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 ...
You are simply arithmetically illiterate. I’ve shown the actual numbers and you simply ignore them.
If you can’t base an argument on reality, you shouldn’t argue.
Which makes your point pointless. Which was my point.
I apologize for offending you. I wasn’t intending for you to divulge any personal information but I can see why you thought I was. Again, I’m sorry I offended you.
However, as I and others have tried to point out, the Social Security and Medicare system is unsustainable. It’s a pyramid scheme and a lousy one at that. And at least with your typical pyramid scheme, you voluntarily surrender your own money to be scammed from you.
It’s not that I am not sympathetic to seniors depending on their SS checks or to folks who think they deserve to one day collect on the benefit since they’ve had payroll deduction taken for it all their working lives (like myself). But even if we eliminated SSI and Medicaid, deported every illegal alien and stopped all foreign aid programs, the SS and Medicare programs would still be bleeding us dry and something has to be done.
The only solution that I can see and not unlike what Santorum was proposing, is gradually reducing benefits, raising the eligibility age and means testing while gradually converting current workers to private and self managed retirement and health insurance plans by gradually reducing their FICA deductions and perhaps even (shudders) mandating for a time that the offset be put into retirement savings. I say (shudders) only because many people have lost the concept of personal responsibility and thrifty savings. Too many people would likely spend the reduction in FICA deductions instead of putting it into savings and one day we would have seniors who were truly destitute.
As I stated before, I have worked for many years as both corporate payroll manager and as an employee benefits manager and it never ceases to amaze me how many young workers fail to contribute or maximize their contributions to their company’s 401k plans, especially when many employers match contributions and the payroll deductions are pre-taxed.
Your post said it all. That’s why casinos always do their best business as soon as the SS Checks come in.
Talk about pointless. The rest of us aren't so parochial that we can't expand our conversation from the original point. Take your rigid narrow mind and shove it back up your backside, tinkerbell.
God bless you.
And Pawlenty’s timidity with the press doomed his campaign.
Seems to me that it would be more honorable to default on all other debt first. They assumed risk, the SS payers had their money stolen.
Seems to me that it would be more honorable to default on all other debt first. They assumed risk, the SS payers had their money stolen.
“the SS payers had their money stolen.”
Not by me. You’re trying to justify a crime against me because politicians committed a crime against you. There is not trust fund. It’s a bunch of promises past congresses made to past voters. I’m sorry they lied. I really am. Taking my money to make up for their sin is just as big a sin.
Or do you intend to do this JUST to US citizens over the age of 65?
Please answer the question.
which still lacks the specifics.... I am not against the concepts. I may be for even more drastic measures but the rhetoric is all too general.
First of all you’re arguing a non sequitur. It is not full of US bonds waiting to be traded. If tomorrow the Congress decided that the SS trust fund would be zeroed out and the President signed it then it would be zeroed out and there would be no default. It is an accounting gimmick they’ve been taking advantage of for years. Congress can increase benefits, decrease benefits, increase taxes, reduces taxes, increase employer taxes, change the interest rate used in calculations, whatever. Again, one can’t default on the SS trust fund because there are no bonds in it.
Second, what I would do about this mess is lump SS and Medicare together in one account and if it was running in the black, let people get retire with SS benefits. If not, don’t allow more people to retire yet with SS benefits. I just don’t want to see this country go into more debt.
But you don't intend to answer the question, that is fine.
I just find it interesting that some people are willing to default on borrowed money that was taken from their fellow citizens at gun point but will pay off in full with interest money borrowed from foreign nations. I would think it would be the other way around.
Fascinating.
What question didn’t I answer?
“but will pay off in full with interest money borrowed from foreign nations”
You don’t know what a publicly traded bond is. The initial buyer might have been foreign. It doesn’t matter. They can trade the bond. It is the same as any other bond. We can’t decide to default on some publicly traded bonds and not others because we don’t know who has which bond.
The social security trust fund wasn’t borrowed from. It was spent. There is nothing in there but promises by past congresses. It was always that way. Everyone knew it. Past congresses promised that voters who aren’t even born yet will vote to live up to their promises. It was a promise that a politician made.
I'm sorry, but your math is WAY, WAY off.
Let's say a self-employed person was earning $30,000 in 2012, their inflation-adjusted wage in 1966 would be $4,284.60. Also keep in mind that the Social Security rate didn't reach 15% (self-employed rate) until 1987.
If you run the numbers using your suggested $30K/year, adjust the wage for inflation, and use the actual Social Security withholding rates, the total withheld from 1966 to 2011 would total just $101,684.67. That's a far cry from $220,500.
Sorry to dredge up this old debate. It took me a couple days to read thru the whole thread. Interesting comments on both sides.
I think there will be a time when ‘social security’ on this thread will be replaced with ‘401k’, and the arguments will be the same. ‘But I paid into it, it was promised to me, it is mine’.
Or am I way off? Would like to get both of your opinions on it...Thanks.
“I think there will be a time when ‘social security’ on this thread will be replaced with ‘401k’, and the arguments will be the same.”
It’s already been seriously discussed in Washington. What was proposed was rolling the 401Ks in with SS.
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.