Doing all that wouldn't come close to solving the coming entitlement tsunami. Please take a close look at the following:
Posted on 01/06/2012 6:38:10 PM PST by DJ MacWoW
KEENE, N.H. (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum called Friday for immediate cuts to Social Security benefits, risking the wrath of older voters and countless others who balk at changes to the entitlement program.
"We can't wait 10 years," even though "everybody wants to," Santorum told a crowd while campaigning in New Hampshire and looking to set himself apart from his Republican rivals four days before the New Hampshire primary.
Most of his opponents have advocated phasing in a reduction and say immediate cuts would be too big a shock to current and soon-to-be retirees.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
I don't recall. It was something like "home maintenance system." It sliced, it diced, it gave your wife an orgasm (and it literally could, since it had a massaging vibrator attachment).
>Indeed it did... every extra nickle he got to keep was a extra nickle I had to pay. It was a redistribution of wealth from me to him. I EARNED the extra money that I had to pay in taxes to support his deduction(s) too.
Rubbish. You really are on the wrong web site. Try DU or perhaps Daily KOS. They would appear to suit your worldview more closely.
Let me try again (for the last time, I hate wasting time trying to convince those who don’t listen). The government has a budget. It includes revenues and outlays. The revenues take into account the expected amounts people will pay in taxes. This will be based on total income as well as deductions which adjust taxable income. If the government decides that it needs to raise taxes because it doesn’t want to decrease outlays due to deductions it offers to make people do things it wants people to do, then that is the decision of the politicians. However they are certainly capable of keeping the outlays down to compensate.
Your rationale is just as valid as saying that anyone who earns less money than you, and thus pays lower taxes is being subsidized by you. If instead of having kids, he decided to cut his income by $6k, would you claim he is being subsidized because he is paying less in taxes?
You are not supporting his deduction in any way shape or form. You are supporting government profligacy.
>Your not thinking very clearly this morning, are you?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Doing all that wouldn't come close to solving the coming entitlement tsunami. Please take a close look at the following:
>You have a thin skin FRiend, lighten up
How about you lay off the insults and learn to read instead?
I said it wouldn’t save as much as you think. I said nothing to the effect that illegals were a economic positive. Yes, they are a drain. However it’s not very much money at all, and getting worked up over it is a tempest in a teapot compared to real fiscal issues.
I get tired of people around here tossing insults when they can’t make real arguments. I also get tired of people who don’t even vaguely understand the scale of things they are discussing.
But since you want numbers:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/
They say the cost is about $100 billion at all levels of government. This is FAIR, so it’s hardly people sympathetic to the cause of illegals (and many claim it is an over estimate).
So let’s do some math. Hmm, $1.2 Trillion spent on seniors vs. $.1 trillion spent on illegals. DAMN- There’s the solution.
Oh, wait the numbers don’t add up.
You want to try again without the innumeracy and insults?
100B is a Trillion dollars every 10 years, a lot of money even to a Dr.
Each senior applying for SS benefits should be assign a social worker, just like welfare people. We don’t want seniors spending their SS checks on booze do we? /sarcasm
>100B is a Trillion dollars every 10 years, a lot of money even to a Dr.
Yes, and it is still only 1/12 as much as we spend on seniors every year (at the federal level, and mind you the $100B estimate is at all levels). Oh, and that number for the seniors is growing fast.
Do you actually have a point hiding in there somewhere?
>Each senior applying for SS benefits should be assign a social worker, just like welfare people. We don’t want seniors spending their SS checks on booze do we? /sarcasm
It’s funny the irony in that post. What is to prevent such a thing? It is a government check after all. It does come from the paychecks of current workers(it is not an investment or something from a trust). If someone wanted to put proscriptions on it, why couldn’t they? Oh yeah, the hollering. Nevermind.
Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, says changes should include a higher eligibility age to qualify for Social Security benefits, and tighter restrictions on benefits for upper-income people. Americans now qualify for reduced Social Security benefits at age 62 and full benefits at 66, soon to rise to 67.
Social Security pays proportionately higher benefits to low-income people. But Santorum says wealthy retirees' proportionate benefits should be trimmed further. He did not offer details.
This week, he told New Hampshire audiences that Americans over 65 were society's poorest age group in 1937, when Social Security was created. Now that group is the wealthiest, he said.
All of this is absolutely true. And it is bizzare to watch so many FReepers pile on Santorum for speaking the truth here.
Why raise the eligibility age? It’s up to 67 now. Why not get 20 somethings and illegals off first? There are older people that actually were forced to pay into it that will NEVER see their money.
Spot on comments throughout this thread. One question the “gimme gimme gimme” crowd isn’t answering is why does the responsibility to the elderly rests at the Federal level?
Santorum may have a point-—as long as he substitutes the fat cat retirement and health plans that congress gives themselves.
I'm very happy that your Mom is set. But there are many who are not. My Mom was a secretary. When the company closed, she became a saleslady. There was nothing to invest.
Yes. But they won’t. None of them will. And they all leave Congress richer than when they arrived.
Also, note what I posted of Santorum's comments. People are living longer. I expect to work until I am 70-75. You can't just pay longer and longer periods of Social Security without a serious impact to the program
It really is a sad statement that by speaking the truth, Santorum is being savaged by so many on FR, of all places.
And Santorum isn't even my top choice, that is still Newt. But I ain't gonna rip into the guy for having the guts to speak truth even if that is politically risky. We got where we are today because so many mealy-mouthed politicians preach utter lies to the voting public. And now we should turn on him for not being willing to lie as convincingly as the others?
“There was nothing to invest.”
And soon there will be nothing left to disburse. A problem which Santorum is trying to address.
“The government has a budget.”
That’s I think where you go wrong. The government doesn’t have a budget. They spend whatever they get and then some.
Have you been drinking? It’s early you know...
Spare us, it was clear that was your objective even before this.
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.