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 ...
It is not relevent what the thief did with the stolen property - he still owes restitution. He owes the victim enough to make the victim "whole".
>A more suitable tagline for you would be “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Karl Marx”
Yes, that’s a well reasoned debate, anyone who’s not OK with the current train wreck is a communist.
Surely you’ll go far.
Good to see we agree on something. After all the tit-suckers are weaned off, come back and then we'll talk about SS reductions.
“Cut benefits for those who can afford it”
Another socialist heard from!
“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
“it seems that many just don’t want to face economic reality and truly reform government and its budget.”
BS. We want EQUAL treatment for all. Just like our founding documents enunciated. And you know it. But this marxist twisting of the facts and laying out absolute lies as arguments is very unbecoming from alot of people on this thread.
>It is not relevent what the thief did with the stolen property - he still owes restitution. He owes the victim enough to make the victim “whole”.
Ok, then you better get a clue as to who this ‘thief’ really is. It’s Granny. It’s every recipient who pulled out more than they put in. It’s every politician who spent money that wasn’t on the income part of the ledger.
I hate to break it to you but plenty of the above people are dead already, and what few remain don’t have to money to pay off what you are claiming.
As such you want current and future taxpayers to pay off for this theft. This is like asking your neighbor to make restitution because the guy who robbed your house died in a car wreck.
It’s funny that when many conservatives are discussing taxes they remember that “it’s not the government’s money, it’s the people’s money”, but when it come’s to the government shelling it out for Social Security, they somehow forget where all that money comes from.
Why not cut everyone’s Social Security benefits equally and balance the budget?
Not so. It’s a solution if one is a Marxist.
“I do concede that a simple across-the-board reduction in benefits in SS, along with an increase in the retirement age and the elimination of non-retirees would accomplish the same reduction in expenditures.
Means testing should occur after the above.”
As I move through this thread, I now see that you are moving the goalposts.
I would be MUCH more in agreement with THIS concept than trying to play “rich vs. poor” with your approval of means testing.
Maybe as I continue down the thread you will have come full circle to actually being a conservative. Miracles do happen.
>Why not cut everyone’s Social Security benefits equally and balance the budget?
I’ve been over this before. I don’t have any huge beef with that other than the fact that it preserves the fiction that Social Security is something other then Welfare.
I want people to understand the Ponzi Welfare Scheme for what it is.
We’ll see if that’s not correct.
My understanding is physicians will not be able to perform a test or procedure on patients who do not meet certain criteria, e.g., age. If they do the test anyway and the patient pays for it the physician will risk prison.
>Not so. It’s a solution if one is a Marxist.
I love the people defending the status quo on a government wealth re-distribution scheme calling other people Marxists. That’s just rich.
>Not so. It’s a solution if one is a Marxist.
I love the people defending the status quo on a government wealth re-distribution scheme calling other people Marxists. That’s just rich.
Hey, troll. Having fun?
Says who? You?
“I’m fortunate to be a member of this forum and to have had this opportunity to refine my thinking...as a result of your arguments and those of others.
However, we MUST reduce expenditures in SS/Medicare going forward.
Can we obtain conservative consensus in an across-the-board reduction in benefits, increase of the retirement age and the elimination of non-retirees? “
Well looky here! A miracle indeed! It’s too bad, though, that your FIRST inclination was to denigrate every conservative principle and people espousing them while you vomited those marxist ideals.
With THIS post, I agree. Kudos on THIS post for your staying open minded and realizing the error of your previous ways.
>Hey, troll. Having fun?
So anyone who disagrees with you is a troll? Nice argument technique there.
BTW sorry about the double post. Doesn’t change the validity of it.
You’re the one defending wealth distribution. Taking SS away from the people who have paid the most into it and giving it to the people who have paid the least into it.
I still believe those of you how are supporting this position either already have their SS and know it won’t be taken away from them, or don’t believe they’ll be included as part of the “wealthy”.
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.