Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, March 31, 2022

Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah suggested that he'd favor cutting retirement benefits for younger Americans in a bid to stabilize safety net programs.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Remember, corporations are people, my friend.

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2022-03-31 10:44 AM | Reply

Nice way to sabotage your political career, Mittens.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-03-31 11:03 AM | Reply

Romney voted for a $1,900,000,000,000.00 tax giveaway that went almost exclusively to wealthy people. So he can ---- all the way off with his complaints about our nation's debt.

#3 | Posted by JOE at 2022-03-31 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

If we'd elected Romney, we probably never would have gotten to Trump. ..Just saying.

US debt and deficits have been caused almost entirely by tax cuts for those who really didn't need the money. Blue collar Republicans constant desire to vote against their own interests may be the most confounding mystery of our time.

#4 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2022-03-31 12:30 PM | Reply

"Romney voted for a $1,900,000,000,000.00 tax giveaway..."

$2.3 Trillion, once interest is factored. 83% goes to the top 1%; 60% to the top .1%

For comparison, the most lopsided prior tax code in history (Bush II) gave 27% to the top 1%.

And at fruition, the Trump Code is actually a tax hike for workers.

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-03-31 12:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm not far from retirement and do not consider Social Security income in my financial planning. My hope is that it shows up and helps offset healthcare insurance so some degree. Were I younger I would gladly take a retirement plan which eliminated Social Security and instead allowed me to make contributions to a 401-K style account, in a manner that included favorable tax treatment, similar to that seen now. One important thing that has been passed to my daughter is a sense of thrift and the understanding that savings for one's retirement, although decades off, must be done and done now...

#6 | Posted by catdog at 2022-03-31 01:04 PM | Reply

So they get reduced ss benefits and a 30T national debt. Such winning!

#7 | Posted by Yodagirl at 2022-03-31 01:20 PM | Reply

"Were I younger I would gladly take a retirement plan which eliminated Social Security and instead allowed me to make contributions to a 401-K style account"

Talk to someone that had all their 401k invested in oh, say, Enron?

#8 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-03-31 01:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Were I younger I would gladly take a retirement plan which eliminated Social Security and instead allowed me to make contributions to a 401-K style account"

Now let's say you're older and you're on SSI. Where does the money come from when younger people aren't paying in?

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-03-31 01:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Talk to someone that had all their 401k invested in oh, say, Enron?

#8 | POSTED BY LEGALLYYOURDEAD

I don't really plan on SS when considering retirement either. I suppose it may be some kind of nice bonus. Maybe it will help towards elderly healthcare costs, as Catdog suggests. Perhaps long term care insurance.

I've done my best to spread my savings around multiple baskets. Some tax advantaged, some not.

#10 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2022-03-31 01:39 PM | Reply

Where does the money come from when younger people aren't paying in?

#9 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Great point! Republicans have been trying to drown SS and Medicare/Medicaid for decades. The newest ploy is privatization through Medicare Advantage plans.

#11 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2022-03-31 01:42 PM | Reply

Were I younger I would gladly take a retirement plan which eliminated Social Security and instead allowed me to make contributions to a 401-K style account

It isn't wise public policy to let people try to gamble and win the generational lottery (which they can already do now, optionally) in lieu of providing seniors a fixed income. You'd end up with millions of seniors who either failed to allocate enough for themselves or were unlucky enough to be born at the wrong time, costing the government trillions more to bail those people out than it does to just give people social security.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2022-03-31 01:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"You'd end up with millions of seniors who either failed to allocate enough for themselves or were unlucky enough to be born at the wrong time"

And Republicans say: ---- 'em.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-03-31 01:55 PM | Reply

Now if you said Pension instead of 401(K) and we had strong enough labor presence that every job had a pension, then we wouldn't much need SSI in the first place.

Another option would be Universal Basic Income.

But that's not America.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-03-31 01:57 PM | Reply

Romney has his. Screw the rest of us. Why does every generation play this same song?

#15 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-03-31 02:02 PM | Reply

Republicans are giddy with the idea of hanging regular Americans out to dry while they keep serving up more to the extremely wealthy.

Sad thing is. So are their voters.

#16 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-03-31 02:04 PM | Reply

Poor whites are so disillusioned. Oh well, you reap what you sow.

#17 | Posted by fresno500 at 2022-03-31 02:35 PM | Reply

Boomers ruined america. Climbed up the ladder then pulled it up behind them.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-03-31 04:47 PM | Reply

Making a broke generation suffer more so that a rich generation doesn't have to pay more taxes. This is the "sane alternative" to trump in the republican party.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-03-31 04:49 PM | Reply

Just means test social security for about twenty years, during the largest part of the demographic bulge. Or tax the rich more, or tax corporations like they were taxed during the 1950's.

#20 | Posted by Hughmass at 2022-03-31 06:49 PM | Reply

Just means test social security for about twenty years, during the largest part of the demographic bulge. Or tax the rich more, or tax corporations like they were taxed during the 1950's.

#20 | Posted by Hughmass

So make the middle class suffer or make the rich a little less rich.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-03-31 08:37 PM | Reply

Or, we can tax the likes of Mitt Romney the vulture capitalist like they should be and fix this problem. Funny how the people that make 99 percent of all the money in the world keep expecting the rest of us to shoulder their greed.

#22 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2022-04-01 01:04 AM | Reply

Can we please stop pretending that the Social Security "trust fund" is a real thing?

It does not exist. There is ZERO money in a "trust fund" to pay for Social Security. It's all paid for with income tax money.

And remember, we're talking about Mittens here. The asshat who lied and claimed that a huge chunk of Americans do not pay income taxes. Payroll taxes ARE income taxes, and every working American pays income taxes. The middle class pays HIGHER income tax rates than the rich, because of that 15.3% income tax on earned income that Mittens likes to pretend doesn't exist.

And yes, that's 15.3% on top of the rest of your federal income tax. If you're a W2 employee, half of it disappears from your paycheck without you even being told you're paying it. If your money is all unearned income, you don't have to pay it.

#23 | Posted by DarkVader at 2022-04-01 12:15 PM | Reply

#19 yup.

This isn't a surprise to me. They'll make the younger generations finish paying their benefits then they'll kill the program.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2022-04-02 08:29 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort