Posted on 08/29/2015 7:34:15 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Republican presidential candidates. who have had to seek contributions from a handful of wealthy contributors, want to cut Social Security. Average Americans love the program; the superwealthy don’t.
Something strange is happening in the Republican primary — something strange, that is, besides the Trump phenomenon. For some reason, just about all the leading candidates other than The Donald have taken a deeply unpopular position, a known political loser, on a major domestic policy issue. And it’s interesting to ask why. The issue in question is the future of Social Security, which turned 80 last week. The retirement program is, of course, both extremely popular and a long-term target of conservatives, who want to kill it precisely because its popularity helps legitimize government action in general. As the right-wing activist Stephen Moore (now chief economist of the Heritage Foundation) once declared, Social Security is “the soft underbelly of the welfare state”; “jab your spear through that” and you can undermine the whole thing. But that was a decade ago, during former President George W. Bush’s attempt to privatize the program, and what Bush learned was that the underbelly wasn’t that soft after all. Despite the political momentum from the GOP’s victory in the 2004 election, despite support from much of the media establishment, the assault on Social Security crashed and burned. Voters, it turns out, like Social Security as it is and don’t want it cut.
(Excerpt) Read more at mysanantonio.com ...
I would like to agree with your analogy...but I just can’t.
One crime is perpetrated by a criminal. The other is by our government.
On second thought...let me think about that for a minute.
At it's core it is an unsustainable Ponzi scheme. Shut it down.
I think you are correct re: means testing. I believe that is already done for Medicare.
I will add...I disagree with it. If a person, no matter how wealthy, pays into SS...they are entitled to the benefit. Otherwise...it is just more wealth distribution.
I fully expect that if I ever retire, there will be no money to pay me any SS benetits. Everyone would be best serving theirseoves if they accepted that reality that the government ripped them off and “their” money is gone.
Thank you. Didn’t know that. I do know that when John Cornyn retires - if we are ever fortunate enough to see him do so - he has accumulated retirement funds from at least three different state and federal government jobs he has had. He currently collects from at least one of them in addition to his salary as Senator. Double dipping should not be allowed, particularly when they are paid out of taxpayer funds.
Let's be honest.
It's theft.
“The program ran a surplus for decades, but they spent the money instead of saving it in a Social Security trust account.”
The government can’t just put surplus SS funds in a ‘trust account’ without having the economy slow down. It’s a macroeconomic effect, like anything else that decreases the quantity or velocity of money in the economy.
The gov’t either has to reduce the SS tax rate to get rid of the surplus (which it used to do) or loan that excess money to another part of the government that will spend it. But piling up money in a segregated account won’t work.
Well said.
Congratulations for saving for your retirement instead of spending it on hard assets, i.e., something where more effort than a Power Shell script is needed to erase your wealth.
And suddenly we see why government employees will fight to the death for their pensions: they don't participate in Social Security.
But they'll be more than happy to elect politicians who will means-test SS.
Democrats love to put forward lies as truth. And Big Media reports the Dem lies as truth and then they are repeated as truth. The Republicans need to get a handle on this or the R brand is dead.
Means testing against your IRA/401(k) balances are in the cards. Congratulations for saving for your retirement instead of spending it on hard assets
*******************************************************************
I believe you are right, that’s why a few months ago I started doing something about it on a personal level. I’m not comfortable talking about exactly what I’m doing but I’m doing my best to hide assets in the safest and most legal way possible.
I didn’t work hard all my working life saving and investing to have any of my money redistributed in another gov scheme, in addition to the ones that already exist.
Plus I paid income taxes on the money I put in in later years, and then have to pay income taxes on the same money again when it is returned to me.
*********************************************************************
Same boat I’m in. I already have 10% withheld from my s.s. check for taxes and I’m going to have to increase that amount. That’s in addition to withholding from other sources.
Paying taxes on s.s. received after paying in for decades through F.I.C.A. taxes is just plain wrong and now through “means testing” they want to cut what small per centage of it I’m getting back. The whole system sucks.
The “surplus” was always a fiction. It was always tax and spend. There never was any “investment” other than empty government promises.
********************************************************************
If only we had elected Gore, it would be safely tucked away in a lock box right now.
If it’s privatized it’s no longer Social Security. It’s savings. lol
Either way the system is a fraud and it’s very expensive. Take a look at the budget for the SSA. And those pencil pushing morons will get half pay or so, plus healthcare, as long as they live with no vestment after 18-20 years or so.
Exactly. The bureaucracy is worse than the mob. I bet the mob would skim less off the top and run the agencies better.
Mostly because of free trade.
Good luck explaining any of this to the "where's MY moneyGuess what dipshit it is my money. I don't and didn't have any control on what or who they spent it on anymore than you.
They sucked it out of my hand and I had no choice. So don't get all holier than thou blaming me for your woes. I paid against my wishes, THEY spent it somewhere else...It's still MY money dimwit.
Bush NEVER wanted to "privatize" social security.
All he asked for was that young workers would have the *opportunity* to CHOOSE to have 2% invested in the stock market, or bonds or whatever.
OR take their chances that SS would be there when they retire.
The idiots in the media scared the holy hell out of seniors by portraying this as "stealing" SS checks.
It would have done nothing of the sort. In fact, it would have been a boon to younger workers, while leaving older folks with their precious checks.
I was going to write something similar but you beat me to it. Good post.
I like to call The New Deal, The RAW Deal!
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.