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 ...
>Says who? You?
No, this inconvenient thing called ‘the facts’.
Does Social Security give money to people that didn’t contribute? -Yes
Does Social Security give money to people not in direct proportion to the ‘contributions? -Yes
Does Social Security transfer wealth from one group of taxpayers to another group of recipients? -Yes
Does Social Security favor those who don’t provide for themselves or plan ahead? -Yes
Are any of those not in keeping with Welfare?
Post as often as you want. I recommend it.
It’s not entitlements when it’s your money.
If the government was considering this an *investment* then they owe the money to the people they took it from, with interest.
It’s not denial. Denial is not realizing that the government TOOK people’s money with the promise that they would get it back and then abdicating on that promise.
Entitlement is welfare and food stamps and medicare and medicaid. Stuff that no one invested (even by force) in but that is just handed out for those too lazy to work for a living. Entitlement mentality is them thinking that someone OWES them all that just because they’re alive breathing the same air as you and I.
It is not entitlement to expect a promised return on an investment.
As soon as we stop pretending that I owe anything to the damn government.
>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.
It already is wealth re-distribution. I’m advocating a refinement of the process so that is more apparent. Thus people won’t be fooling themselves otherwise.
Let’s repeat this one more time for those who don’t care to read, there is no trust fund. You don’t have an investment. You don’t actually have any claim on that nonexistent money.
If you wish to press a claim you will be looting future taxpayers. The government doesn’t have a money tree out back to harvest for the funds.
>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”.
No, we have a different position which is called reality. You can’t plumb a dry well. There’s a train wreck looming and some of us are suggesting means which are politically feasible to avert it to even some degree.
It was never an investment, nor could anyone who did the least bit of research ever consider it an investment.
The first recipients never paid any Social Security tax. How is that an investment program?
It is a socialist retirement program. People pay taxes to the government, and the government pays out welfare payments. There is no connection between the two actions.
You are a stalker, a fool, and a liar.
Now that is just total BS. Unless and until the law is changed, we DO have a valid claim.
Tell you what you do. You lobby your congresscritter and I'll lobby mine. We'll see how it comes out.
Shut up, Lindsay. You’re next!!!!
>It is not entitlement to expect a promised return on an investment.
Ok, then please explain where that money is going to magically come from. You do realize that all government income is from current taxpayers right?
Social Security is not an investment. It has no principle. It is a Ponzi scheme rigged out to perform a Welfare function.
Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but Medicare is funded in the same way as Social Security, with a payroll tax. It’s just even more insolvent.
Though I admit that it’s a positive sign you’re making progress in that you see Medicaid as an entitlement. It gives me hope that you’ll figure out Social Security eventually as well.
I agree - we need to broaden the tax base. But one clarification, even the poor and middle class pay 7.25% in federal taxes.
Yeah, right. Socialists always want to cut government benefits.
Listen, I understand that you are probably much happier on your anti-FReeper sites (yeah, I've got links for this too), but the fact remains that you are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-homosexual agenda and pro-redistribution of wealth.
Trolls are often upset when they're exposed, but I really don't give a damn.
Note especially the language:
The “bad news” is that Medicare probably will not pay. The “good news” is that you now have the opportunity to choose whether or not to receive the service or item. The ABN helps you to make an informed consumer decision about whether to obtain the service or item and be prepared to pay for it (that is, either out of your own pocket or by your other insurance coverage) or to choose not to receive it.
>Now that is just total BS. Unless and until the law is changed, we DO have a valid claim.
Actually your claim amounts to exactly as much as Congress decides you get, no more and no less. That can be zero if they say so. That is how the law works.
>Tell you what you do. You lobby your congresscritter and I’ll lobby mine. We’ll see how it comes out.
Yes, I’m sure you can find a bunch of people who are happy to keep heading right for that iceberg. Heck the band is still playing, so why not?
I'm starting to think that there are some Freepers who believe that SS and Medicare employ a department of magic dwarves, busily spinning straw into gold to keep the programs solvent.
Except that they would need to create so much gold that it would drive the price down to a few bucks a pound....
Well said, metmom.
And that is the futility of this argument. There are many out there like you who think that there is some magic that will resolve this problem where you are spared from any sacrifice/pain. The day is rapidly approaching where there will not be any investors willing to buy US securities.
And when US securities are rated as junk and the market imposes the ultimate solution (benefits simply cutoff as there are no funds), you will be the loudest critic of how the government could be so fiscally reckless.
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.