>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.
I'm OK with that. But, what I don't like is that I'm the only one that has to live with the consequences.
I've made a lot of sacrifices over the past 30 years to invest in IRA's, 401(k)'s, and taxable investments to be sure that I can retire at a standard of living somewhere close to what I have now.
My neighbor earned approximately the same salary all this time, but he blew everything on new cars, boats, vacations, etc. He doesn't have anything left except a few hundred in his checking account.
Graham is essentially advocating that I should get shafted so that my neighbor can get his full benefit. I've been the responsible one, and I'm the one be penalized. That's wrong, no matter how you slice it.
You want to reduce Social Security's obligations? Fine. Do it across the board. Current projections are that existing taxes will only fund about 75% of legislated benefits after about 2040. Start reducing benefits for EVERYONE now, year by year until it meets that milestone. Keep going and reduce it to zero, while simultaneously ramping up a fully-funded private alternative.
But, targeting a specific group of people without sufficient political power to stop it is class warfare.