Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not posting this to elicit comments (although obviously I have no control over postings). Just thought y'all should know that at least one viable ? presidential candidate would like to start cutting benefits immediately.
Over and out.
I wandered upon that article last night and started to post it here in the Retirement Forum too ... not as a political statement just so retirees are aware of some of the candidates platforms.
Santorum says "Social Security pays proportionately higher benefits to low-income people." I didn't know that.
Then throw your vote away and give Obama another four years. I would vote for MICKEY MOUSE
Mick, a member of the Disney Cartoon Animal Party, would be considered a 3rd party candidate. I suspect his choice for VP would either be hot-headed Don Duck or the ever clumsy Goofy Dog (Yaaa-ha-ha-hoo-weee!).
I think the quality I am looking for the most in a candidate is pragmatism - how best to approach and deal with the problems that we face. And the quality I am looking for the least is any kind of ideological purity.
Well said. I hate the way Congress won't compromise but splits along party lines. I keep writing mine and telling them the Tea Party may be vocal, but they aren't the only ones who vote.
Another comment. I paid into SS for 40 years and want some of it back. I agree it may need to be trimmed and can live with some trimming, but feel it would not be right that my husband and I lived in modest houses, spent weekends working on rentals, saved for retirement and others with similar jobs who blew their money might get a lot more from SS. That's already happened with college-people who had higher incomes but less savings qualified for grants/loans and we didn't. I don't mind helping those with health issues, etc. Bad luck could happen to anyone.
I'm not posting this to elicit comments (although obviously I have no control over postings). Just thought y'all should know that at least one viable ? presidential candidate would like to start cutting benefits immediately.
I wandered upon that article last night and started to post it here in the Retirement Forum too ... not as a political statement just so retirees are aware of some of the candidates platforms.
Santorum says "Social Security pays proportionately higher benefits to low-income people." I didn't know that.
yup, it is true. It pays out more to lower-income people. It also takes in money disproportionately from middle class people, since wealthy folks can opt much of their income out.
I am OK with cutting benefits now, and for the future.
I am also OK with leaving benefits the same now, and for the future.
The "Big Lie" is that we should pay full benefits now, and cut them for future generations. That is basically intergenerational theft, which is a morally wrong position for anyone to have.
I'm not posting this to elicit comments (although obviously I have no control over postings). Just thought y'all should know that at least one viable ? presidential candidate would like to start cutting benefits immediately.
Over and out.
Of course you are. You are making a political statement, obliquely of course, since this forum has political sub-forums that would eat you alive, but here in the retirement zone you thought you could put a little scare out there for the currently surging GOP candidate. Trouble is, retirees are not as stupid as you think they are. Better luck next time.
I could go for means testing for SS in the future when there aren't enough people to pay into it to keep it going. It was meant to keep people from having nothing at all, not to add to the wealth of people who don't really need it.
Having said that, it isn't quite fair to take SS away from anyone who has paid into it so even the rich shouldn't have it take completely away.
Other than that, there HAS to be SS--it would be a huge step back into the dark ages to take that away. Back to poor houses.
Lowering benefits to those who have already contributed the most to SS and not currently getting their moneys worth will probably just add them to the pool of voters willing to dump the whole thing and have personal accounts which can't be reduced for income redistribution. Means testing is just a ploy to get more on the dump it side and in favor of personal accounts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
