First, the Tea Party will fire treasonous bastards like you and your BFF!
FULG! FUJM!
Upping the retirement age is certainly a start. That is necessary and would go a long way towards making the federal Ponzi scheme solvent.
Means-testing benefits would also increase solvency. After all, paying out less in benefits is better for the bottom line. However, it then becomes even more Marxist than it already is - it will explicitly be taking from those who are productive and handing it to those who aren’t. It’s already essentially welfare, though, so I’m not sure it’s much of a change.
I think it ironic that these asshats of the Leftist perspectives such as Graham project ideology that could work only if we had a decent economy, which means we have in place everything they have fought for years to take away from us.
They only have themselves to blame for the situation today.
Wrong answer; very wrong, as usual for Graham. They should delay the retirement age equally across the board, eventually, but they should not change it for anyone over 50 since those people are too close to benefiting from the promise we made. As for benefits for the wealthy, for those who paid the most and were promised a proportionate amount in return, Graham is an idiot. Class warfare is morally wrong and won’t even have the questionable virtue of getting him re-elected. Given a choice between a RINO and a true socialist, the Dems in his state will vote for a socialist while any decent American will choose a third-party candidate rather than vote for this thief.
How about we reduce employment opportunities for Lindsay Graham. Benefits should be based SOLELY on the amount a person has paid in over their lifetime. Anything else is pure theft, plain and simple.
I am all for it, if it starts with the rich Senators themselves. Let’s tax 90% of their income while they are still working, 100% especially after they retire.
And what exactly constitutes “wealthy” you pompous RINO!! It’s simply unbelievable to me how a state can continuously vote idiots like this into office!
I think the age for getting Social Security should go up. When it was first established, people who were 65 were in pretty poor shape, compared to now. Should we really be making payments for people who are going to live another 30 years? Shouldn’t we look at winding down slowly on retirement, with part-time or seasonal work, as long as people are able? With fewer young people around to pay into social security, this is a reasonable adjustment.
Or, we could grant amnesty to a bunch of illegal aliens and have them support the system. /s
I’m dying to hear who Graham thinks is wealthy.
$30k a year is going to be top drawer with these people.
What’s wealthy where Graham is from, is not here on Long Island.
|
Reduce benefits for Senators. And fire at least half their staffs.
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.
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.
Going to have to happen. One way or another. No sense paying welfare to people who don’t need it.
First lets reduce benefits for wealthy government employees and office holders.
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.
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?