Posted on 01/02/2011 10:24:47 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Seniors should be older before the receive Social Security and wealthy Americans should receive less benefits across the board, says Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
He made the argument in an interview on Sunday's Meet the Press, but it's a position Graham has advocated for on the stump in South Carolina, including a 2009 stop at The Citadel with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
"What I'm going to do is challenge this country to make some hard decisions," Graham said at the time, telling the crowd of cadets, Tea Partiers, and Graham supporters that they shouldn't give Congress a pass on the tough stuff.
(Excerpt) Read more at charlestoncitypaper.com ...
Sometimes Freepers are wrong.
I'll cop to part of that - I'd like to recover my investment in the system, naturally.
But you gotta try pretty hard to miss the marxist overtones in the 'means testing' angle, as in 'to each according to their means'.
Means testing should occur after the above.
>All I’ve said is lets start making the TAKERS go without first.
Fine. First define “takers”
Then figure out how much money that is (much less than you expect).
Then look at the budget projections for Social Security and Medicare. They are going to blow the budget and eat most of GDP before long unless some drastic stuff is done. It doesn’t matter if you pay 0$ in other government expenditures, those two programs will run off the rails in short order, and unless they are confronted, it makes no difference at all.
From what I’ve read theyre already are laying the groundwork.
So then those who paid into it should now be barred from benefits if they are ‘wealthy?’
That's where I'm coming from - "means testing" is no different from "tax the rich".
Always is - just seems odd that some freepers have taken the same side as the democrats.
Yup. We had just won a battle against class warfare with the across-the-board extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Say it often, say it loud!
Exactamundo.
Agreed.
Means testing should occur after the above.
Disagreed.
>If you took away all taxes on dividends and capital gains, millions of worker bees would grow financial wings. There would be a much higher incentive to work and save, and many more people moving from the middle to upper class.
Yes, growth is our only hope to get out of the current mess, but cutting expenditures has to happen as well. The entitlements are on a track to ruin us unless drastically scaled back. The economy simply cannot grow fast enough to keep up with the rate of growth of the entitlements.
>But the democrats are going to make sure that never happens. They will bust you up every 20 years or so.
There’s that problem as well. Hell they’ll probably prevent any meaningful entitlement reform and we’re screwed anyway.
Those who take and don't give.
I'm well aware SS is mathematically unsustainable. I know where the US budget it spent.
I disagree with your phrase 'means test'. It smacks of marxist doublespeak. And I don't buy your justification for using it.
The system needs fixing, fit it. Don't enable it.
I hope to be one who is denied “benefits.”
News flash: you have already been ripped off. You paid taxes, excessively, and you were told you were “paying in” to a system which was, in reality, merely a revenue stream for big government.
There are no deposits. There is no “trust fund.” You have no “account.” You did not “pay in.”
I'm fortunate to be a member of this forum and to have had this opportunity to refine my thinking...as a result of your arguments and those of others.
However, we MUST reduce expenditures in SS/Medicare going forward.
Can we obtain conservative consensus in an across-the-board reduction in benefits, increase of the retirement age and the elimination of non-retirees?
I don’t know about the wealthy not paying into SS, but I do know the government has given our SS to people coming in here and people who can work one day and get SS. They have used our money for everything but what it was intended for.
With the big spender in the WH now, it’s going to disappear even faster.
When you turn 62 (or whatever age) no one holds a gun to your head and makes you apply for SS. As for myself, in 15 months at age 62, I intend to apply and not have the first qualm about doing so.
>That’s where I’m coming from - “means testing” is no different from “tax the rich”.
>Exactamundo.
I hate to break it to people, but we’ve had a progressive income tax system for quite some time now. It’s now a bolt from the blue that such things exist. Making a broke program slightly less broke by means testing is not taxing the rich. The safety net provided by said program will still provide for them in case their assets are wiped out.
Only AFTER government retireds have to undergo such a haircut program first.
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.