arguments, but politically this is sheer vertical ice. Once Medicare is ended for any of us, the whole program will fall, given time. The whole idea of a social contract is one for all and all for one. Once it becomes, "all for some, and less for me," the political will to save it among younger voters will vanish. Which is precisely what Ryan and the other Randians are hoping.

[Ikonoklast]

34. What can be denied one class of people can then be denied for all.

You got it.

Not a slippery slope at all, it's a plan being put into action.

Look at the decline in defined pension plans with the rise of 401k's.

Once rock-solid retirement accounts run by parties with fiduciary duties to their contributors were decimated, it was far easier to steer workers into personally directed plans easily stolen by Wall Street.

[progressivebydesign]

32. And anyone over 55 who thinks that their benefits won't change, are fooling themselves.

hello? You are going to elect someone that CLEARLY stated that they plan to trash (not reform) the social safety nets for seniors and the poor.

If you know anyone over 55 who says "oh, it doesn't apply to me," ask them if they TRULY understand the budget process. Ryan's budget says that over 55 if okay.. NOW. But budgets don't go through all at once in one big piece. They get picked apart, and things get added, and things get taken away.

There is not one person over 55 who can say that the provision to keep Medicare, or long term care, or social security, would not be on the table if the republicans wanted something else. So say that there is a vote on Medicare, and the Republicans say "okay, you can keep the Medicare for the people over 55 as is, BUT if we do... then you have to agree to cut long term care funding, or home health workers.

Once you support someone who has clearly stated, repeatedly, that they are ready and willing to cut ANYONE'S safety net that they worked for, YOURS is also on the chopping block. You go to bed with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

A vote for Ryan/*Romney is a vote for an ideology straight from an Ayn Rand book. Even if the shitheads squeak in, they will do what Bush did and claim a mandate, and those same people over 55 are screwed immediately. Can't believe they don't get it. But I guess I do.. these are the same people that believe if you keep cutting taxes on the "job creators" the economy will improve, but that is been the polar opposite, because that's what Cheney/Bush did,and it caused a massive Recession.

[FarCenter]

37. Due to climate change, exhaustion of resources, global overpopulation the shit will hit the fan

There is no way out.

In flying there is a point on the runway where if your speed is too low, you can't stop and you can't take off. You will crash off the end of the runway.

We've passed that point. It is now just a matter of how and/or when.

[A Simple Game]

40. Different paragraph, different subject. n/t

[lunatica]

43. Your and your dittoheads' assumption that anyone over 55 is uncaring or clueless is offensive

You are falling for the divide and conquer tactics of the GOP. Shame on you.

[Ikonoklast]

44. See Post #19.

Unless you think that you are one of the "safe ones".

Seems all but you and another poster understand the point being made.

I am pointing out the divide and conquer tactics to those that think they will be immune to the results, because they support them.


Oh, and a point of reference for you...I am older than 55.

[lunatica]

46. And you still insist on making us enemies

I don't care how old you are. What I do care about is that everyone, including your sorry ass, is protected from the GOP.

I repeat. Shame on you.

I am not your enemy. But much to the GOP delight evidently you are my enemy.

[Turbineguy]

51. The Buffer Class.

The ones Bush didn't wipe out.

[HockeyMom]

52. I have a Bridge I can sell you

if you think you are "safe" because you are already receiving SS and Medicare, if you are only a few years away from it, or even if you are over 55.

The Repukes are COUNTING on your comfort zones and ME, ME, ME outlook.

I am 64 and personally could care less about Medicare for ME. I didn't ever use my employer's health insurance anyway, but I DO care about OTHER PEOPLE who want, need, and will use it.

If you only care about yourself, why are you a Democrat? Maybe you should go over to the other side?

[dkf]

53. I say leave it as is, then when the trust fund runs out drop benefits by 25%

And keep dropping them as the number of recipients grow compared to the number of payers.

That's what happens if you leave it alone. Getting your benefits as supposedly promised means changing the system.

[riderinthestorm]

60. What. The. Fuck.

Really?? Did you forget your sarcasm thingie?



Or we could raise the cap and solve all the problems. Changing things doesn't have to mean cutting benefits 25% (unless you're really a secret Rethug and aren't looking for serious solutions).

[dkf]

67. Problem with raising the cap is you have to pay it out later.

Just imagine if someone gets $1,000,000 a year because he paid social Security taxes up the wazoo.

All I know is it drives me batty when people think it will pay as projected as is. It's like they have no clue. No wonder they get mortgages they can't afford and spend a lifetime with student loans.

If you tax at the full amount but pay only up to a cap then you've opened it up to a plan that disconnects payments in to payments out. It can no longer be claimed that you are owed because you paid in.

[indepat]

55. And come after you, they will and with

vengeance.

[Curmudgeoness]

56. Think about it. When they stop collecting into the fund,

the first thing they will say is that there is no money in there to pay the over 55 crowd, so they will have to do away with it.

We should learn from history what happens without the safety net provided to seniors----because they used to have to live with their children, go without health care, or go to the poor house. Is this country ready to deal with this reality again?

[Timbuk3]

61. I'm 55 and therefore "SAFE"

...and I just rec'd your post.

They want it ALL.

GOP/libertarian nirvana looks a lot like Somalia, but we'll have (low paying, no benefits) jobs until we die (then we're expected to die).

Democrats may not be perfect, but Republicans are perfectly evil.

[99Forever]

62. Nicely stated.

It's what self-centered "me" societies do.

[Pakid]

63. I like the title Those who think they will be safe

I would included the 1% in that list they think they are safe. But are they? Just how much will the truly stupid ones in America take before they wake up? The Ryan joke of a budget even goes after the veteran's. If the 1% screws the soldiers who do they think will protect them when the masses go all French Revolution on them! The good thing about the 1% is they let there greed over ride what little common sense they have. I don't know about they rest of you but when my family is staving barbecue Koch Brother sound pretty good to me! Hopefully it will not come to this there are still some decent rich people out there lets hope they do an intervention on the more foolish one!

[The Wizard]

64. Easy solution

Burn down Pox News, guillotines and head baskets on Wall Street. Hand counted publicly viewed paper ballots.

[Brigid]

65. I don't know where . . .

Anyone gets the idea that the Republicans, especially the 1%, give a damn about them. Your OP makes me wonder what the 1% will do when there is nothing left to steal, and no one left to steal from.

[DonCoquixote]

66. True then as now

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. "

[ZombieHorde]

68. I like your user name. nt

[99th_Monkey]

69. WTF is up with your accusatory ASSumptions?

I'm 68, have been paying into the system, and paying attention
and active in one way or another since the sixties for progressive
democratic and participatory change, esp.economic democracy
wise.

Why am I being flatly accused here of "throwing everyone else
under the bus", merely because of my age? There is a name for
that i.e. agism.

This kind of blanket condemnation of millions of older Americans
who have been fighting the good fight as best we can for decades is
totally uncalled for, rude, and it certainly 'disrupted' my otherwise
rather pleasant evening. So I have this to say:

FUCK YOU!!!!

You obviously know next to nothing about how to build consensus,
or how to organize towards better collective outcomes; so I have
nothing further to say to you ... except grow up and come back
when you are ready to collaboratively build a better future for all.

I'm not blowing any TOS whistles here, but I am sorely tempted.

[FlaGranny]

70. You were NOT being accused

Mr. 99th_Monkey. I am 72 and have paid into the system since I was 17 years old. I did not feel accused. I am acquainted, though, with some people my age who should feel accused.

Edit: The OP in no way was inclusive of all over 55's. Plus, I'm still paying into it because I'm still working.

[99th_Monkey]

75. I agree with you on all points

except I feel the OP could have been much clearer about
exactly WHO or WHICH "under 55"ers they were addressing,
but apparently that is just my opinion.

For the record, I want Medicare left alone and want SS to
simply raise the cap on who pays into it enough to close any
future shortfalls.

[FlaGranny]

78. Right On! n/t

[aquart]

76. Dialing 911 for grammar police.

Sometimes I just can't take it anymore.