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 ...
“Yes, growth is our only hope to get out of the current mess, but cutting expenditures has to happen as well.”
Not arguing with that. Dept. of Energy and Education: Implode! FDR dismantled angelicas, why can’t we?
But they will not be because the gatekeepers do not will it.
So really it will end one of two ways, both extremely ugly.
I agree with you that this will be necessary, but before we do that I want to see at least half the federal bureaucracy fired and the other half with a big salary cut.
I would say that SSI and SSD are the biggest drains on the SS system as most of the recipients haven’t put in one thin dime and are collecting glorified welfare.
First of all, be on a first-name basis with your congresscritter and make sure he knows how you think. Make yourself into a political power player. Blog. Go to city council meetings. Write letters to the editor. If your local rag ain’t doing right, call them on it. Work to elect people who believe as you do.
Call in on talk radio. Make cogent, sound arguments that give you credibility, just like you do here on FR. Anything you do that reduces the power of government at any level is a good thing.
There is no other way. It called politics.
With the internet, we have the power of numbers to counter the other side, if we choose to learn its power and utilize it.
In case you don’t realize it, the SS retirement age is no longer 65. President Reagan signed a SS reform bill years ago that raised the SS retirement age. I can’t collect full benefits till my 66 birthday, and my younger brother in law can’t collect till he’s 67.
The only thing you still get at 65 is Medicare, and that costs over 1200 in premiums with a $155 deductible, plus much bigger bucks for premiums for supplemental insurance and prescription drug plan premiums.
Why not eliminate ‘benefits’ for people who have never paid into the system instead.
“Yes, growth is our only hope to get out of the current mess, but cutting expenditures has to happen as well.”
Not arguing with that. Dept. of Energy and Education: Implode! FDR dismantled agencies like WPA, why can’t we?
I’ll never forget one day I was doing a clerkship at an orthopedists office (part of my medical school training) and a patient who looked like a made man came in with a disability form for the doctor to approve.
This was in New Jersey. Hardly any exam, and then the doc signed the application for disability calling it a back problem and shook the fellows hand.
I only assumed the doctor wanted to remain alive and accepted this cost to his honor of practicing medicine in that State.
“There is no other way. It called politics.”
All you mention is worthy and good. I agree. But I must point out it is politics that got us here. We’ve got a ways down to go before the politics of “reform” takes the day from the politics of “gimme my check”.
I’m actually slightly encouraged seeing the number of folks on this thread that comprehend the practical ramifications of all the spending that continues to occur. Usually the ones who want their checks ad infinitum are much more angry and indignant, and the ones who understand the checks can’t keep coming are fewer in number.
>How would my keeping my job instead of retiring lower unemployment?
I’m not saying it would lower unemployment, I’m saying it wouldn’t have a positive effect. Look at France. Every means by which the government has intervened into trying to restrict the labor market (shorter work weeks, lower retirement age, etc) has done nothing to help unemployment.
The only means by which a government can affect employment levels (other than direct hiring, and that is recycling other people’s money so it doesn’t work either) is by promoting pro growth policies so companies create wealth and hire people.
The job markets for people at retirement age and for someone out of college are not the same by any means.
But just to directly answer your question, because there is an answer, given the assumption that you are productive in your job, you must produce wealth. That wealth adds to the aggregate wealth of whatever company you work for, and thus enables more profits and the ability to hire more workers.
So yes, you remaining employed at an old age, as long as you are productive, does create more employment. The job market is not a zero sum game. It might seem like it in the small scale, but it really isn’t.
I used to work for the Section 8 Housing Program and was astounded at how many able bodied under 35 year old minorities there were who were on SSI and SSD and labeled as “disabled.” Of course they were rubber stamped in b/c every caseworker knows not to question or audit a minority applicant for fear of having Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson picketing in front of the SSI/SSD office (or any other welfare program for that matter).
I won't even bother to correct the rest of your blatherings. You are too class-envious to debate with. You don't like folks being too "rich" for your tastes when they can no longer work.
I hope you never grow old and feeble and see the benefits you paid into are confiscated after a lifetime of hard work because you committed the cardinal sin of being successful and appearing to be too "wealthy" by some marxist decision-maker who controls your later years.
You give yourself away when you state, "Cutting off government money (SS) to those who don't NEED it is a start......"
If you had said that cutting off government money to those who don't QUALIFY for it I would agree with you. But you didn't say that.
I repeat....you would be a Great Means-Testing Czar....someone who supervises the determination of "need". Someone in your department, some friendly bureaucrat commissar in a D.C. cubicle could decide what amount of money I NEED from SS compared to others in the program nationwide.
He would be empowered to investigate my bank accounts, mortgages, properties, pension, jewelry, giving loans and gifts to children or grandchildren, all my personal property possessions, stocks and bonds, art plus any other assets HE will determine will make me TOO RICH to qualify for Social Security according to a fascist government's mean-testing standards (a test that YOU advocate).
The rest of your post is typical spinning of what I wrote and not worth my time to correct. Yours is typical "soak the rich", "re-distribute the wealth" aimed, for the moment at hand, at the ageing and aged who are on SS...just to right the wrongs of the corrupt politicians. This seems to be okay with you.
What group will be next as a target and deemed to have amassed too much money in his or her lifetime of work?
It will be some other group of achievers that is next.
The marxist appetite to destroy capitalism and to control and redistribute even small amounts of personal capital is never slaked.
Vote the bastards out is the answer to these SS and other economic problems, not penalizing producers, savers and investors.
Leni
Then we must redouble our efforts. Otherwise we will be reduced to a greater degree of slavery than we already are. Pure slavery is nothing more than a 100% tax rate.
>Not arguing with that. Dept. of Energy and Education: Implode! FDR dismantled angelicas, why can’t we?
You know, I would love to see those boondoggle agencies gone. I would surely love to see every worthless bureaucrat they employ out flipping burgers or whatnot instead of having a cushy federal job.
However, those two agencies are chicken feed.
(from the 2010 budget)
Dept of Energy $26.3 Billion
Dept of Education $46.7 Billion
The overall budget was $3.55 Trillion.
If you sum them it comes to ~2% of the budget. Sure, I’d be very happy to have those cuts done, but let’s look at the biggies:
Social Security $677.95 Billion
Medicare $453 Billion
Dept of Defense $663 Billion
So the combined totals of the two agencies you slate for the axe (rightly so mind you) is a bit more than 10% of the cost of Social Security (or Defense, which probably needs some cuts, but I can’t see too much being done since we really are still in a war).
The real problem is that Social Security and Medicare are set to explode in cost soon.
Oh, while you’re at it kill the EPA, that’s $10 billion saved (even smaller chicken feed, but the costs they impose on the economy are a hell of a lot higher than their budget).
The government will set us up for a squeeze play. Either you accept their terms or they will concoct a plan to take your 401Ks under their wings.
This could get ugly. well...like everything else is anymore.
Means testing of SS is just a back-door way of doing just that.
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.