They still vote, though.

I guess that kind of defeats the theory that voter ID laws are intended to prevent democrats from voting. It seems that seniors (one of the groups identified as potentially disenfranchised by voter ID laws) favor republicans...

I think Jason forgot his typical 'very little of I have written is actually true' disclaimer at the bottom of his article...

@Cowdung,
You're getting pretty obsessed with defending voter id, aren't you? Let me point out two things -
One, the topic of this article is not voter id. It's about old people voting to destroy the welfare that helped them.
Two, old people voting does not in any way defeat the strong evidence that voter id laws are intended to disenfranchise Democrats. The sponsors may have felt the loss of elderly votes was an acceptable trade compared to the loss of poor, minority and students votes. Or they might have just not considered it - there is no evidence the sponsors of these laws were intelligent.

Considering that it's a false statement that seniors are voting to destroy the welfare that helped them, I don't see it as an issue that I stray from the topic.

I saw known lefties stating that seniors vote, and that seniors favor republicans, so I took the opportunity to bring up voter ID. Another topic that the left seems to make false accusations about...

Not to mention, that the proposed plan under GW Bush was to allow (not require) people to invest a small percentage (I think it was 4%) of their SS contribution into the private retirement account. To clarify--that's 4% of the SS contribution (with the contribution being 12.4% of earnings), not 4% of one's earnings. A measly 4% is hardly a 'privatization of Social Security', and certainly wouldn't be something that seniors would have 'lost their ass' with.

According to the math, across any and every 40+ year working career, in the entire history of Social Security, one would have 2 to 3 times more money across retirement if one invested in the market(diversified ie. S&P500) at the same % of ones pay as required to be contributed to the Social Security retirement fund. There are no exceptions.

Jay -
Your claim of private investment is, more or less, true. There are some complications. First, Social Security is mandatory and the money is managed for you - no exceptions. Private investment in a 401(k) is optional. Second, social security covers widows, surviving children, etc. It used to (pre-Reagan) cover surviving children until college graduation. That ended up taking out more money than just what the person paid in. Finally, the contributions were never adjusted to catch up with the greatly increased average lifespan. Even those who contributed their whole lives can now outlive the amount paid in.

Another idea is to invest the social security trust fund in something other than US government bonds. That would create a federal agency which controls trillions of dollars of private corporations via stock ownership. Talk about the government invading the private sector and using your money to do it! Every time the stock market tanked the lead news story would be about all the billions the trust fund lost and surely retirees would starve.

No easy answers here!

Scott: Thank you for pointing out facts about social security. It is a TRUST fund, meaning benefits are guaranteed. Any funds invested in the market are not guaranteed.
I couldn't finish Jason's POS article, mainly because he is clueless to the facts.
Paragraph two: Romney/Ryan are not raising military spending by $2Trillion. They are seeking to restore cuts of the Obama regime, and rebuild the military which has been depleated over the past decade.
Paragraph three: Jason implies women used abortions as birth controll, and had equal pay in the workplace. (jason putz- the gap is narrowing not widening)
Paragraph four: Privatized SS would not have affected the seniors at all. The only thing he had right in this paragraph is SS was part of a 3 legged stool- remember that we are still expected to save for retirement on our own. SS is not meant to be the sole income at retirement.
Paragraph five: College...obviously it was money wasted on Jason's education. AND the jobs going to China are because of Bill Clinton giving China MFN status.
Remember that next time you are on your knees for the President, Jason.
Paragraph six: I threw up a little reading this crap, and blame myself for reading anything Jason writes. I do wish he was my next door neighbor though, I could school him on many things.

The problem with the SS Trust Fund is that it does not generate a real return (from the creation of something of value) - instead, it invests (by statute) in US Treasury Bills, which are eventually repaid with funds derived from other sources of government revenue - namely, the federal income tax.

Thus, the only real investment income that the SS Trust Fund generates is additional taxes that we have to pay - it's a screw job.

Better off just tucking the money under the mattress.

Or, the government could actually treat us all like adults instead of like little children and let we the people decide how we want to manage our own retirement savings. If you lose it, at least it was own fault and you have no one to blame but yourself.

Personal responsibility is a standard that we need to become reacquainted with in this country!

@Scott Berg...We generally speak of Social security as 'one program', as we see one combined take from our paycheck. In actuality the survivors and disability programs each are separate and distinct from the 'retirement' program; we know what each of these programs costs to run. Last numbers I saw the 'retirement' portion was approximately 10% and the survivors/disability totaled approximately 2% (should total 12.4%).

Social security(retirement) does not return to the 'participants' at the rate of government bonds. If Social Security 'retirement' would just return at the average T-bond rate one would receive around 50% more than what one now expects to receive from Social Security.

I agree, there are no easy answers!

Comments mysteriously disappearing!

Yep.

Instead, come on over to Hoffa's blog:

http://mountpleasant.patch.com/blog_posts/hoffas-top-10-horror-movie-songs

Where you can check out some great original songs made specifically for use in some of your favorite horror films!

Trust Hoffa - it's definitely time better spent!

I agree with you Hoffa. He needs another hobbie.

right on the money

@Greg

Funny you should mention that .... ;-)

@John Taxthepoor -- Most of those 'free bennies' were put into place by the parents of the Greatest Generation, and it wasn't compassion so much as having had to liver through the Great Depression and deal with the economic mess the unbridled greed of the 1920s had left us.

Sure --- let people be responsible for their own retirement. After all, it's your own fault if you happened to work for a company that ended up being bought by an outfit like Bain. Unemployment compensation (let's do away with that too) and a minimum wage job provide ample funds for saving ahead.

"The exact OPPOSITE are liberal values - whoa is me I am a victim because I am.... black, a women, short, gay, or any non-white male person."
Us there it is; if you ain't a white male you ain't right. Wow, Archie Bunker lives!

Bren:

Considering that both programs have long been cited as unsustainable, I have more concern about them continuing to be there if Romney and Ryan lose...

"things might move 2 or three ticks in either direction but remain within the bounds of reason. I don't believe the Democratic Party has moved much in that time, but the GOP..."
Seriously?

You really need to go find a copy of John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech on cutting taxes to promote growth thus increasing revenues to the Federal government and the importance of a limited government.

This ain't your grandfather's Democrat party.

@Bren -

Hello, anybody home? Obamacare - first time that the federal government is using its power to tax to force people into purchasing a private product!?!?

But that's just a few tick to the left, definitely within the bounds of reason, right?

Come on - get real!

I wonder if it was self inflicted, or if he was moderated...

Considering that one was a response to a comment by another person (and the initial comment was left in place) and the removal included responses from others that addressed his, I'm guessing moderated.

He called me a naughty name, he seems to be an emotional lite weight.

"They are coming from several individuals on both sides of the fence and in far too many cases they continue even after earlier comments have been deleted for reasons that ought to be obvious."

Quite a few come from the author of this blog.

Just sayin'.

Yes, Mark, and if the author were a blogger hosted on my own site, Wauwatosa, he would have already been told that he was on one-strike probation and at risk of losing said blog for losing his temper and his common decency with his own readers.

Then I hope that Ms. Buzo can step up her game a bit...

Jim: Your post is the only reason I read this junk article. Maybe Jason should be more careful to check his facts and refrain from nasty name calling, or Patch should remove him alltogether.
It doesn't set the bar very high when you have someone like Jason writing his junk and using words that violate your terms.
I would like to go on record as someone who wants to see him removed from Patch.
I am sure there are many others who agree with me.

Yet another self-indulgent Taoist superiority complex trip - Hoffa is so glad that we have this guy around to lecture all of us, including Patch editors, as to the purpose and intent of Patch. He's a true asset and such a patriotic American to boot!

Taoist's truths are so self evident and inspiring that they make Hoffa just wanna belt out our National Anthem.

Thank you, oh wonderful Taoist, for gracing all of us peons with your infinite wisdom and for giving us a sneak preview of what our future evolution as a species holds in store for the rest of us - you truly do complete all who are lucky enough to interact with your incredible eminence!

Let's give it up for Taoist everyone - hip, hip, hooray!

Looks like nothing has changed. Blaming the Angry Right. Thats all that Jason has.

I generally don't listen to talk radio, but, I'll bet, the talking heads own a _____ing THESAURUS.

Doesn't like the rules, doesn't like the audience, doesn't like the reaction he gets in the comments section. Doesn't seem like he'd be missed if he was gone.

Seems to me there's one simple solution to all of that. If he can't figure it out on his own, maybe somebody at Patch needs to figure it out for him.

Jason, you are a ____ _____ liar.

That, sir, is your problem...stop emoting, and start thinking. When emotion rules your argument, you lose...but that is the progressive modus operandi, so carry on.

@Jason -

Why are we all "trolls?" Your posting to a public and open forum invites comments from all, does it not?

If you prefer only to write for a friendly, like-minded, and closed comments community, then Hoffa suggests that you try the Daily Kos!

Maddow, Schultz and Matthews reach the lefties, like JP, and fill their mini-minds with "filth", but that must be different. Never forget that it was the angry left that cost Wisconsin taxpayers millions for a worthless recall.

Please note that Patzfahl does NOT apologize, after he claimed he is sorry. HA.

I think we got it, Jason. You want folks from your grandparents generation to put aside their concerns for their own well being in order to put yours first and foremost. And you hate those on the right and blame them for all your troubles.

Same old, same old, Jason. And it really is getting old.

Jason,

You look so young for a man who has lived through the second "Great Depression." Perhaps your generation is different than others and is not familiar with history. There is no comparison.

Also, we were not aware that only people of your generation died in 911. The comparison of unwitting victims with volunteer soldiers fighting at Pearl Harbor was mind-wrenching.

Jason:

Have you considered that the average worker in our generation changes jobs every 4-5 years? The 401(k) is far better suited for that type of employee than the pensions that were earned after putting in 25 years of service in the same company.

Have you ever considered that the unions demand for higher and higher wages, without any corresponding increase in the value of the work produced, is one of the reasons that so many jobs have been sent overseas?

Have you considered the lack of sustainability of the Social Security and Medicare programs? Without the kind of reform that Romney/Ryan want, your 'three legged stool' is going to be gone before you get a chance to sit on it.

Thanks Craig. I understand the difference between Social Security and Medicare, neither of which were adding to the deficit -- at least before the FICA cut.

How to fix Medicare? Get a handle on spiraling medical costs. Maybe raise the Medicare portion of the FICA by a small percentage. I agree that the FICA cut was a bad idea. It was fiscally irresponsible and played right into the hands of those who want to 'significantly change' both programs.

By the was, I hear rumors of a very promising drug for ALS on the horizon.

Randy: Even a small change is considered "ending Medicare as we know it".
The reality is politics has ended America as we know it.
I hope the rumors are true about the promising new treatment, it would be a welcome addition to the 24 pills per day.

"(My generation) have lived and raised families through a second Great Depression which was caused by the policies of the GOP."

People were eating out of garbage cans in the 1930's while Jason's idea of hardship is cutting back on lattes and not buying a new iPhone. There is so much more wealth today than 80 years ago he literally cannot comprehend the difference. Wealth created by property rights, innovation, imagination and enlightened self-interest; not one political party. It used to be called the American way of life and it was the reason men went to war and died--not some stinking nest egg.

Sorry Jason, the Denier in Chief has no plan. Time for Romney and Ryan to be the adults in the room.

@Jason You are misdirected. Federal funding for most programs derives from demographics and the state of the economy. Since the economy is mainly based upon the actions of the private sector, one can conclude that 'the Greatest Generation' is already retired and has little say towards day to day operations. It is my generation, the nasty baby boomer generation, that is screwing things up with our constant search for immediate gratification. Talk about greed!

Jason, of course people don't want entitlements taken away. That's the problem with entitlements in the first place. Only a loser or an idiot doesn't get the point.

Jason:

Stop perpetuating the falsehood that Romney/Ryan are going to end Medicare and Social Security. Those programs are well on their way to ending themselves if Romney/Ryan don't step in and take action to keep those benefits in place for the 'generation that fought two wars in Iraq and lived through a second Great Depression'.

@Michael McClusky -- I've seen the groundswell of resentment against those greedy Boomers, who have yet to take their first benefits. Even while idolizing the Greatest Generation, who created this population bulge (I know i was not consulted at the moment of my conception) and voted in Ronald Reagan, the architect of this mess. The gist of it is that we're greedy and can be thrown under the bus with impunity.

What is this thing called immediate gratification? I spent my adult life staying out of debt and saving for retirement because I knew Social Security would not be sufficient, paying the FICA that supported my parents and grandparents. Perhaps that puts me in the minority, but the last thing we need is self-hating Boomers helping folks like Paul Ryan screw us over.

And no, I'm not voting for him, because I have a son and a grandson who would take the brunt.

Jason you fail to mention the greatest generation is also the greatest savers. That generation saved money rather than buy every toy and object that was available. That generation learned to eat cheaply, they added rice or bread crumbs to the meatloaf to feed the family. That generation drove American made cars until the wheels fell off so they did not have a perpectual car payment.
Yet they became the biggest savers of any generation in our history.
Every generation since has been driven to 'have' things. McMansion homes with fat mortgage payments and untility bills. Every utensil available for the kitchen. New furniture that dwarfs that of mom and dad's. The average baby boomer has less than $30,000 saved for retirement because they spent everything on "I gotta have that" Chinese made junk.
The next generation after the boomers are even worse at saving. They still need their expensive toys,( iPhones, I pads, etc) but neglect to save anything.
When the boomers stopped spending and tigtened their belts, the Government started to spend even more. Someone has to pay for it, but who can afford to?
Do you see a trend here?

@Randy 1949 Immediate gratification can best be illustrated by the stock market. Investors are those who buy a stock for the long haul. Traders are those who constantly flip stock as soon as possible. The average stock is owned for only 6 months now. Companies are under pressure to forever reduce costs to satisfy these blasted traders. This has contributed to the fall of medium household income. This is why I am not real confident for the average Joe.

@Craig -- Don't stereotype the generations, because you just described me when it comes to retirement savings and lack of debt. I kind of wish I'd tried a little of that immediate gratification, because it looks like any kind of gratification is going to be snatched just as I reach it.

@Michael McCluskey -- You just described day-trader Hoffa who blamed me for not being on top of the market when it took a dive in 2008. I've always been in for the long haul and picked funds that did the same.

@Randy1949 Just a tidbit of free advice: The former French Finance Minister said that people everywhere should avoid working for companies that are even partially foreign owned. Foreigners could care less about your local employment situation. They see you only as a cost.

Randy: Mea Culpa. Maybe I should not have stereotyped because not everyone fits that description. The bell shaped curve (in general), fits my comments though.

You stated, "I kind of wish I'd tried a little of that immediate gratification, because it looks like any kind of gratification is going to be snatched just as I reach it."
I know exactly how you feel; my situation is different from yours, but I have the same feelings.

I think most of the middle class feels this way, or has similar concerns.
In my opinion, that feeling is due to a loss of confidence in our leadership. (not specifically the President, but the entire pool of politics)

I have heard from many people, "Screw saving! I am going to borrow into oblivion, when the Government goes bankrupt I will still have all my things."
The assumption is they won't be required to continue to pay for it.

That attitude is relatively new. It wasn't something I had heard before the past Presidential election. I can tell you this: I have talked to many people who have doubted the solvency of Social Security for the past decade. We are no closer to fixing that problem than we were 10 years ago.
My opinion may not be shared with all of those on the right. I believe this issue of solvency is the most detrimental issue for the Nation. Debt and deficits are also very important, but SS is the single most important issue.

When people stop getting their SS checks, we will see an uncivil war and unrest like never before.

@Michael McClusky -- That's excellent advice, but what about people who worked for Miller Brewing, which I believe is at least partially foreign owned after going through several owners? You can't really quit your job in this economy, and the workers aren't really consulted about takeovers.

As for me, I can assure you that you can get screwed over by completely American-owned businesses.

@Craig -- You know that saying, "Life is short, eat dessert first"? I hate it, but there's a certain truth in it. Time is the one thing you never get one extra second of. But everyone wants to have their fun right now -- not just the Boomers.

People have been saying that Social Security would not be there for current workers ever since I began working at age 21. And it's usually the conservative, big-business guys who insist they could do so much better with the money they pay in FICA. They probably could, but I'm not so sure about you and me. I feel sold out, because the double in FICA during the Reagan years was supposed to fix the problem. Instead it was borrowed, and I suspect the big crisis is because they don't want to pay it back in a timely manner, if ever.

I say, raise the income cap, because $105K isn't what it used to be, and stop giving disability to every substance abuser and autistic kid who applies. Stop selling medical equipment they don't need to seniors (just in case) and stop rewarding overuse of the system. That should help Medicare a lot.

Holy crap! I agree with you on that whole statement.

@Craig -- Yeah, once in a while we agree. It's amazing. Better change that to 'sacred feces!' before the moderators get on your case. LOL

I'd agree with those solutions, but isn't that the sort of thing that generates the democrat talking points claiming that evil republicans are pushing granny off the cliff, and denying benefits to the 'most vulnerable' in our society?

@Randy... There is no cap on the Medicare tax;your entire wages are subject to the medicare tax. The cap disappeared in 1993. Raising the cap for old age, survivors and disability insurance (OASDI tax) does not provide for any Medicare funding.

To correct the funding shortfall in OASDI, the increases in the Social Security tax rates, that were enacted under Reagan(1984), should have been done with Kennedy(1960-3). And, the government actuaries knew it too;the baby boom bust began in '57.

Jay: You're right, but I think Randy was mainly focused on Social Security as was I.
Taking the cap off will help keep it solvent a little longer, but repaying what was borrowed will also do the same.
The 2% reduction in FICA tax was a mistake. It is like paying less than your premium for your life insurance when you are dying!
I know someone who has ALS and has been waiting for SSD for over three years. The only thing the Gvt. is doing to fix the solvency issue is delay, delay, delay.

@Randy 1949 My Dad retired from Miller Brewing Company and was well treated and well compensated after his retirement. That is when it was fully owned by Phillip Morris and that was a different era, too. My point is that the business environment looks at their employees now as just an expense, not an asset. And so yeah, you are right- an American company is just as eager to screw people over as a foreign company would.

The notion that the business environment looks at their employees now as just an expense, not an asset kinda works both ways though. Remember in the 1990's when job hopping to grow one's salary was more the norm rather than the exception? Companies aren't going to be too eager to consider an employee as anything more than a cost if the average employee isn't going to be loyal enough to stay for the long term.

@CowDung The days of long term employment have been over for quite some time. Employers want a certain degree of turnover now to keep costs down. Employees are fully aware that they are interchangeable, and so the sense of loyalty has also been evaporating for quite some time. The end result is diminished job performances and lackluster job searches. This is a problem that was created by short term thinking by the business community.

Is this a case of the chicken and the egg? Was the cause truly short term thinking by the business community, or was it short term thinking by the employees?

@Craig.... The FICA tax, that Randy talks about being doubled in the Reagan years to keep Social Security financially sound, actually needed to be doubled in the Kennedy years, to accommodate the baby boom while keeping Social Security financially sound.

@CowDung -- I have to report that the first time my family experienced a job with rapid turnover was in 1990 -- hire as a full-time permanent position, lay off because the project was over, hire someone else half a year later. People told us when it happened that this company had a reputation for doing this, and they were an anomaly at the time. Unfortunately, over the next decade, it became a pattern.

@CowDung Beginning in 1991 US businesses gave their employees raises that were always below the annual inflation rate. Economists call a person's 'real wage', as an indicator of what the spending power is derived from one's paycheck. Companies could care less about their actual spending power. Anyway, this caused people to switch jobs in order to keep up with inflation. That is what happened in the 90's.
These days the inflation rate is much higher just as medium household income is actually declining. The business community hasn't figured that this can cut into their sales. Don't worry- give 'em time- these idiots will wake up and realize that their customers don't have any more money.

What great event are you claiming that supposedly signaled all companies to start giving sub-inflation rate raises in 1991? I'm also unclear as to how someone would get a better wage at a different company since they were all decreasing payroll.

I'm also unclear as to how I seem to be an exception to that rule--my raises have always been at or above the rate of inflation since 1991. Certainly I can't be the only one...

@CowDung I did not say that wages were declining, I said that they were falling behind the inflation rate. Yes, in 1991 the economy was slow and the employers took advantage of it by keeping wages to a crawl. They kept this practice up, which led to more people switching jobs in the 90's because there were all sorts of jobs available. Back then everyone I knew took on a new job for better pay, benefits and working conditions. I found another job immediately that paid 2 dollars more an hour than my old job.

Last month I was on a job search and found my old employer from 20 years ago. The starting pay was 50 cents higher than it was 20 years ago. CowDung, there are rotten companies out there and it is about time you realize it.

Perhaps it is semantics, but if wages are falling behind the inflation rate, aren't they declining in terms of real spending power?

Yes, there are rotten companies out there, but there are also great companies. Similarly, there are rotten employees out there, just like there are some great ones.

You can't have it both ways, Michael. Either wages were at a crawl because unemployment was high, or wages were being pushed up because jobs were plentiful and easy to find.

@CowDung What I was saying was that there were jobs available in the 90's but employers still did not raise wages noticeably. The point is is that a person could find a higher paying employer back then because the market itself was labor friendly. My starting wage at my new job was higher than my old jobs' wage. This was quite common back then. The losers were the rotten companies that no one wanted to work for.

Of course there are rotten employees out there. Years ago management used to frown on attitude problems of some employees. Now it is companies themselves with the attitude problem. Everyone is expendable and everyone knows it.

Michael:

In 1991, unemployment was rising and the economy wasn't doing so well. It's not a surprise that employers would be cutting back on labor costs--supply and demand were in their favor as the labor supply side was increasing. A couple of years later, unemployment was on the way down and employers were paying higher wages to attract workers. The supply-demand balance was tipped toward the employee's favor. Employees responded by leaving their employer and jumping to a job that offered better pay and benefits. Company loyalty was thrown by the wayside...

@CowDung Real wealth for most Americans has not improved in the last 20 years. In fact, our spending power has declined and that is why two incomes are needed now to support a family. It used to be one. Young people are real hesitant to start a new family. I don't blame them.

The 90's were great because it benefitted the greatest amount of people. Employees, who are most Americans, were happy to go to work for companies of their own choosing. If an employer could not keep people or could not attract new people, then I say tough luck. Improve the situation.

The overall business community is doing quite well now- thank you. The standard of living is declining in the US, but profits have never been higher and the sky is the limit. I am more concerned about families getting by than the wonderful world of profit margins.

Michael:

That's not the reason why two incomes are needed now to support a family. We only think we need two incomes--we (as a society) aren't satisfied to live within our means. Average home sizes have grown tremendously since our parent's generation. Things like cable TV, cell phones, and a second or third automobile are believed to be 'necessities' rather than luxuries. Instead of the traditional station wagon that we had growing up, everyone now wants the expensive minivan. Adding such expenses to the household budget will often require two incomes to finance it.

Profit margins and wages did rise during the 1990s. The trouble is that profits turned downward around 1995 and continued to decline while wages kept rising. When companies had difficulty finding and keeping workers, and workers were demanding higher and higher wages (even though profits were down), the choice became pretty easy to start looking overseas to fill the open jobs.

Jay: I know where you are coming from regarding the FICA tax, I do not dispute it. I do think that if the Gvt. would not have borrowed trillions from it, it would still be solvent for an extra decade or more. My memory may be off, but I thought the last time SS was raided for $1 Trillion was under Clinton?
The point being, the TRUST fund was violated. It is backed by the faith and paying ability of the US Government. With exponential growth in Debt and deficit spending, the likelyhood of the ability to continue paying beyond 2030 is next to zero chance.
Even with an increase in FICA, it is a day late and a dollar short.
But I guess I am preaching to the choir, because I think we are on the same page.

@CowDung Wages did not dramatically rise in the 90's due to the tremendous influx of women into the workforce in the 80's. Costs of homes, cars, appliances and so forth kept rising, but the wages did not actually rise accordingly. Two incomes became the norm in order to maintain a standard of living that was slipping away. Whenever you dramatically increase the workforce, companies do better but the people do not.

Jobs went overseas because the cost of living wasn't even a fraction of what it was in America. You could pay someone diddley-squat in the third world and he would be forever grateful for it. There was no way that the American people could compete to begin with.

As for these days: look at the correlation between the drop in wages as compared to the steep rise in food costs. If this trend continues, then the young people will be paying a very large percentage of their income just to feed themselves. Kind of bleak if you ask me.

Michael:

You seem to be contradicting youself. First you agree that it was common during the 1990s to switch jobs for better pay and benefits. Then you go on to say that wages didn't rise dramatically. You can't have it both ways--if people are easily finding jobs at higher rates of pay, it seems pretty obvious that wages were rising. I seem to recall that even McDonalds was paying $10/hour and offering signing bonuses because workers were in such short supply...

Companies always had the choice to send jobs overseas to pay the low labor rates. It wasn't until American wages were getting out of line with the value of the work being done that prompted businesses to outsource.

@CowDung What you said supports what I said. There were more jobs than there were workers in the 90's- that is how people switched jobs so easily. McDonald's and places like it still could not get enough people to work for them even with an offer of a higher wage. There were better jobs available than what fast food places could offer. I remember back then that if you needed someone to work on your house- well, good luck- because everyone was already employed.

As for outsourcing jobs: that was really launched by the signing of NAFTA by Bill Clinton. Everyone I knew was against it. Clinton signed this Republican bill into law because big business saw an endless pool of labor that was as cheap as hell. It wasn't to benefit the American people whatsoever. It was to dramatically increase the profit margins regardless of how they treated their Mexican workers.

These moves eventually convinced our domestic companies to downgrade labor costs whenever possible. When unemployment went up in 2008 and 2009, the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post both reported that the private sector saw it as an opportunity to put the screws to their employees. The very idea that their employees were actually worth something was swept away.

When my generation - the generation that fought two wars in Iraq and lived through a second Great Depression, will not retire with ANY of the social safety nets that the Greatest Generation did, thanks to greedy business men like Mitt Romney . . . Who was NOT a "maker" but a rather large "Taker".

You are the taker Jason - by the way - when were your tours of dutie in Iraq?
Please do not lump yourself in with any war vet - you don't have the cahones to go fight in any war.
Every articles of yours just whines and whines and whines - poor me poor me poor me - do you know how pathetic that sounds? If you are so worried about lack of ss or a pension go out and get a real job and start saving your money like the rest of us.

I've got five that says his head flat out explodes.

It wouldn't surprise me if he spends hours each day trying to reconcile his 'I Recalled Scott Walker Today' button with the fact that Walker is still in office...

Sunrocket, if a system of Medicare premium support to buy private health insurance is good enough for everyone under the age of 55 once they reach retirement age, then it should be equally good for those currently on Medicare. You want your dad to get a coupon and then have to go find a plan he can afford?

One thing I've noticed is that most seniors don't have a lot of extra money and they don't have great health. Even if they do, private insurance refuses to believe that and charges premiums as if they were a medical catastrophe waiting to happen.

There is a very good reason that people over 55 were exempted from the proposed reforms and that is because it is a horrible idea that no senior or soon to be senior would ever vote for unless they thought it wasn't going to be their problem.

Randy - Unfortunately my dad is no longer alive. He was sick for many years, had secondary insurance he paid out the nose for. In his 84 years, he was employed for 65 of them with the exception of ww2. He never took a vacation, paid cash for everything, including houses and cars. We were considered upper middle class when I was growing up. Because of his lengthy illness, primarily because of medication and insurance premiums and rent in an assisted living facility, he died with less than $5,000.00. Medicaid and vet's benefits would never have been on his radar. I cherish those extra years that we had because he could afford the secondary insurance, if we had been in Canada, they may have decided to put him out to pasture.

Those under 55 likely already have a health plan that they might be able to keep with the premium support. If one likes the coverage they gave, they can keep it (where have we heard that claim before?). Medicare is one of the options that one can choose to spend their 'voucher' on...

The value of the premium support also isn't fixed--it will increase according to the costs of the insurance plans.

@Taoist Croc -

How is NObama's paranoia any different than the paranoia we all hear daily from the liberal lefty Democrats about Romney/Ryan?

we all saw it the first time Jason, and like the Bears, it still sucks!

Z-Carpentry.com wrote: "...we have to choose between the lesser of two evils..."

No Z. We have the choice of the candidate who has shown he can reach across the aisle vs. the candidate that rammed through the most radical legislation ever created without reading it or allowing the public to read it AS PROMISED!

We have a choice of the candidate who has a track record of creating jobs vs. the candidate who has done nothing but kill jobs.

We have a choice of the candidate who can tackle tough issues vs the one that just keeps pointing the finger back to his predecessor.

We have a choice of the candidate who will put the United States and her citizens first vs the apology tour candidate that refused to defend his own ambassador.

And finally, we a choice of the candidate that we can fire in four years, or the candidate that should be fired NOW for failing to make progress ANY of the promises he made four years ago!

We've trusted the politicians and bureaucrats to run Medicare and it's on track to go bankrupt in 15 years. I always enjoy hearing progressives lament how Romney and Ryan want to change the program when if you're less than 50 years of age there is no Medicare.

We can reform the program now in common sense fashion or we can wait until we're Greece and there's blood running in the streets. Guess which one the left wants you to worry about?