Posted on 03/25/2015 8:13:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R-TX) said he was an “emphatic advocate” of a balanced budget amendment, and expressed support for means testing Social Security and raising the retirement age on Monday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.
“I think the penny plan has an awful lot of force to it, and I am an emphatic advocate of a Balanced Budget Amendment” Cruz stated.
Cruz added, “you’re going to be hard pressed to come up with a cost-cutting program that I’m not going to support. I do think the military, we need to look at the growing national security threats, and we need to make sure we take care of the men and women in the military and we provide what we need to protect this nation. And also if you look at the budget, you cannot bring the budget into control without taking on entitlement reform. Two-thirds of the federal budget is entitlements. So, if you don’t talk about entitlements, you can’t do it.”
Cruz expressed support for means testing Social Security and raising the retirement age, but he clarified that he was talking about future generations
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The only thing I’ve disagreed with him on. BS on means tested.
IT”S MY FREAKIN MONEY!
I would feel better knowing it was there for them if they needed it.
What do you think is 'there' except a stack of IOUs that can only be redeemed by creating more federal debt or raising federal taxes? People need to understand how this Ponzi works.
RE: I think this will be a disaster if he continues with it. It might be something you put through after getting elected, but it’s playing right into the Democrat GOTV “scare grandma” strategy.
You can’t avoid it in the campaign, YOU *WILL* be asked about it and it would most definitely be a RELEVANT question ( it’s not one of those stupid gotcha questions ).
Cruz ought to think seriously about its ramifications.
You can remit the SS payments to the Federal Treasury.
http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
Zactly. I too am fine and in 20 years SS won’t mean a thing to me, except I’m not getting my money back but, givr it to my heirs or someone else.
I don’t care about this and the effect of any plan change won’t reveal itself until 20 years after Ted’s Terms as President.
If you want to give yours up then you should be free to do so, as long as its voluntary.
I myself (as I stated above) would only give it up IF I was able to give when I would have made to my children to collect when they get to my assigned retirement age tax free and if it wont affect the amount they would get from the one they earn and any other benefits they are then qualified for.
“Want Means Tested Social security”
Great. That means they stole my money all my life with promises to give some of it back if I somehow managed to survive working myself to death, and now they’re telling me they’re simply going to steal it after all.
Not that Paul Ryan ‘you are out of luck if you are 55 or under right now’ plan again.
That only flies with those exempted from it, ie, over 55.(who just happen to be most of FNC viewers)
“I don’t need it, I don’t deserve it, but if they take one dime from me I’ll raise holy hell”; Abe Simpson.
The USSC decided that SS is not the property of the person who put the money in through taxation. It is essentially a welfare program. There is nothing wrong with denying welfare to those making over a certain amount, anymore than denying SS to those under a certain age.
IT”S MY FREAKIN MONEY!
While I sympathize with your sentiment, it is legally incorrect.
I would point you to the Supreme Court decision Flemming v Nestor.
From Social Security's website they summarize the situation:
"There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor."
"In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right."
The government took your money. Whether or not they create more debt or taxes in order to give you someone else's money in the future is up to Congress.
SS has always been about redistributive transfer payments. There are no savings accounts with social security numbers attached. You were never paying in to fund your own retirement. The current working generation pays the benefits that their parents' generation is receiving, and any extra left over is skimmed off for the general fund. Means testing just makes it obvious to everyone what SS really is, which is old age welfare.
We have partial means testing already—it’s called including SS payments in gross income. Interestingly, it’s sort of automatic—if your income suddenly drops, you get to keep all of your SS check; if it is high, you get the check, but give back up to 40 or 45% (state and fed) if you’re in the highest brackets.
“It’s not ‘your money’, it is simply taxes.”
that’s odd, because I keep getting statements that show how much I’ve “contributed” into my “account”.
yep, unlike the movies, in real life family wealth is usually gone within a generation or two.
I know most people like to believe that nearly everyone rich is rich because their parents were rich, but that just isn’t true. The vast majority of the rich are self made.
The spoiled kids of the rich who never learned how to EARN a dollar much less save it, or the value of it, usually blow through rather quickly whatever they are given when their rich parents die.
That was the reality from the outset, and confirmed by the Supreme Court over 50 years ago. Most people are still ignorant of this fact.
Cruz is starting the conversation and trying to get people to realize that we can’t continue down the path we’re on of endless government entitlements without reforming them. Tackling spending has got to be step one before reforming the tax code, otherwise your deficits explode. Congress prefers to stick it’s head in the sand and I don’t think a President Cruz will let them.
that’s odd, because I keep getting statements that show how much I’ve “contributed” into my “account”.
Propaganda doesn't alter reality, just perceptions of it. Hence 'contributions' instead of 'taxes'.
SS was never designed, and has never operated as a savings account type plan. It’s always been a redistribution scheme, from day one.
That's the rub. Dot Gov wants you to think that money you paid in to SS was going into a retirement account with your name on it. In reality that money was spent as soon as you paid it in to pay the old age welfare your parents' generation received with anything left over going out to the general fund. They don't have your money any more.
I’m with you. I am never going to see any return from SS, so we are just being used as slave labor to support the current beneficiaries, who then whine about “their money” when anyone tries to fix the system.
Sorry, but it’s not “their money”, when it is taken from MY paycheck. “Their money” was squandered long ago, and nobody wants to be honest and tell them that, because they don’t want to lose their votes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.