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 ...
You call it brownie points. I call it doing the right thing.
>I agree. Refund the money me and my employer paid in, and I’ll call it good.
Ok, tell us where to find that money, and we’re golden.
Oh wait, they already spent it and owe money. Hmmm. Money tree?
It's part annuity and part Ponzi scheme.
>It’s part annuity and part Ponzi scheme.
There’s no principle. It’s pure Ponzi scheme.
You make a very good argument here. However, empirical data seems not to support the conclusion that pure 'welfare' can be cut once the 'middle class' is not eligible. I can't think of ANY handout programs that have shrunk since wealth transfer programs kicked in big time in the early 60s.
The same place all the bailout money came from. It's all a matter of priorities.
If Grahamnesty means an asset-based means test like Medicaid uses, Katy bar the door.
The idea those who are responsible, live on less than they make, and save for their own retirement would have their SS retirement benefits means tested away, while someone else who perhaps earned more, spent it unwisely, and now has few assets would receive benefits would create an environment right out of Atlas Shrugged.
Go crawl back under your rock Lindsey b***h.
It's only a Ponzi scheme if you assume it's an annuity. With no principle, it's only a transfer payment from those working now and a debt for those working in the future.
It's a welfare program for everyone.
There’s no principle. It’s pure Ponzi scheme.
You are confusing your terms and missing the point.
Have a good night.
That's the nut of the whole debate right there. And very well put!
However, there are some here who say such prattle is just "symbolism."
Whenever means testing of Social Security comes up, it has always been primarily the Democrats, with very few exceptions (Bruce Babbitt), that have opposed it.
"You could look it up."
It depends upon what is the meaning of "is." I choose to define "welfare" as a benefit received from a program into which one pays no money. Since SS taxes represent a payment INTO the program, then by definition it IS NOT welfare.
>It’s only a Ponzi scheme if you assume it’s an annuity. With no principle, it’s only a transfer payment from those working now and a debt for those working in the future.
No, it’s only a Ponzi scheme if it’s claimed that it is an annuity based on return from a principle.
Every Ponzi scheme so far run has worked exactly as Social Security has worked with the current people paying in, paying off those who paid in earlier.
Given that Social Security claims all the trappings of an annuity, yet functions in a pay as you go manner, it is clearly a Ponzi scheme. Well actually I guess it is also welfare because it carries people in addition to the ‘investors’ in its payout.
The 1995 welfare reform, while not all we might like, was significant enough that it ticked off the left at Bill Clinton and the GOP Congress.
It shows at least that welfare programs are not politically untouchable the way universal entitlements are.
To reform Social Security in any serious way is to undo the New Deal. Many people are not prepared to do that, but it will happen, voluntarily nor not.
>You make a very good argument here. However, empirical data seems not to support the conclusion that pure ‘welfare’ can be cut once the ‘middle class’ is not eligible. I can’t think of ANY handout programs that have shrunk since wealth transfer programs kicked in big time in the early 60s.
They GOP congress managed welfare reform in the 90s. It cut expenditures and welfare rolls.
Indeed! Step 1, all millionaire Senators and Representatives, surrender your pensions first and then we’ll talk.
Sounds like a good place to start then. I suggest you focus your lobbying effort there instead of trying to lay a guilt trip on those of us who paid into SS and expect some return.
Now, here we are having this conversation again and it is more bitter (outright vicious imho) than ever before. Calling people stupid and socialist because they expect to collect or they want their money back. Really! These people advocate stealing and are no better than the whoring pols who mismanaged SS. Hypocrites!
I think the reason Graham said this is to split the forces and divide the electorate, and it looks like it's working. The question is why he's doing it?
It’s pie in the sky, and would not direclty impact the debt or the spending, but if we the people had to power to do so, it would certainly be a wakeup call to those elected “fidiciaries” that we mean business, rather than a phone call.
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.