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 ...
So that makes it OK to do MORE YET of the same?
That should occur too.
>Those who take and don’t give.
Does a widow who’s husband put in a lot of money count? A child of a father who dies young? Those are currently covered. Honestly the “takers” are a smaller monetary issue than you imagine. Sure, cut them to the bone, I have no beef with that. It won’t solve the problem of demographics when the Boomers retire.
>I’m well aware SS is mathematically unsustainable. I know where the US budget it spent.
Then why are we actually arguing?
>I disagree with your phrase ‘means test’. It smacks of marxist doublespeak. And I don’t buy your justification for using it.
The accepted term is ‘means test’. I didn’t invent it. Rename the program ‘destitute insurance’ if you like, and make sure it only pays out if the insured gets an income below a certain amount. You are under the delusion that it is an annuity. It cannot be that since an annuity requires a principle.
>The system needs fixing, fit it. Don’t enable it.
You have made no suggestions as to fixing it whatsoever. You seem content to wait for the train wreck.
They go first. After that is completed, then we’ll talk about SS.
End of negotiation.
I hate to break it to you but I don't think there is a person here who doesn't know that.
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.
You can think what you want, but means testing SS is like taxing the rich.
>Only AFTER government retireds have to undergo such a haircut program first.
Sure, I wouldn’t mind that one bit. It would be pretty much pure symbolism, and wouldn’t save much, but I’d completely support it. Doesn’t hurt to save even the small money.
Yes. I'm in favor of reducing benefits, especially for those that have put less money into the system. There should be some link between "effort" and reward (effort being the actual work that provided the funds that were put into the system). Increasing the retirement age for benefits MUST happen. I think that the retirement age could be ratcheted up 2 or 3 months every year until 70 or 72 is the new 65, and 67 or so is the new 62. People live longer now - that is a fact. Eliminating non-retirees would do a lot as well.
I was in favor of dropping the "surviving spouse" scheme, given that the spouse presumably didn't contribute or didn't contribute at a level supporting the benefit that they would receive. Instead, I think that a spousal program could be established at the time of retirement that would allow a reduced benefit in exchange for allowing the benefit to cover the surviving spouse. This would have to be based on actuary tables, taking into account the spouses' age. Obviously, a 70 year old retiree with a 21 year old spouse (I wish) would have to have a lower benefit than a retiree with a spouse closer in age. Otherwise, the 21 year old would be getting an enormous lifetime windfall.
If the social security benefit were viewed as an annuity comprised of the accumulated payments made into the system on the retiree's behalf (would it be too much to ask for interest accrued on the bonds presumably purchased with these funds?), then an equitable benefit amount could be established for the retiree based on their age, marital status (surviving spouse) and what they actually put into the system (or what was taken on their behalf).
>So that makes it OK to do MORE YET of the same?
Well it depends on what the alternative is. If the alternative is keeping the system as it stands currently with a train wreck in the near future, then sure. It is preferable. Do you really understand what kind of train wreck we’re looking at here?
If you have a better option, feel free to offer, but Social Security and Medicare HAVE to be cut in cost. There is no alternative. Those expenditures cannot remain on their current path or we will be broke to a point when the lending will stop and printing money becomes the only option (and it’s a really, really bad option).
Symbolism is often the most important thing. In this case it puts the 'ruling elite' in the same fix as those of us who are funding the entire scheme.
dissolve the whole thing is my view since the money being used to pay benefits comes out of non retired workers and debt.
>They go first. After that is completed, then we’ll talk about SS.
Yes, let’s not even think about the massive train wreck facing us before we score some symbolic brownie points.
Good plan.
So the wealthy pay more into these programs and the government deems that they should receive less in benefits. This type of transaction seems to violate the equal protection clause in least two ways.
At least you're not overselling your idea.
Tell me, do you really think there will be ANY incentive to do away with SS tax once the government has adopted Lindsey's plan?
On the contrary, once they've converted it to a pure welfare program it will be even more difficult to reform, now that it will have become better suited to the statists' favorite style of political demagoguery.
>You can think what you want, but means testing SS is like taxing the rich.
This is an opinion. You cannot prove it true, nor can I really prove it false. It’s a matter of what you perceive the point of the program to be.
You evidently believe the system to be an annuity. I believe it to be welfare. Given how much it pays out to people who didn’t pay jack in, and the lack of any principle, I’d say there’s plenty more evidence supporting my opinion.
South Carolinians, do your duty.
Yes, I can. I can do numbers and operate a spreadsheet as well as most anyone here. I understand investments and the time value of money and all that stuff. In fact, some here might consider me to be one of "the rich" who would be directly affected by further 'means-testing' of SS.
But I also understand politics and symbolism. Only AFTER the 'ruling class' (and we all know who they are) are given a haircut should taxes be further seized from the productive class.
Speaking strictly for myself, I'm very tired of being shorn to supply wool for Washington.
We need $1.2trillion reduction for balance.
SS and Medicare add up to about $1.2trillion and are on a trajectory to reach $2trillion by the end of this decade.
Yes, HUD and DOE are easy targets as are many other "discretionary programs" (like defense is discretionary lol).
Medicaid? Yeah, I think so. That's Medical care for the "poor" and can be, should be, a state endeavor.
I agree. Refund the money me and my employer paid in, and I'll call it good.
We need $1.2trillion reduction for balance.
SS and Medicare add up to about $1.2trillion and are on a trajectory to reach $2trillion by the end of this decade.
Yes, HUD and DOE are easy targets as are many other "discretionary programs" (like defense is discretionary lol).
Medicaid? Yeah, I think so. That's Medical care for the "poor" and can be, should be, a state endeavor.
Further information: Government spending The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures: * Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%) o $677.95 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security o $571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs o $453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare o $290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid o $164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt o $11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs o $0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) o $0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts US receipt and expenditure estimates for fiscal year 2010. * Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%) o $663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations) o $78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services o $72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation o $52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs o $51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs o $47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development o $46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education o $42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security o $26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy o $26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture o $23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice o $18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration o $13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce o $13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor o $13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury o $12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior o $10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency o $9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration o $7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation o $5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers o $5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank o $1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service o $0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration o $0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration o $19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies o $105 billion – Other
>At least you’re not overselling your idea.
Anyone who has expectations beyond my sales pitch is fooling themselves.
>Tell me, do you really think there will be ANY incentive to do away with SS tax once the government has adopted Lindsey’s plan?
>On the contrary, once they’ve converted it to a pure welfare program it will be even more difficult to reform, now that it will have become better suited to the statists’ favorite style of political demagoguery.
Your premise is predicated on the assumption that welfare programs are extremely popular and that the public demands them to grow. This is false. As long as the public in question is not directly benefiting from those programs, they tend to be quite amenable to having them adjusted and cut.
It is middle class entitlements which end up set in stone and untouchable. This was the devious understanding of FDR when he put us on this ruinous course.
He knew that if he tied the middle class into the program, and made it so that their parents were provided for by the government instead of them, they would buy into it. It would seem like free money. He understood that making a large enough constituency dependent would ensure the long term survival of the program, and he figured that this would favor the Democrats because it was assumed the GOP would keep opposing it. He assumed more principle out of the Republicans than they were willing to hold.
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.