Posted on 01/06/2012 6:38:10 PM PST by DJ MacWoW
KEENE, N.H. (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum called Friday for immediate cuts to Social Security benefits, risking the wrath of older voters and countless others who balk at changes to the entitlement program.
"We can't wait 10 years," even though "everybody wants to," Santorum told a crowd while campaigning in New Hampshire and looking to set himself apart from his Republican rivals four days before the New Hampshire primary.
Most of his opponents have advocated phasing in a reduction and say immediate cuts would be too big a shock to current and soon-to-be retirees.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
You are totally misreading what is happening. The Establishment is having a hard time seating their “it’s his turn” RINO on the GOP thrown. It is all good. The Prols are fighting back.
When government replaced fathers with a paycheck, it destroyed the means of social security that had existed for centuries, extended families taking care of each other, without the need for government assistance.
Amen! Social security is no replacement for families that love one another!
Hope you and your family enjoy the hard work because soon we both will be living of the fruit of today's labor. It won't come from a transfer payment from young to old via the fedgov. God bless and good weather to you.
“Replaced fathers with a paycheck”. I have to remember that
On so many sad levels, too true.
There is another answer to this... The federal government (the ones who stole the cash) owns hundreds of trillions in real estate assets. Liquidate part of it to pay the people what they owe them.
It will probably come to this FRiend. What happens after we no longer have assets? The fundamental problem requires a solution that too few would support. We are addicted to comfort and expect the government to deliver it.
They will keep printing the dollars to fulfill the promise and we will spiral ever downward until everyone is equally poor and dependent on the government.
I have tried to instill into my kids the concept of maximizing wealth for the extended family, and not just of their own individual household.
The goal is to have maximum wealth throughout the entire clan, so we will help the kids buying their first house, because in the long-run, it maximizes the overall wealth by lowering the amount of interest paid on the house. In return, my expectation is that our kids will assist us in our later years, besides by having live-in babysitters for their kids, it cuts down on those costs as well. More families need to start taking this approach, it is quickly becoming an economic necessity.
I fear we are too late. 85% will chose to ride the ship down because they paid the price of the ticket.
I fear we are too late. 85% will chose to ride the ship down because they paid the price of the ticket.
I'm in my late 50’s and dealing with Leukemia, so getting at least one $1500 check before I kick the bucket is just a matter of principle to me. 62 was the minimum magic number that my Oncologist gave me when I was diagnosed, though I'm hoping to hit the outside number of 67 before I check out.
I have no hope of getting a fraction of the money that was “invested” by the Gubmint during my last 40 years of labor, but I continue to work and contribute like my fellow Comrades in Obamaville.
After all, it was Queen Moochelle who famously said that Barack expected us to work. Just doing my part for the Dear Leader and his legacy doncha know.
There is a concept in financial accounting called “Sunk Cost”, so many times bad projects happen because the rationale is that we’ve already sunk so much money into this project, when in fact, when deciding whether or not to continue the project, one should not factor in at all those costs that are already “sunk.” The only thing which should be considered are the future costs.
lol, it is far easier.
Just look at how much hemming and hawing occur, when a Republican merely suggests reducing the rate of spending increases, which liberals would refer to as a "spending cut."
Too bad LBJ didn't think the way you do. We would have been a better Country for it.
That's funny, my Mom still gets her check every month. If she didn't that would be it for both of us.
God Bless you FRiend. We are all born terminal and I hope you live out the rest of your days with your chin held high and an eye on what comes after!
Sorry to hear about your diagnosis, Kickass Conservative. Regardless of the conversation on this thread, I am hoping you have many years before you check out.
LBJ knew exactly what he was doing, the liberals knew breaking up the traditional nuclear family would increase their power.
“The Social Security “Lockbox” is a figment of the imagination, like Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny.”
It wasn’t until Newt dreamed up the idea of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the budget under President Clinton, unfortunately.
Equally disappointing is the fact that Santorum voted to raid the fund again in April of 2000 to pay down the debt.
That would be “throne”, central!
And Establishment or not, I believe that it’s going to be Mittens.
The Romney folks/media/Demorats/other Republicans/pundits..whomever.. have done an effective job of instilling in people’s minds the idea that only he can defeat Bam and that he is going to win the presidency with the independents/moderates votes.
Even El Rushbo seems to be off his game lately and out of sorts.
I think it’s because he is worried that:
A. He might be wrong about Hussein being 100% defeatable.
B. A core conservative, having the best chance to beat him, will not be his opponent this time around.
If Romney wins, we can hope that he picks a Conservative VP and appoints Conservative justices during his first term. SIGH.
Otherwise, these next two debates are irrelevant.
And the drones aren’t watching anyway.
Pray for our Republic.
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.