Posted on 06/08/2015 1:58:26 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sen. Ted Cruz outlined how he would fix Social Security, striking a balance between candidates who propose immediate cuts and those who wish to leave it mostly in place.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Cruz said he’d keep benefits the same for seniors and those close to retirement in a June 4 interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. For everyone else, he’d propose gradually increasing the retirement age, limiting the increase in benefits to the inflation rate and allowing workers to keep some of their tax payment in a private account.
Cruz makes strong impression on conservative non-profit
The Council for National Policy–a secretive, conservative non-profit focused on legislative initiatives and political strategy–is looking to unite behind one conservative candidate in 2016. Cruz might be their guy, according to National Journal.
While other candidates gave stump speeches at May CNP meeting near Washington, D.C., Cruz pitched himself as a true conservative who could unite the movement behind him and capture the Republican nomination. Even employees of other 2016 hopefuls were impressed by Cruz: one gave his speech a 14 on a 10-point scale....
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Again, that money is gone. It was stolen and spent, all based on a an unconstitutional, socialist lie.
And now the only way you can get what you think you're entitled to is to lie to, and steal from, our children and grandchildren.
How can you justify victimizing them? Because you were victimized?
Would you use such rationalizations in any other area of your life?
Is that expectation rational, reasonable, constitutional, or moral?
Frankly, no. The system was set up as Social "Security" originally. It was to prevent those slipping into poverty some net to stay alive with. It has been morphed into a "retirement plan". And, even then, the very rich get their "investment" back in the first few years. I have no problem with a return of the tax, but to enrich the rich more ON THE BACK OF THE TAXPAYER seems to me to be communist. The proletariat and the boujeous (sp). Why is it so distasteful to say, if you make $ 500K per year from all other sources, you no longer need the $ 30K of SS?
Agreed. But, around here apparently if they pay in anything (even under a false SSN), it is not "conservative" if we don't give them benefits. I say phooey.
I don't care how much the guy is worth, if he paid, and he WAS FORCED TO DO SO, he is supposed to get it back.
Does it really matter if the guy will use it to pay greens fees, or pass it along to his family, or whatever he wants to do with it?
I don't care how much the guy is worth, if he paid, and he WAS FORCED TO DO SO, he is supposed to get it back.
Does it really matter if the guy will use it to pay greens fees, or pass it along to his family, or whatever he wants to do with it?
I don't care how much the guy is worth, if he paid, and he WAS FORCED TO DO SO, he is supposed to get it back."
Keep up here, kid. I said that getting it back was no problem...that happened 15 years ago. He is getting payments that EXCEED by hundreds of thousands what he paid in!
“...Why is it so distasteful to say, if you make $ 500K per year from all other sources, you no longer need the $ 30K of SS?”
*******************************************************************************************************
I guess it’s a slippery slope you’re on. Start as a GOPe RINO advocate and then gradually slip into a “the State and its bureaucrats will determine what a person needs and then confiscate needed resources in excess of that need”. That’s the reason it’s called PROGRESSISM.
Then you vote for the Donald getting Social Security while your grandmother dies of hunger. I get it...you are a true conservative.
"True conservatives" don't believe in taking money from producers at the barrel of a gun and giving it to those who didn't do anything to earn it. Maybe you're confusing "true conservatives" and "socialists."
No confusion here...I just understand that you want the man to get MORE than he put in by a factor of 10. Perhaps you are confusing fairness with rape.
Why is it so distasteful to say, if you make $ 500K per year from all other sources, you no longer need the $ 30K of SS?
So do you want means testing, or do you just want a lifetime limit on Social Security benefits, based on how much was "contributed?"
Means testing would limit the benefits to the return of your contributions.
Would this limit apply to everyone, and, if not, then why not?
Like who?
Those with incomes in excess of, say, $ 500K would be limited to a recovery of their contributions. We have dozens of these kind of “limiters” in the tax system right now. Why would this be so onerous? If you make over $ 427K you cannot take any personal exemptions. Why is this fair? If you make over $ 305K, you begin to lose your itemized deductions. Why is this fair? Either eliminate all of these “limiters” or let’s use the concept to rescue SS.
So you’re a socialist who believes in taking money from producers and giving it to the undeserving. Thanks for clearing that up for the forum.
Hundreds of thousands more than he put in? It's. Not. Possible.
The big problem here appears to be your sense of envy, not his getting back more than he earned.
And for the record, you have a wrong version of the supposed reasoning behind SS in the first place. SS was never supposed to be anything but a help in retirement, a help to all, not just the poor.
Whatever he put in (undoubtedly far more than you), it was taken from him like it was from you or I. I would have much rather NOT taken SS out and used that money towards my business and investments. Likely your neighbor too. If your neighbor was so good at making money, there is no doubt he would have taken the money confiscated and made far more than he gets in SS.
Then you vote for the Donald getting Social Security while your grandmother dies of hunger. I get it...you are a true conservative.
******************************************************************************************************
Well, in our family we have this queer idea that we take care of our family members and we certainly don’t let them starve. But I guess that in YOUR family you let the grandmothers who (for whatever reason) are hungry and can’t get food die of starvation UNLESS YOU CAN FORCE SOME “RICH” FOLKS TO FEED THEM.
I wouldn’t want to be a dependent member of your family when the statists RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.
“Means testing would limit the benefits to the return of your contributions.”
****************************************************************************************************
Jeez, the more you “talk”...the more it becomes apparent that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Folks with lower average income receive Social Security “replacement” benefits (as a percentage of their average income) much higher than the replacement percentage received by higher earners. It has gotten to the point that many lower income workers will have received benefits greater than their lifetime contributions within a short time (two years or even much earlier). And many workers with higher income will NEVER get their total contributions back.
See this linked site.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/piaformula.html
Extract:
“...PIA formula
For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2015, or who dies in 2015 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of:
(a) 90 percent of the first $826 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus
(b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $826 and through $4,980, plus
(c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,980.
We round this amount to the next lower multiple of $.10 if it is not already a multiple of $.10....”
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.