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 ...
Well, with that nonsensical argument, everything other than the money in your hands is gone. Gee, I hope you don’t put money in a bank. There is an accounting somewhere, sufficient to issue an IOU, as there is to send you a bank statement once a month. Sure it is not in a “Social Security fund” per se because that money has been subsumed into the general fund.
On another point, however, the SS was setup such that even though peeps may have input 100K$, actuarially, they likely will not get it all out. So the statements put forth here of getting out what was put in is also nonsense.
Drop the means testing and I might agree; otherwise, everyone feels the pain, or noone.
And the other 32 percent didn't.
“I’m dismayed to see that so many of FR seem to buy into the myth that they’ve “paid into” an account that they’re now owed money from.”
Oh, ok, so although you pay local taxes (e.g., property), I guess you would not expect any return on that as well? Roads, schools, local, regional, state administration... That money is gone, too, once it leaves your hands. Come on people.
“Why not eliminate these programs and leave it to the states to replace them if they should choose to do so?”
Because then you end up with situations like CA, and NY. It must be mandated a higher level.
I agree, but I am not sure Mariner actually believes that.
BUMP, Peter Schiff put it very similarly. Unpaid-for Prescription drugs for seniors is another great example(and helped Bush win Florida in 2004), How's that fit into ‘the promise’to seniors??? How about a promise to taxpayers and bondholders ?
I will say that if Republicans let Obama guide them into a compromise cutting SS to pay for Obama’s spending (which he protects) then they will get what they deserve, the door! Cutting these entitlements better be lower on the list.
“There are no deposits. There is no “trust fund.” You have no “account.” You did not “pay in.””
Just plain silly.
There is that word again - rich, and other variations like wealthy to somehow poison what many of us have dumped into the system. We are debating socialist trolls like you over this subject. The goal is not to give up, but to correct the system by other means, as mentioned above.
“...10 or more years ago...”
There it is abb, a liberal troll. It’s Bush’s fault.
Why must the Federal Government operate a Social Security system? It's not at all clear what you're claiming there.
“COULD EVERYONE HERE WHO IS AGAINST CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY SPENDING PLEASE CHECK OUT THE FOLLOWING SITE”
You are now distorting the debate. The predominant arguments are against means testing the so called “rich”. Most here agree in cutting costs in some way, but without favoritism to a specific class.
“How many people die in the Third World because you don’t spend enough to save them? Are they somehow worth less as humans than those $220000 preemies?”
Libtard! Libtard!
The Constitution doesn't provide for a national Social Security system. It is illegal and must be terminated.
I believe that it should be phased out over a short period of time, perhaps three years. I recognize that some seniors have become very dependent on the program and those with real need should be given a brief period to adjust and to make other arrangements. In order to prevent fraud and abuse while winding down the program, seniors who claim severe need should bear the burden of proving their inability to immediately find alternative sources of sustenance.
So, for that brief period that it will take to phase out the program, there must be some means testing.
To provide uniformity across the playing field via federal law. But actually, that does not mean the funds need to be received into the federal coffers. My first reaction was to prevent the possibility of federal bailouts like I believe will be inevitable for these blue states.
One problem I can see with state run SS or the like would be the possible different state variations that would impact interstate job movement and the eligibility requirements from state to state. How would that work? Would states have different vesting formulae? How about the criteria for withdrawing? Where federal law does not regulate, the states can. So what the fed laws would be for all states is the real question. And now, what was within reach of federal politicians would now be within reach of the state politicians. I don’t put much faith in the latter either. I just don’t see the states doing the job any better (which is poor), while further complicating the whole system.
“Increasing the retirement age for benefits MUST happen. I think that the retirement age could be ratcheted up 2 or 3 months every year until 70 or 72 is the new 65, and 67 or so is the new 62. People live longer now - that is a fact.”
It may be a “fact” that people live longer, but that doesn’t mean that they remain “in shape” to WORK longer. This applies particularly to people who have had to do manual labor for their entire lives. What do YOU do for a living? (Yes, that’s a direct question — I run RR engines).
Fearless prediction:
No matter _what_ is done to fix Social Security, or if absolutely nothing more is done, the retirement age isn’t going to be raised much higher than it is now. It’s already at 67 for the youngest. I predict it won’t be raised higher.
You want to see a real rebellion amongst Americans? Tell them they’ll have to work ‘till 70 or 72?
You want to see the ‘rats get offered an opportunity to CLOBBER Republicans and conservatives in both the polls and public opinion? Tell them they can’t retire until their early 70’s.
Raising the retirement age may get “put on the table” briefly, but I assure you, it won’t REMAIN on that table for very long....
Yes, there is a Social Security "trust fund". You may not have any faith in it, but it exists.
It's a stack of special US Treasury bonds in a file cabinet in some government office (in West Virginia). Seriously.
Those Treasury bonds are supposed to be the same as every other Treasury bond that has been sold by the government (and the proceeds spent). Those same bonds are held by pension plans, investors, and even governments.
Like a broken clock, Graham is right on this one, although it needs to go further. There is no account with your name on it and cash on hand. Expenditures must be cut, might as well start with those who can more readily afford it. Piss them off enough and they’ll stop voting for Democrats who support it for ‘the poor’. Only way politically to fix this mess.
“Graham is a poster child for abortion. Why did his mama not do the right thing. I am anti abortion but in a few cases, exceptions should have been made.”
Don’t know what a TINO is....but I guess you’re right, you’re remark listed above captures the essence of Free Republic. Sorry, I must be over the edge.
>Libtard! Libtard!
I’d like to assume you’re joking. If not, you really are insane.
If someone is going to bring up some sob story about saving preemies, I can easily turn it around to saving humans. Fair is fair. If someone is going to lecture me about saving human life, I will lecture it right back.
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.