U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 29, 2011 08:07 PM UTC
18 Comments
I think they should raise the social security limit – including on people my age. People live longer than before and most jobs are a lot less physically demanding than before. We need to adopt to changing circumstances.
I’m not the #1 fan of either Senator, but on this I think they are spot on.
I think poor and sick people should be left out in the forest naked for the for the bears.
But those of us that aren’t healthy & rich don’t want to be left out in the forest 🙁
Getting serious, people live longer and work is less physically draining than when social security was set up. Rather than being set to kick in at year 65 (or any other age), it should kick in at X% of the average lifespan.
And it is easier for me to propose this because I don’t think I’ll ever retire. I have friends who have retired and they’re lost with nothing driving them.
you have a cushy job. So do I, objectively.
When I was a teenager I worked temp jobs in factories and warehouses. That’s hard goddamn work, and if you’re not really fast you get complaints constantly from the management. I only did it a few days at a time, but I was stunned at how good others seemed to be, since it was the only way they could make a living. Most jobs are hard.
Now maybe if he’s lucky he doesn’t have to work on the factory floor once he turns 65, but I’m not sure that’s typical. Even in the best-case scenario, when a senior citizen who’d been planning to retire at 65 finds himself back on the job market and ends up a greeter at Wal-Mart, that person is standing all day. I’m in my 30s and I get tired if I stand all day.
We’re ALREADY raising the retirement age to 67, which will be extremely unpleasant for many people. Don’t generalize about how others should be able to handle this or that just because you can. Always remember the privileged situation you happen to be in.
I worked my way through college first washing dishes and then framing houses. Both take more physical effort than typing at a keyboard.
But regardless, the point remains that even factory jobs have gotten less physically exhausting. And more and more people spend their workday at a desk, not standing on a factory floor.
Simple statistics say that as we live longer, we have to either increase the tax and/or adjust the age upward. Yes work is unpleasant for many (including me on some days), but until we have robots to do everything for us, it’s also a necessary part of the human condition.
We’re not in Jetsons land yet, and most jobs still don’t involve sitting down most of the day. So one way or another you have to take into account the way things actually are and the jobs that 65-year-olds are actually going to have.
Realize that your job is easier than most jobs. Realize that the stresses you deal with are very different from the stresses most people deal with. Realize that most people are going to have a much harder time than you if Social Security benefits are cut.
And once you realize those things, stop trying to speak for people worse off than you about what sacrifices you think they want to make.
It’s regressive. The vast majority of people pay more in that tax than in income tax. I want to see a sensible system where we make an intelligent balance between the tax while working, the years worked, and the level of benefits.
As to my “easy” job – you have no idea what you are talking about. I won’t bore you with details but the job I have is really hard. Only in the movies is owning a company easy & fun.
It’s not sacrifices we ask others to make, it’s trade-offs. Keep more of your paycheck while working and keep good benefits when retired – in return for working a bit longer. And most people at age 64 can continue working the job they are at. It’s not like they suddenly become incompetent when they turn 65 and have to change jobs.
This sort of crappy letter and demand to place things “off the table” are the reasons our debate over the deficit is so toxic.
For as long as long as I’ve been alive (speaking as a young person), every time we try to do something about the deficit the same thing happens. Someone starts throwing ideas around. Republicans say that cuts to defense and the pentagon are “off the table” and accuse Democrats of being soft on terrorists/defense. Democrats say that Republicans are trying to privatize medicare/SS/Medicaid. So eventually EVERYTHING is off the table.
I’ll be siding with the Gang of Six, since any deficit reform will need to pass in a bipartisan manner. Just like HCR, I won’t like all of it, but it will be a giant step forward. I’m overjoyed that Sen. Durbin refused to do what you’re asking of our Senators. What about means-testing benefits for wealthier recipients? That out of the question, too?
Now, Ryan’s plan is nuttery. But our only hope is the Gang of Six. Your demand to have social security “off the table” is just as unrealistic as Boehner’s to keep defense cuts out of the equation.
Let me count the ways in which you are wrong.
1) If you give a shit about the deficit, you need to increase taxes to something slightly more than historical record-breaking lows like we have right now. If you dispute this then you don’t give a shit about the deficit and you’re not worth listening to EVEN FOR A SECOND SO FUCK OFF.
2) Social Security is an insurance program that everybody pays into and everybody gets something out of. That’s what makes it popular. If you means-test it then it becomes essentially Medicaid, which (you’ll notice) is easy to slash because it doesn’t affect middle-class people who vote frequently. Remember welfare? Remember how we don’t really have it anymore? Do you miss it? No? Do you think people who really desperately need it wish it were still around?
3) Social Security doesn’t contribute to the deficit, so anyone who demands that cutting Social Security benefits is necessary for some kind of Grand Deficit Bargain is a lying asshole. Are you a lying asshole?
Tax increases are off the table. Defense cuts are off the table. People like you are why we have to start our negotiations from that place and then start cutting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. People like you are why the Ryan plan is viewed as a sensible moderate option by serious pundits, regardless of your cute little disclaimer at the end.
I am sick to fucking death of people who tout their moderate credentials by bravely proposing to fuck the poor and reward the rich.
1)Sorry, I’m a huge fiscal conservative, so all tax breaks are off the table.
2)You’re so right. Any changes to Social Security that might be sensible or ensure it’s longevity are “off the table” because you’re so protective of it. I should have remembered about knee-jerk political reactions to issues that matter to the next generation.
3)Hey, doesn’t Social Security contribute to federal spending? Oh yeah, it does. Wait, how long is SS projected to pay out full benefits? I’ll give you a hint; it’s much sooner than I will hit retirement! Don’t get me wrong, SXP, I am not in favor of draconian reforms, but I believe giving the Gang some time to develop a plan is the most sensible reaction to the deficit debate (other than hating on Ryan).
Tax cuts aren’t off the table. Defense cuts aren’t off the table. The reason I like the Gang is because they won’t put anything off the table.
I can understand hesitation about any plan. I have it, too. The specific ask to not cut benefits, as Bernie Sanders has done, is reasonable. I just believe deeply in this coalition because they have the power to do the right thing.
And I happen to be a poor person. But hey, if they fuck up, I’ll be brave enough to admit it.
and yet here we are still fixing it. Do you know why? It’s because instead of building up a Social Security trust fund, Congress decided to steal from the trust fund in order to reduce the deficit.
Now, when the gang of six decides to raise the retirement age or whatever, and Social Security starts collecting a surplus, what do you think future Presidents and Congresses will do with that money?
History might be a good guide.
There is no thirty-year fix for Social Security that six assholes will come up with, since nothing will keep future politicians from changing everything.
And if you think the gang of six is somehow comprised of guys who haven’t taken anything off the table, read my comment to Dave. Tax increases are already off your fucking table. Singing the praises of six rich old white men won’t put them back on it.
I’m with c rork – leave everything on the table, realize that politics is trade-offs, and try to come up with something that works. Yes that will have to include tax increases and defense cuts. But it will also have to include adjustments to the programs you find so dear.
then it’s stupid to endorse the gang of six, whose members have already clearly said tax increases are off the table.
Pay attention or something.
Endorsing the gang of six means you want to cut Social Security so you can give tax breaks to the rich.
I love how people like you are so proud of the contempt you have for the vast majority of the country.
I support social security & medicare. But I also understand math and anything that grows consistently at greater than the rate of inflation is not sustainable. We also sooner or later have to pay for everything.
I want to see us intelligently figure out what makes for a sensible trade-off on all this. It’s easy to say leave it all alone and cast aspersions at anyone who discusses adjusting it. But it’s not responsible.
As to your link – that’s Tom Coburn. Of course he’s going to start from that position. That doesn’t mean we’re ending up there.
which isn’t surprising considering they’re all pretty conservative. So you have half the gang saying outright under no circumstances will they approve a tax increase even for the richest. You apparently don’t think they’re serious, because you apparently slept through the debate over the tax cut extension (when Republicans refused to vote for the START treaty or unemployment benefits until they got their way), as well as pretty much every debate over taxes since the 2010 elections. Good morning Mr. Van Winkle.
As for your subject line, I could go find poll results that say majorities want to pay higher taxes and get fewer services in order to balance the budget, but I think I’ll just let your open contempt for the masses speak for itself. Maybe someday all those morons will elect you dictator so you can refuse to ever listen to them again.
…that I have contempt for anyone (even you).
As to your comment that the gang of 6 has taken taxes off the table – not true
it’s because of the comments you write like “98% of the country is in favor of giving everyone a million dollars.” You have to really despise the public to believe something like that.
Quit acting as though nobody can scroll slightly higher up the page to read the things you actually wrote before you try to change the subject. Did you learn to debate in the era before the pioneering invention of transcripts?
The report you link to relies on Mark Warner to tell us what he hopes Republicans on the commission are thinking. The report I linked to uses actual Republicans on the commission to tell us what Republicans on the commission are thinking. Which one is more credible?
P.S. Last time there was a “gang of six” it was the six senators who were supposed to come up with a bipartisan health care plan. Instead they took years, forced the delay of the actual health care plan that had already been written and could have passed then, fomented criticism of the actual plan in the media, and finally came up with…nothing, after which all the Republican members of the “gang of six” denounced health care as socialism.
It’s so cute that nobody remembers this now. In my experience, as someone who can remember past my last birthday, a “gang of six” is a tool for doing less than nothing.