Free Republic

Can you imagine how much that property is worth?

Bingo.

Now you're just being stubborn. We can only repeat it so often--I am for any solution that will relieve the burden on our kids. You can haircut my check every month so no increase is needed in payroll taxes.

But means testing is right out of the Little Red Book. It isn't anything more than another divisive issue, red meat for the Boxers and Pelosis and their constituency of layabouts.

You keep claiming we're trying to transfer more money from poor working kids to rich parents and you keep ignoring the part when we tell you we'll take the hit--as long as we all take the same hit.

You seem to be on this rant because you want to prove something to folks here about the weak foundation the system rests upon. Pin a rose on you--you're right. Now how about discussing the issue. How about telling us why, morally, we should sit still for rewarding Washington politicians with another opportunity to pick winners and losers. Tell us why we should watch people who blew all their money cash a check every month while we get bupkus.

Stop pretending the issue is the burden on our kids. The issue is how we'll apportion the hit so we don't have to burden our kids.

Why is it a clear improvement? Because you said so? Do you really think there's enough Bill-Gates-type rich people that you can screw out of the system to balance the books? Don't you think you'll have to reach down pretty far to make a difference? And once you do that, haven't you just given the politicians yet another tool to use to divide us?

Why are you folks so anxious to give Washington even more power to pick winners and losers?

I'm willing to look at any solution that treats everybody equally. I'm not going to go for yet another transfer that rewards the screwups and screws those of us who played by the rules.

If you're going to sell your means-testing proposal, you're going to have to do a much better job of justifying it than just telling us we've been fooled all along by the promises. That justifies nothing and I take strong issue with the premise anyway.

You're beyond reasoning with. You're so intent on repeating common knowledge about SS that you aren't even hearing anybody else. I am perfectly aware that SS is a transfer program--it's you who want to turn it into welfare.

I have alreay stated my willingness to take a haircut so my kids won't get dinged (this is many years off even though I have contributed for 31 years.)

You, however, have decided the solution is to relieve me of benefits so that people without savings can get theirs. And I maintain your solution would be readily endorsed by Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank--they can use that mechanism as they have used welfare. To buy votes from dumbasses.

Not a conservative solution IMO.

You have to be joking.

You actually think we'd see a tax reduction out of it? Are you from Mars? They'll just spend the money the way they do now, to buy votes from idiots. We won't get back a dime of it.

The reason we cannot tell Bill Gates he's out of the system is because you'd be drawing a line to decide who gets benefits. Once you do that, you have the ability to finesse the line where it buys you the most votes and those above it get screwed. Do you really trust politicians to do anything but set that line anywhere but at the point that the most knuckleheaded wastrels congregate? Do you really want to give even more political power to Washington to pick winners and losers?

That doesn't sound very conservative to me.

Laugh if you wish but you have yet to tell us where you got the impression I bought into anything at all. From what you have posted, it sounds to me like "my account" is real enough to you when you want to spend it on you, but not real when it comes to spending it on me.

You respond as if I intend to tax my children so I can get paid, but the discussion here is what solutions we'll agree upon to avoid that. I have already agreed to a 30% haircut and you have agreed to cancel out my benefit and give it to someone who threw their money away instead of saving it. You tell me who's willing to sacrifice to avoid taxing the bejeezus out of the kids. (Hint: It's one of us, but not you.)

Sounds to me like my account's pretty real when you want to appropriate it, but not when I assert the same rights as anyone else would have. Why? Because I have savings?

Pfft.

But nobody will get back even that much now. What you are proposing would actually cost the system money, not save it.

You need to read up on this problem. Today's seniors get back their money with interest--it's tomorrow's seniors who won't even get their money back, let alone interest. Your solution might have worked 20 years ago, but the system has plenty of money now and no mechanism for saving any surplus.

Just returning our money with interest would be a greater amount of money than just leaving things alone because as it stands now we (tomorrow's retirees) won't even get back our money, let alone interest.

"Saving your money" refers to assets outside the system. You people who suggest means testing would penalize those of us who have amassed assets like 401K's and pension benefits in order to fully fund the retirements of those who chose to spend their money instead of saving it.

I don't care what they do to the benefit--they can cut it to 70% of what is paid today and that's fine with me--as long as we all take the same haircut. I'm not going to sit quietly while we yet again reward the grasshoppers and screw the ants.

And I haven't even touched on the disincentive to save that such a plan would require. Why not just p!ss away my savings if the rest of you will pay for a full benny for me?

Means testing is Socialism 101.

Your suggestion's a non-starter. Workers contributing now won't get interest on their money from the system. Only those greedy old folks collecting now will get anything more than a return of their money without interest. But will they give up a freaking dime of it or will they scream bloody murder at the most insignificant changes?

Read the thread. It's shocking a discussion like this takes place at arguably the most conservative website in the country.

Where in the world would you get the impression I am defending the system?

Means testing just means taking away benefits from folks who have saved their money and giving them to people who shot theirs on boats and cocaine. I can find no moral justification for basically cancelling my account out so you can get full benefits. What's your justification for this?

Sounds like it must be something like, "Well, you already have money and I don't, so I should get a bennie and you shouldn't!" Run that past the folks at DU, they'll probably agree with you.

Does that tell you anything?

Means testing. What a progressive solution. That I bet you can sell to the Democrats. Go crazy.

The rest of us might have a problem with paying only those who failed to save. So my neighbor with his new cars and his boat gets a SS benefit but me with my 401K does not. Freaking perfect.

Means testing--Marx would be proud.

I'm sure your private account would be treated like your 401K and you couldn't touch it without tax consequences until retirement. And I'm sure there would be mandated withdrawals also.

You know, it occurs to me that if folks here, one of the nation's most conservative, self-reliant collections of news junkies, can't be depended on to consider extending the retirement age one freaking year, then Social Security reform is doomed.

If you can't do manual labor at 68, go work at Wal-Mart for a year or two. It won't kill you. Or sit on your butt on your own savings.

For the life of me I can't figure out why my generation is going to be the only one to make any sacrifice at all. You decrepit old codgers are going to knock down any reform that might call for you to give up anything. My generation most likely won't even get our money back and you greedy old farts won't chip in a dime. Shame on you.

And we were so counting upon help from their sanita...sorry, "soldiers". They just pick up trash when the unions strike.

So the jock has a right to say rotten things about his wife, but he can't speak up and threaten to kick his butt?

The world was a better place when we could call out these people and horsewhip them. You watched your mouth back then.

This is a town that makes a career out of Christmas and they can't seem to be able to teach their kids about the Bible in school. Kind of like not being allowed to teach petroleum science in Texas.

There's still no one better than the hippie chick that sold her bicycle to donate to the Dean campaign. I still picture that dumb slag hoofing her way around to the Rathskellar and her pathetic job at the student bookstore in the rain. And I just laugh and laugh!

I seen the pitchers on the TV. There weren't nothin' left but rubble. If one of them fellers was in there, he's a-romancin' some virgin about now.

But is he long any crude oil futures? Is he squeezing that market to influence the election?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The correct way to answer that Fat Bastard is this; "No, Fatass, I would not. But the choice is not mine, it's his. What's more, if your criteria were actually used, none of us would send our children to fight the Anti-Christ, or Hitler. There is no fight that we would not choose to fight ourselves rather than send our kids.

But we're fighting against people who hate us more than they love their children. Somebody's got to fight them and if my grown son opted to do so, I would be proud beyond belief, and pray for his safe return. You fat bastard."