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 ...
And right now, today, the law says I have a claim. End of argument.
Amen.
I'll quote the Wikipedia summary if you are busy.
The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.
Freeper abb, you are still in the "denial" phase of entitlements grief. The next phase is "anger".
>And right now, today, the law says I have a claim. End of argument.
Actually it doesn’t say you have a claim, it says you currently receive a benefit. If you tried to sue in court a claim against those benefits (as in if Congress decided to zero out your benefit), you wouldn’t get a red cent.
You better get the idea that words have meanings, and claim has a very specific meaning in this context.
Recipients like "Granny" didn't "pull out" money, the government "dished out" money in excess of what individuals paid in plus accrued interest. Don't put this on Granny - she was promised her money back by the politicians.
Yes, we can certainly blame politicians. We can also blame the ADD/ADHD scammers and their statist enablers. We can blame those that didn't pay in but still collect. We can blame a lot of people but DON'T blame the people who, against their own will, had the money stolen from themselves and their employers over the years with the promise that they would have retirement income. They did not cause this mess.
I've had the money stolen from my pay for 35 years and counting, and I WILL BE MADE WHOLE, regardless of what you or the other marxists want. If the government can't find the money, take it from the deadbeats in the welfare class. Take it from the folks that DIDN'T pay in to SS but collect benefits. Take it from Fort Knox. I don't give a fat rat's ass how they do it, but they had better pay me back what I unwillingly paid them for all these years.
First we have our money taken from us and put aside by the government for out "benefit", and now we have Marxists who want to seize it from us permanently. Not to mention the crushing amount of taxes some of us pay.
Yep - and as you can see in this thread, there are a few commies in the freeper pile.
I am in my late fifties and I know the money that was deducted from my paychecks is (mostly) gone forever.
For the American economy to survive, I must receive pennies on the dollar.
I've reached the "acceptance" stage, friend. You are still moving back and forth between denial and anger.
Distinction between “claim” and “benefit” noted. According to present law, I have a benefit due at the appropriate age.
And yes, I’m quite familiar with Fleming v Nestor.
So you both better get on the phone to your congresscritter. I’ve got a call in to mine right now.
>Recipients like “Granny” didn’t “pull out” money, the government “dished out” money in excess of what individuals paid in plus accrued interest. Don’t put this on Granny - she was promised her money back by the politicians.
Hmm, isn’t trafficking stolen goods a crime? Last time I checked it was. Granny was fully in favor of the program, and happily receiver her bonanza from the start of the Ponzi scheme. She’s about as culpable as the politicians she elected to keep the checks coming.
>Yes, we can certainly blame politicians. We can also blame the ADD/ADHD scammers and their statist enablers. We can blame those that didn’t pay in but still collect. We can blame a lot of people but DON’T blame the people who, against their own will, had the money stolen from themselves and their employers over the years with the promise that they would have retirement income. They did not cause this mess.
You’re pretty funny. The amount of Social Security fraud is a drop in the bucket. Citing that as a major drain is just fooling yourself as to the nature of the problem. This Ponzi scheme was going to go bust eventually. It was demographically inevitable. The fraud might have shifted the due date by a few months.
>I’ve had the money stolen from my pay for 35 years and counting, and I WILL BE MADE WHOLE, regardless of what you or the other marxists want. If the government can’t find the money, take it from the deadbeats in the welfare class. Take it from the folks that DIDN’T pay in to SS but collect benefits. Take it from Fort Knox. I don’t give a fat rat’s ass how they do it, but they had better pay me back what I unwillingly paid them for all these years.
So we’ll pay it off with magic fairy gold? We’ll just print worthless dollars? Where is the money going to come from? Do you think future taxpayers will stomach tax rates at 80%+ of GDP to keep you happy? Fat chance.
Which for the poor, is largely canceled out by things like the earned income tax credit.
Here's another thing for you to read and be informed:
http://cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/all_tables.pdf
Note the first table. The effective tax rate for all federal taxes was 4.0% on the lowest quintile, and 10.6% on the second quintile.
But, read the explanation at the end: Social insurance, or payroll, taxes are attributed to households paying those taxes directly or paying them indirectly through their employers. Social Security + Medicare is a combined 15.3% tax on payroll, when you account for both the employee and employer (self-employed pay both).
Look at the second table on the first page. Note that the federal individual income tax rate for the bottom two quintiles is actually negative, reflecting the transfer payments that offset the social insurance taxes that were paid by the employee, as well as some paid by the employer.
No, you've reached the "stupid" stage, the "capitulation" state, the "rape the rich" stage, the "bend over" stage. It's time to start eliminating redistribution and the welfare state, not adding to the problem. "Means testing" adds to the problem, comrade.
>Yep - and as you can see in this thread, there are a few commies in the freeper pile.
Yes, take note of those vigorously defending the wealth redistribution program from taxpayers to retirees.
>So you both better get on the phone to your congresscritter. I’ve got a call in to mine right now.
Ahh, busily demanding money that isn’t there. How responsible of you.
Bullsh*t. It's enormous, but you want to take the easy way out - rob those that are paying for it rather than actually investigate and prosecute fraud.
So we’ll pay it off with magic fairy gold? We’ll just print worthless dollars? Where is the money going to come from? Do you think future taxpayers will stomach tax rates at 80%+ of GDP to keep you happy? Fat chance.
Maybe we can pull the money out of the same orifice that you're extracting your figures. Wash mine first, please.
It’s unbelievable.
That means they will run through everything they and their employer paid into the system in just under 10 years ($281,520). Live longer than that and they are ‘taking’ someone else's money.
For reference, I got the OASDI earnings contribution cap by year here:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html
And the tax rates by year here:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html
It was never a sustainable system. At 3.3 workers for every retiree (and that ratio is still headed in the wrong direction), and more economic trouble looking likely in the future, something has to change.
As I have already posted up-thread, I am not in favor of means testing. It’s not too late to implement an across the board benefits cut of 25% and that’s what I endorse.
I didn’t make it clear, sorry. I was talking about the future.
Under Obamacare the physicians cannot provide the services for cash if the patient doesn’t fall within the Medicare guidelines. If they do they receive a warning the first time. The second time they go to prison.
So a 75 year old patient will not be able to pay to get a colonoscopy or or a 60 year old female cannot get an infusion for her osteoporosis.
Well, I'm up to $219,000 so far, taking into account what I and my employer paid in. Not including the interest that it should have accrued had it been invested even in the lowly bank account. And I've got many more working years left.
How did you come up with the $130K number? Are you assuming that they started work at 18 or 16 and worked to 62? 65? 70?
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.