Uber RINO Lindsey Ping
"Republican by day, Democrat by night."
Want on or off this ping list?
Just FReepmail me.
h/t to martin_fierro for the graphic
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 ...
I don't see Buzz laying a guilt trip on anyone. If you feel guilt you manifested it all on your own.
That these programs are unsustainable is not argued by any person who has looked at the numbers. They were known to be unsustainable by Reagan himself in the 1964 "The Speech" when he decried the fiscal mess the system was in then.
That said, it's only a matter of how these programs will be cut, not if.
I do not think changing it from retirement insurance program for the general population to one for the needy avoids the train wreck.
Tinker with the terms and particulars as much as you like, it will not go away, any more than any other entitlement program thus far devised has gone away.
It will collapse, and it doesn't matter what you or I say.
Why? Because he sees himself as part of the 'ruling class,' that's why.
For him to even bring this crap up suggests he's surrendered the most important part of ANY battle - the terms and conditions.
We conservatives haven't learned that lesson yet. We should all be talking about WHAT THE OTHER SIDE MUST GIVE UP instead of talking about what we have to give up.
We all really should read more Niccolo Machiavelli instead of reading what George Will and Charles Krauthammer have to say.
>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.
At one point you claimed to understand numbers and be capable of running a spreadsheet. Then you come back with idiocy like the above. Screwing around with piddling little programs like Welfare when Social Security is about to break the bank is an inane waste of time.
Welfare is comparably small money and is not growing at a breakneck pace. It’s not even on the radar screens as to issues worth worrying about. The reforms from the 90s were pretty solid (though the Dems have been trying to unravel them).
Uber RINO Lindsey Ping
"Republican by day, Democrat by night."
Want on or off this ping list?
Just FReepmail me.
h/t to martin_fierro for the graphic
“Both SS and Medicare will have to be “means tested”, increased eligibility age AND benefits frozen at inflation minus x percent to have any chance of bringing the deficit under control without raising taxes.
And yes, it’s an approach I support. “
OOOOOOOH....you stepped on the third rail here on FR.
I happen to agree with you, but only if we get rid of it altogether and have folks apply for the welfare that it is.
Yes, folks paid in, and the government stole their money.
Unfortunately, with this program, no matter what you do, somebody gets the royal screwing. There are merits to the various arguments, but in the end - we can’t pay and we shouldn’t keep pretending that we can. It’s over now, or it’s over soon. Take your pick.
Not one whit of guilt. I have a spreadsheet on my hard drive that tells to the penny how much I and my employers have paid into SS since I began working in 1968. I have every W2 from then to now. When I take out in benefits what was paid in, then I'll call it even. Not before.
Maybe, but only for lack of collective will.
It's possible to reduce programs and spending. But when both the left and the right are united in opposition to cutting either, it's probably a lost cause.
OK I can go along with means testing for us “wealthy” folks. But on one condition only. Stop taking the fruit of my labor and investment NOW. Otherwise you are just robbing me and my family like the other socialists who think I exist to be used as an ATM machine when you turn 65.
Ass Warfare. They paid up just like everyone else.
Bear in mind, the higher you jack it up, the longer people will stay employed, meaning the fewer jobs available for younger workers.
Just sayin'.
“You’re advocating theft by deception using the power of government.”
LOL. It wasn’t theft by deception. It was just theft. It could never work, and it never was intended to work - just to provide political cover.
We shall simply have to disagree here. I suggest by not wanting to address welfare, you have surrendered the entire battle without a shot being fired. I ain't ready to do that yet.
That's the crux of the issue if you ever believed it to be an annuity.
It never was. It was always a transfer payment from those working today...or debt of future workers...to those retired. There was a push in the 50s and early 6os to force the government to deposit a portion of the FICA taxes in private banks but that went nowhere.
You can't send money to DC and not expect those commies to not spend it. It's just not going to happen.
Precisely. The means test is BS. Again, this is a way to redistribute from the “haves” to the “have nots”. As with a new tax system that makes EVERYONE put skin into the game by mandating a minimum 5% tax for every living being in this country, the SS should be rewritten to downgrade payouts uniformly across the board to ALL recipients. The means test wipes out or at least severely penalizes most hard working and forward-thinking earners, and gives the parasites another handout. Stop SSI, etc., drawors must have skin in the game or they get nothing. Combine this with reduced spending, reduced government, etc., and the SS should become something that we can expect to be there when we want to start drawing on it.
Exactly. If these programs are wiped out, we will NEED the military.
>I do not think changing it from retirement insurance program for the general population to one for the needy avoids the train wreck.
The numbers, I believe, prove you wrong. As a demographic group, the elderly is quite well off. By removing most of that demographic from the program it could possibly be cut enough to be affordable.
>Tinker with the terms and particulars as much as you like, it will not go away, any more than any other entitlement program thus far devised has gone away.
There is a difference between an affordable welfare program, and an economy busting entitlement.
>It will collapse, and it doesn’t matter what you or I say.
If it does, we’re screwed, and screwed hard. You better hope you are wrong.
Now let me be clear. I wish Social Security had never existed. I wish the government had never taken people’s money away proffering a blatant lie about the purpose of it. I wish we just had people invest their own money in a manner of their choosing towards their retirement. However things didn’t happen that way. We’re stuck with the present mess and need to find a way out of it. Sticking our head in the sand just gives it time to get worse.
On a principled level I don’t much care for means testing. I also hate progressive taxation. However I also understand that we need to look for alternatives that might actually happen. Means testing is one of those. I think a transition to a pure welfare mode for the really needy is the only valid future path we have to avoid going bust. (Yes, completely killing the program would be preferable, but most people favor a safety net these days, because they don’t understand why they are bad so I don’t even vaguely count on that option. )
Sure the 25% across the board cut sounds fine to me. It will probably yield more than means testing. However it is also much more vulnerable to demagoguery and thus less likely to happen.
>Bear in mind, the higher you jack it up, the longer people will stay employed, meaning the fewer jobs available for younger workers.
Funny, European countries kept ratcheting down their retirement age over time, and yet unemployment kept increasing. Maybe it doesn’t work like you think it does?
“That’s the crux of the issue if you ever believed it to be an annuity.”
I don’t....but I was attempting to preempt an argument or two. Still though, the implication was that SOMETHING would be there for folks that paid in - so from that standpoint, it was “stolen”.
“You can’t send money to DC and not expect those commies to not spend it. It’s just not going to happen.”
It’s so true. The money was gone the second it left the paychecks of those who actually earned it.
I’m with you on this debate as the “Rich” already pay 70%+ of the taxes which keep the rusty wheels of this country turning. We’re 77 and been drawing SS since 2000 and Wife and I sacrificed and invested in a business and some rental properties over our productive years and are damn proud to be in that top tier and we will gladly give up our SS if we can stop paying taxes including FICA. And don’t forget the “rich” are stuck with a ever expanding cap on FICA...
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.