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 ...
Make them go on the exact MEDICARE system as the rest of the SERFS.
>You could address that underlined part to everyone on this thread who thinks “means testing” is hunky dory.
As opposed to those who believe that an insolvent ponzi scheme is honky dory.
You mean you and others actually BELIEVED SS was a retirement plan...and all that money was really, really in a "lockbox"?
Laughable.
No, you're not proposing HARD decisions, you ignorant slut.
You're proposing an EASY decision.....i.e., penalize seniors who worked their fingers to the bone all their lives and amassed retirement bucks as the fruits of their labors....and turn THEM into the PERPS for having too much money rather than fingering the criminally-profligate lawmakers who are spending this country into oblivion.
New-castrati Graham is one of the traitors to the Republic who promote class warfare by turning various groups of Americans against other groups to further the marxist agenda.
After fingering "wealthy seniors" he will seamlessly target some other group, perhaps one WE here belong to. We like to think that the Left's attention is never going to be focused on a group WE are in....until it happens. Marxists never quit, sleep or retire. Eventually they get around to destroying the livelihood and old-age security of EVERYBODY except themselves......as history teaches and as Senate/House benefits and pensions reveal to us.
Linda Gramnesty's ideology is right out of Mao's Little Red Book which he obviously keeps in his breast pocket instead of the pocket-sized U.S. Constitution he took an oath to uphold.
Leni
Here comes means testing. Baby Boomers and seniors are so screwed. 43% of people over 60 voted for Hussein and 50% of baby boomers (45 to 59) voted for the muslim.
I hope they like dog food because when inflation really kicks in - it “ain’t” gonna be pretty. Keep watching TV fools cause ALL of TV supports the mulim including Prince AL Waleed’s Fox News.
Bull - if SS were used ONLY to pay retirement benefits and ONLY in a quantity previously funded by what that INDIVIDUAL has paid in, then there's plenty of money in the program. If they're going to stop paying out selectively, then they should start with all the other payouts that they now provide (surviving spouse, disability, etc.) and reduce outlays to those that paid so little into the system in their productive years that they are essentially collecting welfare.
If it's acting like a welfare program, then fix it so that it isn't a welfare program. Don't make it even more of one. Bottom line is that there should be NO redistribution involved with SS.
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.
I'm far from wealthy, but I'd glady take a refund with interest over the financial raping that this communist is proposing. His definition of "wealthy" will undoubtedly include anybody with over $100K in their 401, and/or a pension.
That is definitely true for Generation X and beyond. We've lost every last penny we've paid into Social Security. Ideally, if we're going to start phasing out Social Security and Medicare(I know, another wild dream) then anyone 40 and under should be exempted from paying any further taxes into programs which will not yield us any benefit.
I thought I was on DU for awhile.
Say Miss Lindsey can you define your version of “Rich” for me. Is it that magical number of $250,000 which is the equivalent of 35K not too many years ago?
I contend that it the above expressed ideology, which continues this welfare program unchecked, that is Marxist.
Sorry, but the math doesn't lie. Social Security already pays out more in benefits than is collected in Social Security taxes. This trend is only going to continue as more people lose their jobs and as more people start collecting benefits.
If they're going to stop paying out selectively, then they should start with all the other payouts that they now provide (surviving spouse, disability, etc.) and reduce outlays to those that paid so little into the system in their productive years that they are essentially collecting welfare.
Agreed 100%. I just think Social Security should be ended for anyone 40 and under. All the money we pay into the system now is wasted and assuming things do not change, this program will NOT be there when we get to retirement age. Social Security has already reached the tipping point, and like all ponzi schemes, it is collapsing.
I think the best way to get rid of Social Security for good is to simply end it for those of us 40 and under, and provide a means to pay a lower level of benefits for those who are older than 40, and simply pay the existing obligations to the elderly out of the general fund. As they die off, so will all Social Security obligations.
Where did I propose limitless spending? I didn't. I simply said that redistribution of money through the SS system (which is EXACTLY what "means testing does") is not acceptable. It's communism, period.
Let the freeloaders lose the benefits that they NEVER earned before trying to cut off those that actually paid for this ponzii scheme in the first place. The government, through the SS tax, has stolen nearly $100,000 from me and my employer over the years and I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by and let these idiots try to cut me off while they continue to feed the leeches that never paid in a friggin dime.
You're advocating the exact same thing that Obama wants, and yet you think that you are something resembling a conservative.
>I thought I was on DU for awhile.
It’s a shame that economic ignorance isn’t a trait monopolized by the Left.
Even ‘conservatives’ sometimes get the idea that the feds have a big money tree in the back yard they can simply harvest and solve all problems with. Social Security is so hugely in arrears with respect to its financial liabilities that if a private company were running it, ever single officer would be in prison.
Of course Medicare is even worse.
If you believe in the forced redistribution of wealth, then you sure as he@@ aren't a conservative.
What is their definition of “wealthy” and who makes the definition?
Float the retirement age annually as needed to achieve annual break even.
With that, the public can then argue about whether the average Joe should retire 3 months earlier so that wealthy retirees can be denied the benefits they paid for. And we’ll see how near-retirees vote on candidates who defend the SSI disability excesses.
Sarcasm tag aside, what makes anyone think that those who are here now earning cash under the table AND getting free benefits would suddenly want to become indentured under our current system?
If you support the SS program, you support the redistribution of wealth. It's ALWAYS been that, from the day the first tax was levied.
What does that make you?
>Where did I propose limitless spending? I didn’t. I simply said that redistribution of money through the SS system (which is EXACTLY what “means testing does”) is not acceptable. It’s communism, period.
>Let the freeloaders lose the benefits that they NEVER earned before trying to cut off those that actually paid for this ponzii scheme in the first place. The government, through the SS tax, has stolen nearly $100,000 from me and my employer over the years and I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand by and let these idiots try to cut me off while they continue to feed the leeches that never paid in a friggin dime.
>You’re advocating the exact same thing that Obama wants, and yet you think that you are something resembling a conservative.
The problem you have is that your approach is utterly divorced from reality. What you advocate will never happen. It is politically unfeasible.
Much like the Fabian Socialists demonstrated that socialism was only attainable via a gradual approach, you will never ween the middle class (and sadly it seems, some of the upper class) off of entitlements without doing it gradually.
Social security has to be robbed of its political support before there is any chance of ending the ponzi scheme.
You complain that such a change is a wealth transfer scheme. Certainly it is. Then again Social Security is already a wealth transfer scheme, it just does it by burdening future generations rather than contemporary people. You are simply splitting hairs about who gets robbed.
Look, you might as well face facts and accept that your wallet has been picked. Trying to get it back by robbing someone else isn’t exactly a reasonable approach.
Whats laughable is you claiming to be conservative while calling for a massive tax increase.
Is that you Lindsey?
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.