You solve the budget

Perhaps we can compromise on certain things and not cut fully, but partially and get a surplus by 2015.

You can take Nelson's place and I can take Rubio's place in Washington and we will give it a shot But working together makes too much sense for the Beltway.

I finally got around to playing with this. Ya know what? I am p-i-s-s-e-d!

It was easy. Really easy. I'm so fed up with our politicos who can't find common ground and who waste our time and money pandering, fighting, justifying their own existence, etc.

Get it done, jerks.

Ditto - obviously we don't all agree on everything, but like Idlewild and SWGB showed, we agree on a lot.

And the politicians need to all grow a pair and stop acting like all Seniors are carrying grenades that will detonate if any changes are made to Social Security or Medicare. :roll:

Yes, more seniors vote, but my generation will be voting longer and can use the internet to thwart you.

Ditto - obviously we don't all agree on everything, but like Idlewild and SWGB showed, we agree on a lot.

And the politicians need to all grow a pair and stop acting like all Seniors are carrying grenades that will detonate if any changes are made to Social Security or Medicare. :roll:

Yes, more seniors vote, but my generation will be voting longer and can use the internet to thwart you.

Except that we don't usually turn out in number that are in the double digits so that's why we are ignored.

Except that we don't usually turn out in number that are in the double digits so that's why we are ignored.

In 2008, 51% of voters 18-29 voted in the Presidential election.

In midterms in 2006 and 2010 we were in the 20-25% range.

When we are motivated and think it's an important election, we show up.

But even with bad attendance we represent 1/10 US voters and our numbers keep growing.

In 2008, 51% of voters 18-29 voted in the Presidential election.

In midterms in 2006 and 2010 we were in the 20-25% range.

When we are motivated and think it's an important election, we show up.

But even with bad attendance we represent 1/10 US voters and our numbers keep growing.

That's the key problem, every election is important.

In case anyone wonders how this liberal would solve the deficit issue-

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=c72k50s0

In the menu of things, add cuts the military budgets and get out of Afghanastan...w/ occupation ending on In aguration Day 2013.

You get partial credit shopper.

Yes, the benefits are skewed toward workers with lower lifetime earnings.

But the limit (106K-2010) means it is not progressive.

The guy making 106K pays them same amount as the guy making 1.6M.

Modest adjustments for the upper 70% of recipients is prudent.

The option is raising taxes.

All the talk of cutting benefits makes it a good time to review a little history. In 1981 Reagan appointed Greenspan to head the National Commission on Social Security Reform. Greenspan recommended and Reagan accepted a "revenue enhancement" (tax increase) so the rate went from 9.35 percent to 15.3 by 1990. This was to build up a war chest for the 20 year later retiring boomers. All in all it garnered $1.69 trillion in new regressive taxes over 20+ years. But those funds were spent for short term budget "enhancements" leaving a bunch of IOU's or T-bills. It's a shell game where money comes in as payroll taxes and exits as deficit spending