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
>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.
This is clear proof of you being delusional. I mean you are just plain off the deep end. I do not ascribe to class envy, and if you actually read what I posted, it would be clear. The fact is Social Security is bust, and a means of weakening its political support is necessary. Reducing it to purely a welfare system by removing the political cover it gets by being ‘universal’ is necessary.
Advocating a way to keep the system from going broke is not the same as class envy.
The fact that you say something as dumb as :
>Vote the bastards out is the answer to these SS and other economic problems, not penalizing producers, savers and investors.
Shows you have no grasp whatsoever of the situation. We’re broke. Things have to be cut. Firing politicians doesn’t change the fact that hard decisions on cuts have to be made. Sure, make it a across the board cut of entitlements. I’m OK with that. It’s less likely to fly, but sure, give it a shot. I don’t care what the direct means are as long as the entitlements are reigned in. You, however, don’t seem to grasp what is actually important, or how dire the situation actually is.