Posted on 01/02/2011 10:24:47 AM PST by rabscuttle385
How about we just end the flippin' thing and give me ALL MY MONEY BACK. Lowlife flippin' thieves. If the bass turds came through the front door to steal the fruit of my labor, I'd put a .44 caliber through their forehead. Why should this act of theft be any different?
Linda should get out of government, altogether. She is unfit to serve this nation.
Actually, this is worse than taxing the rich. Because he wants to punish those who paid the most into SS and Medicare, and reward those who paid little or nothing.
Yes.
I see it as you do. Give it back and stop stealing it. I can see a fund that everyone pays into. There is a major problem, that “fund” doesn’t exist.
It HAS been welfare for at least 40 years. SS disability, survivors benefits etc.
And, both of those "features" will have to be jettisoned as well...whether turned entirely over to the states or separately funded and accounted for in the federal budget.
While we're at it, we should eliminate farm subsidies and stridently "scrutinize" all ag imports. Eliminate all bailouts for governments and businesses too. All of them.
Hey a$$hat, you'd do well to do a little research before you start calling people names.
You're exposing yourself.
Yeah, as a conservative, unlike yourself.
I guess that I’ll go out on a limb and state that, regardless of the advertising, Social Security has ALWAYS (or just about always) been a transfer program, as the future recipients decided to spend the withheld money (collectively, of course) on higher priority items - such as the Great Society, public housing, and, of course, ‘education’, rather than saving it.
Given that, the first ‘reform’ that I would make is simply change Social Security into what it really is now, which is a WELFARE PROGRAM. Since the old people are no longer spending their own savings (if they ever were), then the government has a right, a responsibility, to make sure that the money it demands from younger people is spent wisely - after all, we expect it (maybe not get it, but expect it) in traditional welfare programs.
Bottom line - if you drive a Winnebago, I do not want MY KIDS to have to pay for YOUR INDULGENCE.
p.s., I sure as hell never defend Graham (look up my posting history), but in this ONE case, he is right - even if he has no clue as to why.
I have to agree with Sen. Grahmnesty. Social Security won’t even last long enough to pay its current obligations to retirees. Wealthy seniors should be forced to take a buyout equal to the amount of money they put in over the years, plus a reasonable amount of interest.
You’re advocating theft by deception using the power of government. What Graham is advocating is a massive tax increase from productive members of society in order to pay off parasites for their votes.
You should be ashamed.
You are spot on. While I don’t much like Graham, he is talking the truth here. It is the middle class entitlements that drain the coffers of the government, and get people dependent on federal ‘aid’. That was the most devious thing about the New Deal. Even Roosevelt knew that welfare was unpopular. When he changed the game and got the middle class dependent on government, he set the stage of this nation going bankrupt.
If you want Social Security to be gone (any rational person should since it is a moronic ponzi scheme), you first need to remove the ties it has to the non poor recipients. Once you ween them off the system, you will finally have enough of a voting coalition to kill it.
As for those who say they deserve it because they paid in, well I’m sorry, but like all other ponzi schemes someone gets left holding the bag. Unless you want the entire economy taken down, which is what we get if we keep waiting to face this unpleasant truth, we have to get on the road to controlling the entitlements and that means Social Security and Medicare.
For what its worth, to the Federales, Social Security is NOT YOUR MONEY so they can decide who gets it and how much. Grahamnesty is just toeing the DC line.
Of course, they’re also beginning to think that way about your pension accounts, too.
We can’t retire Grahamnesty fast enough.
Not in half, put them in line with what our military makes. Their bennies should be no more than our military gets. Why should people who sit in majestic offices and do nothing but make laws receive more than our men who put their lives on the line to protect them?
You could address that underlined part to everyone on this thread who thinks "means testing" is hunky dory.
Going to have to happen. One way or another. No sense paying welfare to people who don’t need it.
Does it matter to you whether the nation can afford these expenditures?
Perhaps you believe we should reduce taxes AND increase spending?
Or, from your "conservative" point of view, perhaps we should reduce military spending so that we can afford to send money to people who already have it?
I know, we should reduce spending as long as it's not your ox getting gored.
Of course, I can understand this perspective for those who were stupid enough to believe that SS was a retirement plan. It's not. It has never been. It has always been a pay-as-you-go welfare program.
First lets reduce benefits for wealthy government employees and office holders.
>Yeah, as a conservative, unlike yourself.
If that is how you define conservative, we have a clear difference in definitions.
That’s not going to happen so must forget about it. No one has a claim on the taxes they payed into SS either legal or moral. That money is a sunken cost. Forget it and move forward.
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.