I don’t consider social security welfare an entitlement for those who paid into it. But many people didn’t from the poorest to the richest. The government used the contributions of those who paid into the general fund to wage wars, build roads, run the country and fund tax cuts. It was used to run the country just as income tax and now that the surplus is no longer contributing to the general fund they want to cut it. BS.
Those who live off investment income may have never never paid a dime into it, yet they were subsidized and benefited from social security. Why should a person who works at Wal-Mart be required to subsidize a billionaire hedge fund manager? The surplus should have been lockboxed for recipients. The fund would likely be solvent forever if that was the case.
But before they start cutting into social security we need to take care of the USA and ALL giveaways to other nations and start charging countries for our worldwide defense.
Correction: We need to start taking care of the USA first and END all giveaways to other nations, and start charging for the protection that our defense forces provide. Too many nations have lived fat and happy off our dole for too long
Excellent points. I think a lot of the outrage on this thread is due to SS benefits being discussed as the first step in reducing the deficit.
Why not start with all the "drops in the bucket" that could well total over $100 billion per year?
Go after illegals, cull the welfare rolls, quit subsidizing pet projects, no more foreign aid, no more foreign bases, etc...
Does anyone really think that Graham (or any other politician) will make the rest of the cuts necessary to get spending under control after they lower SS costs? HECK NO! They'll call the money saved a "surplus" and spend it on something else. Anyone who believes different hasn't been paying attention to how our government works.