Posted on 01/02/2011 10:24:47 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Seniors should be older before the receive Social Security and wealthy Americans should receive less benefits across the board, says Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
He made the argument in an interview on Sunday's Meet the Press, but it's a position Graham has advocated for on the stump in South Carolina, including a 2009 stop at The Citadel with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
"What I'm going to do is challenge this country to make some hard decisions," Graham said at the time, telling the crowd of cadets, Tea Partiers, and Graham supporters that they shouldn't give Congress a pass on the tough stuff.
(Excerpt) Read more at charlestoncitypaper.com ...
The real value of the so-called "Trust Fund" is $0.
You are using sematics to avoid the point.
A person is owned a real value, based on the amount of money they were forced to put in.
As I said...
1.) Stop FICA collection.
2.)Cash everybody out based on real value and not the ponzi scheme value.
3.)Make everyone, across the board, pay for the ponzi scheme shortfall.
Anything else is a Marxist redistribution of wealth.
How about just ending an unsustainable ponzi scheme and send its supporters to jail just like Madoff
So I am seriously convinced Little Lindseypoo is tired of being a Senator, and wants to be fired.
>It should be allowed to collapse entirely then, than continue in a manner thats ‘politically tenable’.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about in the event of such a collapse? We’re talking the collapse of the U.S. currency because I can guarantee the politicians will go for hyper inflation before they allow the system to collapse naturally.
That hyperinflation will destroy everyone’s savings and the economy on top of it. You better have an off the grid farmhouse in the middle of nowhere very well stocked in ammo and food if you are advocating allowing Social Security to go under. Otherwise you are suicidal.
>Why would a conservative advocate continuing it in a manner that even more closely resembles another entitlement program for the needy?
Because only by transforming it into what it really is (a welfare program) can it finally be shown to be a bad idea and killed. There is simply too much political and social inertia here for the program to just be stopped. It has to be slowed, and diverted first. Then eventually it might be able to be stopped.
We’ve already been screwed when the Left managed to demagogue away the option of privatization. In spite of the fact that Chile pulled off such a switch perfectly, it appears to be off the table here now.
That’s pretty sad that the supposed world leader in freedom and free markets got shown up and a small Latin American country.
A reasonable historian some time in the future is likely to lament Bush’s bravest act and greatest failure as being his attempt to privatize social security and failing. He spent a lot of political capital on that and the GOP congress got gutless and ran.
But enjoy it whilst you may....in the New World Order, there will be no more "wealthy seniors" to cut down to size by fiat, no more "wealthy corporations and executives", no more "wealthy small business people" and, certainly, no more "wealthy heirs" who "never do anything to earn their benefactors' munificence" (even if they built up the family business).
Zeroing in on aging "wealthy seniors" is just the start.
In other words, no more "wealthy" sinners and their capital to invest in corporation stocks, to have adequate monetary backup to practice small business entrepeneurship, or to reach secure positions to be able to provide jobs for the masses....or to just support business and the economy in general by eating out, travelling and buying gifts, as "wealthy seniors" are wont to do.
The massively-wealthy government will then continue to practice "means-testing" on select segments of the enslaved population, and no one will dare or care to rise above the regularly-tested pack to become more "wealthy".....ever.
Leni
I agree wholeheartedly. And I support any feasible action that will reduce this redistribution. Hell, I've paid the maximum FICA tax for over 25years and would have been FAR better off if I had that money to invest as I saw fit. However, leftists and RINOs perpetuated this system under the guise that whomever pays in is entitled to receive "their" money back.
As I've said a couple of times on this thread, it's the big lie.
Expecting that ANY welfare program can be killed is no more realistic than hoping SS collapses.
Either way we're screwed.
At least my way I go down with the ship values intact.
>All ponzi schemes aren’t forced government ponzi schemes. Again, people deserve the same value out of social security as they put into it. Anything else is just theft and that’s what you advocate.
The only difference between Social Security and welfare is the means testing of the recipients and flowery BS about there being a lockbox. If you actually believe that Social Security was, is, or ever will be an actual investment, I have a number of bridges to sell you.
>No, I want them to go into your personal bank account to prevent our economy from being taken down.
Yes, theft from me instead of theft from youth. Brilliant moral ground you’re standing on there.
Why reduce them?
They contributed just like everyone else.
This is government theft aka just another day in Obamaland.
We’ve paid into Social security all our lives. If Congress hadn’t used Social Security as a giant slush fund, there would be enough money.
So seniors who also saved are going to be penalized.
Why don’t we penalized the union and government pensions too. They are going to have a lot more in retirement and can retire much earlier than the rest of us. But the government isn’t going to touch these pensions.
Hey, Graham why don’t you offer to give up your pension.
Fine. Just let us opt out of the SS Ponzi scheme.
"What I'm going to do is challenge this country to make some hard decisions," Graham said at the time..
And Senator Graham, I challenge YOU to 'make a hard decision'..
Come Out Of The Closet!
If you want to put and a dress and dance the Foxtrot with 'Bruce' all night long fine, but then be honest about it twinkle toes.
[whiny little %$#&*%ing queen!]
>In the New World order you, Mr. Buzzard, will be the ultimate decider.....the Means-Testing Czar.
Yeah, I’m surely the man of mighty political connections and arbiter of all that is fair.
I mean it’s already clear that you are delusional since you actually think we can continue business as usual with respect to Social Security, you might as well ascribe fantasy properties to those you argue with.
>But enjoy it whilst you may....in the New World Order, there will be no more “wealthy seniors” to cut down to size by fiat, no more “wealthy corporations and executives”, no more “wealthy small business people” and, certainly, no more “wealthy heirs” who “never do anything to earn their benefactors’ munificence” (even if they built up the family business).
Look, I know it’s hard to believe that the money tree isn’t sitting out back of Congress, but it’s not. The collective belief in that money tree has held out too long already.
>Zeroing in on aging “wealthy seniors” is just the start.
Cutting off government benefits to those who don’t need them is a start of trying to prevent and economic train wreck.
Your position is waiting asleep at the switch and hoping it’s all just a nightmare.
>In other words, no more “wealthy” sinners and their capital to invest in corporation stocks, to have adequate monetary backup to practice small business entrepeneurship, or to reach secure positions to be able to provide jobs for the masses....or to just support business and the economy in general by eating out, travelling and buying gifts, as “wealthy seniors” are wont to do.
You are really just going out there.
From the Social Security Administration:
The maximum benefit depends on the age a worker chooses to retire. For a worker retiring at age 66 in 2010, the amount is $2,346. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.
That comes to $28K per year.
Oh yeah, that $28K in income is going to be starting up huge businesses and transforming the economy. Hogwash.
>The massively-wealthy government will then continue to practice “means-testing” on select segments of the enslaved population, and no one will dare or care to rise above the regularly-tested pack to become more “wealthy”.....ever.
The government isn’t ‘massively-wealthy’ you genius. It’s dead bloody broke. Isn’t that clear to people? How much of a bloody national debt do we need before it becomes apparent to you? The government is broke. We either cut or we end up in Rawanda level hyperinflation and you don’t even want to think about that.
That is the answer. GenX is going to have to be the bridge between generations that receive SS and the ones that don't. Those born in 1969 or earlier get SS, those born in 1970 or later don't. There is still plenty of time for a 40 year old to save enough for retirement, even with the SS taxes taken out. But there should be a reward for doing so. Like their 401K should be made tax free on the back end as well as the front. That would be fair.
Anyone entering the workforce now shouldn't have any SS taxes taken out.They have no hope of getting it anyway, so why make them pay for it?
If we conservatives expect to be taken seriously, we need to encourage the tough choices that are necessary to make the government solvent.
One of these is means-testing Social Security and Medicare. It has been known for some time that this is necessary, but Democrats have resisted it, because they fear a reduction in political support for the program if it is not universal. In addition, they've used it to demagogue against conservatives.
There is no option. Either these programs are means-tested, or the whole pyramid scheme will soon come crashing down.
You are accepting the false premise that these programs were deposit-based savings programs. They never were. They have been welfare programs from day one, and the "deposits" have always been taxes.
The wealthy pay the most into the social security system. They get the least percentage of wages out of the system and now the liberals want to take all of it away. If they accomplish that then the time to start shooting has arrived. Remember Social Security was supposed to be insurance but has become part welfare. We need to defeat this POS.
>Expecting that ANY welfare program can be killed is no more realistic than hoping SS collapses.
They pulled off a major overhaul of welfare back in the 90s under a Democratic president. That proves you are utterly wrong. Welfare is not popular, and nobody likes subsidizing freeloaders. Social Security lives on in its hallowed state because it is still seen as a universal social insurance (which it is not, it’s a ponzi scheme, which means welfare for the present paid for by the future).
>Either way we’re screwed.
We can keep going as we are and be guaranteed to be screwed or we can try and stop the train wreck. Complaining about not getting money which you think you have a right to, yet doesn’t bloody exists doesn’t really put you on the solutions side of the equation.
>At least my way I go down with the ship values intact.
Yes, you can die along with the economy and nation feeling good about yourself. Wonderful.
Thank You South Carolina,
Ya Rubes.
Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable and we must find ways to fix the problems. Some headway could be made through a general reduction in the size of government and the selling of federal assets to pay current and future liabilities in both systems. Incoming Social Security receipts must be protected for future recipients instead of being stolen to pay for other government projects.
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.