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 ...
Now I can't help myself and I will make everyone's head explode. I agree with you that taxes should not be means tested, but expenditures should. Argue all you want, Social Security is simply another government expenditure.
The flip side of the expenditure problem is the revenue problem - Taxes. I agree taxes should not be means tested. The problem will require that the poor and the middle class start paying their fair share in taxes! Now to keep the economy humming the corporate taxes (including pass through taxes) need to be significantly reduced. Simply put, there needs to be an increase in individuals taxes with a big reduction in business taxes.
Flame away but economics is what it is. Everyone needs to accept the pain of both cuts and increased taxes or the market will take care of it for us - the market is ruthless!
That would be true only for the most unusual definition of the "middle class" that I ever came across.
I consider myself to be in that middle class; I go to work every day, and I get paid reasonably well for that. I don't subsist on govermnent handouts, but I also don't own factories and stores. The middle class, by definition, pays for its own expenses (save, maybe, an occasional emergency.)
I'm paying all kinds of taxes, but I'm not seeing any of that money back from the government, except what is equally distributed through the infrastructure and the common defense, etc. So I'm not quite sure why middle class people like myself would be "draining the coffers of the government". I'm *paying* for that government.
If you ask me, it's not difficult to spot those who indeed drain the coffers. Those are the people who receive checks from the government. Reasons for that vary, and I don't want to paint them all with a wide brush, but social programs report an incredible financial burden that they carry, and if you look inside you will find a guy or two or a few million who draw disproportionally from that piggy bank. And they are not in the middle class, that's for sure.
D’OH!!! More taxes!! Why didn’t I think of that?!?!
Goldwater and Thurmond did conservatives a great dis-service when they endorsed McPain and Grahamnesty as their successors. People in AZ and SC can’t learn.
You seem to think that you can escape the consequences of the years of malfeasance in Washington! You sound exactly like employees who can't understand why they were cut from an organization even though they were productive and contributed positively to the bottom line.
It simply does not matter, you are part of America and we will all pay the price for failing to address this problem 10 or more years ago!
In other news, banks will stop paying interest on deposits because, they say, "if you have money to earn interest on then you don't need those meager 0.5% anyway." That goes, of course, for other investments too. I think North Korea is the leader in this progressive trend, and it's not yet too late for the USA to catch up.
What do you mean, 'we' paleface? You say that like the producers are part of the problem. There may be some hurt coming down, but I damn sure intend for the other side to do the hurting first.
The bigger problem is that there are many people who cannot see the forest through the trees! For your sake, I hope you are elderly and will not live long enough to see the consequences of not taking the necessary steps to correct the deficit spending. My friend, believe me when I tell you the market is ruthless!
If you leave it up to the market to solve the problem it will.
Ronald Reagan, comments on Social Security, 27 October 1964, excerpted from "A Time for Choosing".
They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?
At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.
Didn't take you very long to get around to the Death Panel solution, did it? A cynic might suspect that a veteran FReeper of three months seniority might just be another troll from the other side.
Yes, the other side always advocates cutting both spending and corporate taxes - LOL!
Let's simplify for you....
The government collected only 56% in taxes for what it spent in 2010. The 44% is a big problem, but it is much worse considering the boomers are going to retire and expenditures will go through the roof. Let's estimate that at current rates the imbalance will be 65%. There are only three areas that can correct this imbalance:
1) Spending cuts
2) Economic growth
3) Increased tax rates
I ask, what do you think the solution is? Please use some numbers as it needs to correct a 65% revenue/spending imbalance!
No 1 and No 2. No 3 is not negotiable.
And lets put eugenics back in play since you think Death Panels are useful. Might as well start at the other end and prevent miscreants from breeding more of the same, since ‘useless eaters’ are now expendable.
Could you please provide some specifics as how to make up the 65% revenue/spending imbalance?
________________________________________________
Come to think of it, that is right. So many problems could be solved if Dad had just pulled out or not gone there in the first place.
At the risk of sounding simplistic, use the Ben Franklin approach of “watch the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves.”
Off to bed now - enjoyed the debate.
I have enjoyed our discussion but I am disappointed in the outcome. Until people understand the magnitude of the problem, they cannot correct. I would like to discuss solutions but these are easy to demagogue unless you understand the scope of the problem. You, and posters who agree with your point of view, need to research the real numbers. Then those of us who are discussing possible solutions will not seem so off base.
Anyways, I wish you well. Have a goodnight!
I have enjoyed our discussion but I am disappointed in the outcome. Until people understand the magnitude of the problem, they cannot correct. I would like to discuss solutions but these are easy to demagogue unless you understand the scope of the problem. You, and posters who agree with your point of view, need to research the real numbers. Then those of us who are discussing possible solutions will not seem so off base.
Anyways, I wish you well. Have a goodnight!
The reasoning behind your stick-it-to-the-"rich" ideology becomes clear....
Oh, I have plenty of money. Would you like to accuse me of advocating for sticking it to the middle class now?
The “rich” already pay FICA taxes on income of $102,000 which amounts to $500 a month...
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.