Posted on 02/25/2011 4:05:16 AM PST by Suvroc10
Rand Paul pledges to cut deficits by going after Social Security. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul says he is committed to raising the retirement age for Social Security to 70. Paul’s dedication to attacking one of the so-called third rails of modern politics is because of his belief that the US cannot meaningfully address and lower deficits without going after the huge problem of entitlements in the US budget. This makes him a rarity among those in the Republican Party in the Congress since even many in the GOP are downright scared of addressing entitlement spending, due to the possible negative effects on their careers. Paul also says that his approach to raising the retirement age will come in the form of gradual increments over time.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
70 years old? Just shoot the people...after taking 12% of their money for 40 years. Who is going to hire a 60 or worse, a 67 year old?
Depending on the specifics of what he has in mind, this could finish him politically.
I agree with him on this. Doesn’t mean people can’t retire, just means they are going to have to learn to save for their own retirement until they reach the age of 70. Everybody has known for a long time that SS is in trouble but they continue to not save for retirement.
Social Security should be phased out entirely. The old folks who paid in should be paid off and the young should have new and better options to build up their own retirement plans. Most young would rather have that option. People with enough of their own assets should have the payments reduced. It is an outdated ponzi scheme that has been a Cash Cow for the crooked politicians for years to buy votes. THis is the first year the politicians will not be able to waste the excess largesse. It will now become unpopular with them.
“Doesn’t mean people can’t retire, just means they are going to have to learn to save for their own retirement until they reach the age of 70”
If the state takes 12% of their paycheck, how are they going to save that much? Don’t take their money then
If Senator Paul, along with the rest of his colleagues, understood the Constitution he would realize regulating income is not an enumerated power granted to Congress in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. He would further realize this means Social Security is Unconstitutional on the federal level and must be abolished as it is a power reserved to the states or to the people.
Raising the retirement age to 70 does not mean you cannot retire before age 70 at age 62, The retirement age now is 66 but one can retire at 62 with a reduced benefit approximately 20% less than had one retired at 66. What raising the retirement age does is reduces the monthly benefit of those who retire earlier than the retirement age. Right now we cannot afford the current level of benefits and therefore the retirement age should be raised to reduce that benefit for those not yet on SS. Like most things in life if one wants a higher benefit one should pay more into the system. Actuarily we do not pay enough into Social Security to justify the current level of benefits even if the government did not misappropriate the payroll taxes from the trust fund.
If they raise the retirement age, they had better not ever ever borrow another dime. If they do, it’s time to go Greek as far as I’m concerned. Ran Paul of all people should know batter than to try to impose austerity measures on Americans in the name of saving the fiat currency empire.
People have to decide what’s more important to them, retiring early or spending money on things we don’t need, and you know we all do it.
I have planned for the future with private investments, but I want back every dime I put into this white elephant...every penny.
Paul is a Senator...the senate does not belong to us yet...he can say this all he likes...but he will have to wait till 2013 (hopefully) to implement this...
but the thing to do with SS is to privatize it for those in it, and eliminate it for those coming into the program...
Considering that american male life expectancy is 72 years!
Just get rid of the program and stop robbing us!
It’s going to suck to be him when he faces the folks in Kentucky.Oh,and P.S. Rand-older people vote in greater numbers than any other demographic.
I agree with this with the proviso that anyone over a certain age would be grandfathered. Can`t just arbitrarily move the retirement age back.
I do admire the fact he`s speaking truth to this difficult subject, though.
Social Security wasn’t meant to be a retirement program, it was supposed to be a safety net. But, like all federal (and Unconstitutional) programs, they balloon and nobody wishes to take the political risk in tackling the problem. This is why I like the Pauls. Both of them actually do what other Republicans only talk about doing year-after-year.
I am also willing to see Socialist Security privatized, which I believe is probably the most practical solution and one that I was glad to see that President Bush supported.
However, I will not support means-testing, which is pure Marxism. I also do not support these arbitrary changes such as Mr. Paul is now supporting.
Not only are these changes arbitrary and capricious, there is the small matter of our government having already forcibly taken someone's money for 30 years with a promise to start "repaying" it at a set time now suddenly reneging, and pushing the repayment goalpost down the road.
This was already done in the 1980s (with shouts of 'We have saved Social Security!' and 'Never again will Americans have to worry!'), and these manifestly unconscionable "adjustments" will clearly continue ad infinitum.
End it. Or privatize it. But don't play these endless "adjustment" games.
The only “entitlement” program he can think of to go after is social security? How did welfare escape his attention? Or the public school system? Or needles for junkies? Or NPR?
He needs to put some real fright onto the faces of his fellow Repugnicant senators and show his devotion to Americans' economic liberty, which has been steadily eroding since about 1913.
Don't even attempt to fix it. Repeal it.
Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks said “because that is where the money is”. The programs you mentioned, although they should be cut, do not amount to a hill of beans compared to the entitlements of social security, medicare and medicaid which take up to 50% of the annual budget.
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.