Lindsey Graham just earned my respect.

[shockey80]

He said, people like him should pay more into social security and not collect anything. Amen. It's insurance, not a retirement account that you get to collect on. What he said was very american. We have lost a lot of that the past few decades. America has been too much about greed. Thanks Reagan.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Wrong, though. Good intention probably on his part, but still wrong.

If rich pay in and dont receive benefits, it becomes welfare and then the reasons to do away with it are greater in the mind of rightwingers.

I think we should lift the cap and that alone would just about resolve the issue.

But I can see why that sounds good, and I want to think Lindsey is thinking this way for the right reason, but at the end of the day I disagree.

[Talk Is Cheap]

2. Exactly. Everbody pays in - everybody receives benefits....

[oldtime dfl_er]

3. if the OP

is accurate, he said "not collect", rather than not be eligible for. So it would be a choice for, say, Bill Gates, if he chooses to take benefits.

aside: I bet you dollars to donuts that Drumpf is getting a social security check every month, as well as keeping his salary. That's typical rich person behavior. You and I might not bend over to pick up a penny, but I bet Drumpf would.

[question everything]

8. There was a comment recently that Whiny Donny reversed his decision on not collecting salary

but, Spicey added, he would donate it to charity. And, the reporter added, declare a deduction on a $400K donation..

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. Which means we not only pay his $400k salary - we also pay for his $125k deduction.

Now he costs the US $500k plus and not just $400k.

[Salviati]

24. I'll believe that when I see a notarized statement from a non-trump related charity.

detailing that they have in fact received the donation, and that the check has cleared.

Remember, this is the guy that deposited a $0.13 check...
http://fusion.net/story/170645/donald-trump-check-prank-spy/

[FuzzyRabbit]

70. What is the charity? The Trump Foundation?

Trump said he would donate his salary to charity. Everything he does is about making money for himself, so he has some sort of scam in mind for making money off his "donations".

[Bengus81]

80. He's big on the charity BS. Had to be FORCED to give that 6 million $$$ to veterens...

after collecting it on his campaign. Sure...he finally ponied up the dough when he was PRESSURED to do so.

[JI7]

129. the charity was only for one month salary and then he said sime shit about the media

Deciding such charity and how it would be at the end of the year.

[NYC Liberal]

130. I actually think not taking the salary would be a terrible idea, for this reason:

If it becomes "traditional" for presidents to forego the salary, than only the ultra-rich would be able to afford to be president -- i.e., not get paid for four or eight years.

Even if it's still a "choice", it could become an expectation that candidates promise not to take it, and then anyone who doesn't is painted as greedy, only in it for the money, etc.

In fact, that's the entire reason why the president was given a salary in the Constitution. Some of the delegates thought the president shouldn't get paid to ensure that people only do it for selfless reasons rather than money. But of course you'd have to have a lot of money already to afford that.

[whistler162]

150. He basically has to accept a salary

Since requirements for providing a salary is in the Constitution. I guess theoretically he maybe could have asked Congress before he was sworn in to lower his salary to $1/year.

http://www.presidentsusa.net/salaryprovision.html

"Compensation Provision of the Constitution for the President
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-salary-george-washington-214458

[NYC Liberal]

157. Well, yes, but he could donate all of it.

I just think setting a precedent that the president should give away his salary isn't necessarily a good one.

[whistler162]

159. Trump give away

[GWC58]

139. He was never going to

not collect his salary. Hey, it sounded good.

[SticksnStones]

37. Let's not forget the 13 cent check Donnie got punked with

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/trump-files-spy-magazine-prank

[Stonepounder]

44. Lets remember the time Donald Trump cashed a 13 check sent to him as a prank

http://fusion.net/story/170645/donald-trump-check-prank-spy/

This has been reported before, but basically, Spy magazine send out minuscule checks to celebrities. If the celeb cashed the check, they sent out a smaller check, and so on. The got down to $0.13 and, sure enough, The Donald cashed his.

Full story at link.

[pnwmom]

94. But his next sentence was:

"It's insurance, not a retirement account that you get to collect on."

The poster is describing a form of welfare, not the earned benefit that, yes, we do "get" to collect on.

[Hortensis]

126. Yes. This and Eliot's explanation are why SS has always

been something everyone pays into and everyone collects from.

That and the harsh fact that those who don't expect to need it tend to vote and to donate. Keeping them viewing these programs as for all Americans is critical to their continuation.

[yeoman6987]

5. The cap is embarrassingly too low

At least 250,000. I'm not so sure about everything. For example aperson making 3,000,000 pays into social security all 7.5 percent and if employed himself 15 percent, does his check still only amounts to 2400. I think that's the highest check an individual gets or do we have to give them 6 grand or more?

[still_one]

34. That is what needs to be done. RAISE THE CAP. Don't change the benefits of Social Security

[meow2u3]

108. Raising the cap doesn't go far enough

We have to scrap it altogether and we'll be able to pay for Medicare for All, at least in part.

[still_one]

111. Sure, don't have any CAP, I'll go for that, just don't take away the benefits

[tammywammy]

138. Medicare is paid with a separate tax and there's no limit on it.

All wages are subjected to the Medicare tax.

[marybourg]

40. I happened to have just looked that up

and here it its:

For someone who racked up maximum taxable earnings each year, and who reaches the FRA of 66 in 2017, the maximum benefit would be $2,687 a month, or $32,244 a year.

[yeoman6987]

41. Thank you. Higher then I thought.

[90-percent]

9. Raising the cap is such an obvious solution

Even a deplorable can understand it, if you have the time and patience to explain it to them. Perhaps Robert Reich cartoon drawing youtube, as it would be the least aggravating for you and the most understandable primer to them.

-90% Jimmy

[still_one]

35. and I really wish Democrats in Congress would focus more on that.

[yeoman6987]

43. In 2009-2010, it would have been perfect time.

I swear next time they are in charge especially with 60+votes in the senate, I am going to be writing, calling tweeting every minute for them to finally get all the stuff that needs fixing. Raising the cap is number 1.

[still_one]

58. I wholeheartedly agree with you

[Bengus81]

90. I figure that Limbaugh is finished paying into SS in about 2.5 hours....

on the first day of the new year.

[mopinko]

125. simple, obvious

and wrong. like so many bad ideas.

rare point of disagreement w reich and sanders.

a juicier, more appealing idea is taxing unearned income. this has the benefit of being correct. it will bring in way more money, and be better for society as more people are pulled into the program.

[stopbush]

10. The argument against raising the cap is that the wealthy would never have a chance

of getting back in SS benefits what they paid out in SS taxes.

Of course, that's a specious argument: there are millions of Americans who pay into SS for years and draw only limited benefits - or no benefits at all - because they die before reaching the age to collect benefits or die shortly after qualifying for benefits.

The cap should be raised. Is it fair for every American earning under $118k to pay SS taxes on 100% of their income, while a person making $1-million a year pays SS taxes on only the first 12% of their earnings?

[Eliot Rosewater]

13. You pay into insurance everyday where the odds are likely you wont get it back

House insurance, car insurance, etc.

Social Security is social insurance, so to speak. Not everybody will get back what they put in.

This is common sense and not arguable unless you have people predisposed to hating others in the room, they dont want others to get what they get.

[stopbush]

16. Yes. That was my point.

[Bengus81]

97. My mom waited until 65 to draw SS.........

Died after receiving six or seven deposits. She didn't work every year of her adult life but quite a few of them.

[Yavin4]

21. Which is why I favor levying sales taxes to pay for single payer.

Everybody pays into it. Everybody gets it. Everybody protects it from demagogues.

[mobeau69]

53. Sales taxes screw low income people. The less you make the more regressive they are.

[roamer65]

54. That is why we exempt food in MI.

[mobeau69]

77. Yep, an admission that they're unfair.

A lot of people like rump voters think a sales tax is fair because everyone pays the same percentage. LOL.

[Yavin4]

116. In order to build long term support for a government program, everyone needs to pay into it

and everyone benefits from it. Allowing one group to pay for it while another benefits leaves the door open to demagogues.

[pat_k]

75. Easily structured to make more "progressive." The trick is...

... getting the right balance. No sales tax on "basic" items like food, clothes, office supplies, books, and other items it would make sense to exempt. High tax on luxury goods. Earned income taxed at a substantially lower rate than unearned income.

[sharedvalues]

155. What? We shouldn't use sales taxes for anything. Income and wealth taxes are much better.

[Yavin4]

161. Precisely.

This is how it's done in Europe. They tax everyone on income and sales taxes to pay so that everyone benefits.

[Bengus81]

101. Kansas is the best example of that I'll bet anyone can find...

Republican Governor Sam Brownback and a Republican majority in the State House and Senate

TWO sales tax increases levied on Kansas residents in the past five years
We pay FULL SALES tax on unprepared/grocery store food.
ZERO % State income tax on Corporations/LLC's/S Corps,Rentals etc.

[Yavin4]

114. Sales taxes with exemptions for necessities like food, energy, education, healthcare.

Everything else would get a small tax.

[sharedvalues]

154. SALES taxes? The rich love sales taxes because sales taxes tax the poor.

[Yavin4]

160. A sales tax on non-essential goods.

If you pay for healthcare by having only rich people pay for it, you won't be able to protect it from demagogues over the long haul. This is why SS and Medicare have the political power that they do.

[sharedvalues]

162. So you need a progressive tax still, just one that everyone pays.

Set the tax rate on the poor low but non-zero then.

Sales taxes on luxury items are too complicated and subject to lobbying.

Set up a simple healthcare set of tax brackets like income taxes. Done.

[grantcart]

49. +1

[pat_k]

68. Not "good intentions." "Means testing" has LONG been

...step 1 in the "kill SS agenda."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8850780

[wryter2000]

74. You are so right

Graham and others should pay more, but they should also get benefits.

[mopinko]

118. thank you thank you

SOOO very happy to see someone else here explaining this. i feel like i have been howling in the wilderness about this. especially while bernie was running.

but a better angle is applying fica to unearned income.
i think that would sell like hotcakes. who doesnt want to tax people who dont work for their money?

[JCanete]

163. The only reason Republicans don't dismantle social security is because people know what it is and

won't let it be taken away. They still try to do it anyway. W tried to do it. They still lump it in with welfare programs to disparage it. I don't know why I'd all of a sudden start trusting Lindsey Graham, so I'm not sure what his angle is, but I don't think anybody would suddenly see the merits of having their social security taken away just because rich people weren't getting anything out of it.

I'm just not convinced this is actually a concern.

[saidsimplesimon]

4. shockey, thank you

If Graham and McCain really want to work to restore any public confidence in their partisan nut-bag party, they would need to change parties. Not going to happen, imo

[oldtime dfl_er]

7. I used to think

Michael Steele would switch parties, too. LOL

[question everything]

6. And I liked it, last year, when Chrisite called for means testing payments of SS

He did not earn any support from his own party and many object to it, saying that this makes it a welfare program. Don't know exactly why.

I've always maintained that instead of having these withholding - for SS and for Medicare - as separate item, that an additional progressive tax be added to to income tax withholding and goes to a general fund "locked" for these programs only. This way there is no cap on SS tax and, yes, if you are rich enough you do not need any benefits.

After all, all of us support public schools through our property taxes, either directly or through our rent payments, even though not all of us are having children in schools.

[pat_k]

79. "means testing" is step 1 of the kill SS agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8850780

[LakeArenal]

11. This is one thing I can't understand...

Why would one statement in front of hostile people by a man trying to save his job, command any respect.

This worm is looking ahead to run for president. He's just a rat jumping off the sinking ship.
He's been making statements today that are the opposite of what the last 8 year's statements have been.

He wants to look like the aisle crossing, let's work together hypocrite. Obama begged men like him to give one inch.. Now that the worm is turning.... and Obama's gone, he's willing to give that inch...

The only positive thing I saw was he was forced to acknowledge that the audience there were more than "paid protestors",

[lapucelle]

32. Graham has shown a willingness

to engage in bipartisan collegiality on some healthcare issues.

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) today announced Congress has approved a plan to expand TRICARE benefits for members of the Guard and Reserve and their families. TRICARE is the military health system.

and

Washington, DC - Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) today announced that the Department of Defense Authorization bill conference report finalized today includes an amendment that will improve TRICARE benefits for National Guard members and Reservists, allowing all members of the Selected Reserve and their families to enroll in TRICARE with an across the board cost-sharing of 28 percent. Today’s victory builds on the Senators’ longstanding commitment to ensuring that members of our National Guard and Reserve and their families have access to the health care benefits they need and deserve.

https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2004/10/post-5806d814-7968-4615-b628-25a7662282c3

https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=A2F76ABD-4F0C-437C-A935-ADFC521875CD

[SMC22307]

112. On military benefits, of course.

For the nonmilitary, Lindsay Graham is *not* your friend.

[LAS14]

50. Two statements. See response #48. nt

[shockey80]

12. Rosewater.

Wrong. It's a insurance program we all pay into. You collect it if you need it. It is not a personnel retirement account. If you retire rich you do not need it.

[eleny]

19. You've proven Rosewater's point

You're heading to a means tested program which is dangerous given the right wing mindset. Social Security is for everyone who contributes. Imo, it should stay as it is.

You can never underestimate the right wing. I've watched Graham operate for too many years. My experience with that tells me to remain skeptical. Your mileage obviously varies.

[SMC22307]

93. You're not understanding human nature.

At one point is one "rich," and who determines "need"? I'll give you an example:

During the economic downturn of 2009 or so, the wife of a friend who does QUITE well financially was prepared to resign one day, but ended up being laid off before submitting her resignation (how's that for luck?). They're Republicans and quick to condemn "takers." By your standards, she probably didn't "need" the money, but did she collect unemployment? Of course! And IIR, her weekly benefit was about $550 for an entire year.

I'd wager that the vast majority believes that if they've paid into these systems for decades, they're entitled to benefits. A "rich" person choosing not to collect is one thing, but promoting this approach as a means of "saving" Social Security is a disaster waiting to happen.

Smarmy Lindsey Graham is *not* your friend.

Raise the cap. No means testing.

[ToxMarz]

119. Social Security is not a "risk based" insurance like auto, home etc.

It is LITERALLY "social insurance", where people receive benefits or services IN RECOGNITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS to an insurance program. The benefits are intended to provide for people and their families security in retirement, death, disability etc.

[shenmue]

14. Good to hear

[Big Blue Marble]

23. Be careful.

Sounds like a right wing trap to undermine the foundations of the greatest government program
to lift millions of seniors out of desperate poverty in their retirement years.

Treasure it; fund it; and leave the structure as it is.

[SMC22307]

63. Exactly. And anyone who trusts smarmy Lindsey Graham...

is entering into George Bush "fool me once" territory.

RAISE THE CAP!

[Beartracks]

15. SS is actually one of the components of Federal retirement plans.

A Fed employee acquaintance described their retirement plans are built on three "legs" -- one is like a 401K-type investment that they put money into; another is (well, I actually forgot what this one is); and the third is, in fact, Social Security.

==============

[charlyvi]

51. The one that slipped your mind is a pension.

The three tier system is a pension, social security benefits, and contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan which is matched by the employer for the first five percent. Chaffetz wants to eliminate the pension.

[Beartracks]

64. Ah, thanks. Is the Thrift plan...

... an investment -- that is, do the contributions go somewhere to earn interest? I was thinking of it like a 401K, I guess.

=====================

[charlyvi]

99. Yes. We can invest it in the usual ways

or in Lifecycle Funds. The overhead is also very low; in fact, the Thrift is considered the model of how 401k s should work. There's a Roth plan now as well.

[LiberalFighter]

17. I don't have respect for him. He also said the retirement age should be increased.

In addition, there were several other disturbing statements on other topics he made.

[shockey80]

18. Rosewater just proved my point about greed in america.

Look at his post. He said if the rich pay into SS and don't collect its welfare. Many have forgotten what it means to be an american. When rosewater retires he will probably want to collect on all the car insurance he has paid over his lifetime.

[shockey80]

20. Rosewater, I just reread your post.

I was too harsh. I saw the word welfare and it set me off. I understand what you were trying to say.

[still_one]

25. NO!!!. It is an annuity/insurance program that you have been paying into, and you are ENTITLED

to receive the benefits of that annuity/insurance

They should also raise the CAP on Social Security to pay for any shortfall, not take away benefits from anyone who has been paying into it for decades

[shockey80]

26. It's called social security insurance.

Not social security annuity.

[still_one]

27. I assume you are directing that to me. Doesn't matter. People have paid into the insurance policy,

and they are ENTITLED to the benefits that they have paid into

In addition it operates as an annuity. It is a guaranteed source of income

The CAP needs to be raised though

but the intent of the program should NOT be changed

There are plenty of avenues to get more revenue foe the more affluent

[pnwmom]

60. NO, IT IS NOT. Social Security DISABILITY is insurance. Regular Social Security is NOT. n/t

[WinkyDink]

148. Yeah, and it's called "169 posts."

[shockey80]

28. If i was rich.

I would never even think about trying to collect SS. That would disgust me. Give my contributions to the people that need it.

[still_one]

30. That isn't the point. Social Security is a contract that people have paid into, and they are

entitled to a benefit

If you personally do not want to collect it because you feel disgusted, you can do what you want.

The best way to preserve social security is to raise the CAP

[shockey80]

29. Still one

I am going to call my car insurance company and demand my benefits that i have paid for my entire life.

[still_one]

33. Obviously you do not understand social security or annuities. Social security is SOCIAL INSURANCE

and BENEFITS which include retirement income, disability income, Medicare, Medicaid, and death and survivorship benefits.

Please do not twist the meaning of what Social Security is.

Incidentally, Social Security Does act like an annuity

The best way to preserve Social Security is to raise the CAP

Also, if you are replying to someone specifically, such as me, you go to my post, and hit the reply button associated with my post, so it is understood who you are responding to, and there is no need to address the replay by name

[GoCubsGo]

31. A broken clock is right twice a day. n/t

Last edited Sun Mar 26, 2017, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

[shockey80]

36. still one

Forget it. You will never get it.

[still_one]

42. No you don't get it. You also don't get how to reply to someone in a thread

Social security isn't like car insurance

You are propagating misinformation

[msongs]

38. SS has ways to rip off people. for example a person who pays SS taxes on work for 30 yrs

then gets a 10 yr job with a retirement plan. when that person applies to get his/her SS it will be substantially reduced and taken away because that person has a retirement plan even though that person paid SS taxes a full 30 yrs. SS has lots of little tricks to keep the money it owes

[SunSeeker]

52. That's news to me. Got a link for that?

If you pay into SS, having a retirement plan should not affect your SS check.

[still_one]

62. You are right sun. An exception is if you have a higher income 85% of SS income is taxable

that was done under Reagan

So technically you are being taxed on money you already paid taxes on in that situation

While I personally do not have a problem with that, the solution is raising the CAP

[SunSeeker]

66. Saying your SS check is taxable like any other income is very different.

That is not "taking away" your SS check. This is taxing income. Most Americans don't make enough in retirement to have their SS check taxed.

http://amp.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T051-C000-S001-are-your-social-security-benefits-taxable.html

[still_one]

73. I provided a link. Just to be clear if someone falls into that category up to 85% of the income

received from Social Security could be included in your taxable income:

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/taxes.html

[SunSeeker]

82. I am fine with being subject to income tax. nt

[still_one]

92. I think this is what the poster is referring to for someone who has worked 30 years, and then gets

another job which has a qualified pension plan.

https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/article/3739/what-happens-if-i-work-and-get-social-security-retirement-benefits

[SunSeeker]

105. Being subject to income tax is very different from having your SS check "taken away."

I always assumed I'd be subject to an income tax, but that income tax would be at most 33% of my income.

[still_one]

107. You are right

[Big Blue Marble]

141. The problem is it is only income that as little as 25K.

And that amount includes 1/2 of your SS. It is pretty easy to get there.

The amounts were never indexed to inflation. They are the same as when the bill
passed over 30 years ago. Then 25K was a significant income that few achieved in
retirement. With any inflation adjustment, many more will fall in to this category
as time goes on.

It is a way to reduce the benefits received from SS and feed the general fund
with SS funds.

[SunSeeker]

142. But only that portion of income above 25k is taxed, and at the lowest bracket, 15%.

That's still not the same as taking your SS check.

[Big Blue Marble]

146. It is shrinking your benefit.

I do taxes for others. I see it often. It can be a lot more than 15%. The point is
the legislation was designed to only affect the well-off and now it is reaching deep
into the middle class. Those that have a 401K or IRA's and are forced by law to remove
a % each year find themselves not only paying for their previously untaxed
401K proceeds but also their previously taxed SS.

I assure you this unfair tax is affecting more and more middle class retirees each year.

[airplaneman]

71. Correct SunSeeker

At full retirement age you are not penalized for ANY additional income.
-Airplane

[still_one]

76. As I told Sun if you make over a certain income in retirement, up to 85% of your Social Security

income could be liable as taxable income:

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/taxes.html

[airplaneman]

89. I see your point

Some people have to pay federal income taxes on their Social Security benefits. This usually happens only if you have other substantial income

This would never apply to me.

I thought you were talking about the rule that if you retire early - they take away benefits for too much income earned. This no longer occurs when you reach full retirement age.

I never believed that SS were not taxable and understood if you made enough total income you would indeed pay tax.

-Airplane

[OldHippieChick]

103. Ditto Sun.

I'm currently receiving SS and my pension. Do not know what this is about.

[eleny]

134. It happens to Colorado State employees

Colorado was exempted from Social Security contributions because of the quality of our pension system. Once we retire our Social Security is reduced. My husband receives a reduced benefit. But we don't see it as a rip off. They reduce it by a calculation that takes into consideration how much PERA pension a retiree receives. Speaking only for us, it isn't a hardship. I'm sure he'll receive back all his contributions to SSA and much more.

[still_one]

81. Is this what you are referring msongs

https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/article/3739/what-happens-if-i-work-and-get-social-security-retirement-benefits

[George II]

136. That's not true - both my wife and I are collecting SS benefits AND we each have..

...a (meager) pension. We also have other taxable income and my wife has a part time job.

Neither the pensions nor the taxable income reduce our SS payments.

[mercuryblues]

39. Where were you in the crowd?

[jeanmarc]

45. You'll find a reason to lose your respect

Within a week. McCain and Graham are phonies.

[SunSeeker]

46. NO NO NO! Social Security should not be means tested and turned into a welfare program!

America hates the poor. Sad but true. That is why welfare programs get cut to nothing. That is why the GOP is constantly trying to set up means testing for SS, to make it a welfare program. That is because the GOP wants to destroy SS, and they can't do that so long as the vast majority of Americans support SS.

If EVERYONE benefits from social security, everyone will support it.

Want to save SS? LIFT THE CAP!!!!

Getting rid of the cap on earnings that are taxed is the obvious fix. Currently, only earnings up to $118,500 are taxed for SS, which is ridiculous.

[George II]

47. He has several very appealing positions on the issues, now if he could only work on...

...the remaining issues and stop voting lockstep with republicans.

But I do admire him probably more than any other republican Senator.

[LAS14]

48. I just came to my laptop to make a similar post.

What caught my attention was that he said (words to the effect) "we have to work with the Democrats. What we've been doing hasn't been working."

He's presenting a real problem for my hubby, for whom he has been the devil incarnate ever since the Clinton impeachment.

But, boy, if he leads a movement to break this awful culture we have in Washington, he's going to deserve some respect.

[Warpy]

55. I disagree about not collecting anything. It's insurance, no different from car insurance

and car insurance companies can't refuse to pay out if there's enough money in your bank account for a new car.

Some people have enough without SS and can refuse to collect. That's already legal, just like it's legal not to collect from your car insurance company for damage you can fix with a can of Bondo and some spray paint. However, that part needs to be VOLUNTARY.

I agree that the cap is laughably low. I also think wages are laughably low and that's where the real funding problem comes in.

[pat_k]

56. "Means testing" is intended to kill it

No. The way to kill SS is to
1) means test,
2) make eligibility more and more difficult,
3) have so few receiving this "welfare program" that it loses support as more and more start resenting the "deadbeats" who need it.

No. If anything, it should be MORE, not less, universal.

Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream (Andy Stern, former Pres SEIU)
http://raisingthefloorbook.com

[SMC22307]

123. Preach it! I have to laugh...

Lindsey Graham is now *some* DUers' friend. God help us.

[pat_k]

127. God help us indeed! You might want to...

... give this a kick 'n' rec:

How to Kill Social Security, With a Smile
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028851037

[SMC22307]

128. Done!

Jesus, Lindsey Graham. LOL

[LovingA2andMI]

57. Agreed!!!!

If There Is An Opportunity To Fix The Small Issues With The Affordable Care Act, Let's Do It TOGETHER without the Severe Right-Wing Extreme and Democrats in the House and Senate willing to fix what the public now rightfully believe is a RIGHT. Affordable Government-Supported Healthcare.

Point, Blank, Period.

[pnwmom]

59. NOOOOOOOOOO! Social Security IS a retirement account that everyone pays into.

It's not insurance and it's not charity.

No thanks, for this Reagan viewpoint.

[pat_k]

65. Yes (to the "Nooooo")

"Means testing" is step 1 in the "kill SS" agenda. "Insurance" is really a misnomer, except in so far as it applies to the disability portion of the act.

A better name would have been Social Security Income and Disability Insurance.

[Kaleva]

67. From the SSA website

"The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement."

https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Some seniors, when they retire, get a pension from work or income from investments. Many do not however and rely totally on social security. They are those who continue to work because they have to in order to supplement their SS benefits.

[pnwmom]

72. That doesn't matter. It is NOT insurance in the technical use of the term. It's a retirement program

with earned benefits.

[Kaleva]

78. An excerpt from FDR's speech

"We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."

https://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrsignstate.html

History does not support your definition of social security.

[pnwmom]

85. So? The modern insurance industry didn't even exist then -- so his use of the term has nothing

to do with the products we call insurance today.

[Kaleva]

122. Insurance companies have been around for several hundred years

CIGNA was founded in 1792.

"The sale of life insurance in the U.S. began in the late 1760s"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance

The excerpt from FDR's speech:

"We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."

What I highlighted is the the purpose, as said by FDR himself, of social security.

[mopinko]

115. it's more of an annuity.

i suggest people take a look at how much an annuity fund that will pay you a couple thou a month for the rest of your life.

the disability part is exactly an insurance program.

[pnwmom]

117. I agree that the disability part is insurance. But regular Social Security is an earned pension. n/t

[mopinko]

124. i'm mostly saying that to compare what you get from ss, vs what

a 401k gets you. you can compare those numbers easily.

it is unlike a pension where the employer is carrying the full costs. or even those that pay into a pension fund.
those sort of funds can be ducked in bankruptcy, or bought out in layoffs. or reduced in the end. ask the chgo teachers union.

ss cant be touched by any other conditions. that describes an annuity better than pension.

[still_one]

102. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Kaleva]

61. I think the cap out to be removed and those earning above a certain amount have their benefits taxed

and/or their medicare premium goes up.

[TwistedTinkerbelle]

69. Lindsey Graham is a complicated figure....

I've seen him produce ideas that are indeed noble such as his take on seeking answers regarding the current Trump/Russia mess. But then he turns around and tweets out support for watching the ACA collapse and then they'll get the replacement the GOP wants. I am seriously confused and bewildered by his seemingly chameleon shifts in policy.

Link to tweet

[pnwmom]

87. This isn't a noble idea. It's as way to reduce support for Social Security -- by changing it to

a welfare program for low income people -- so they can get rid of it eventually.

[still_one]

96. you nailed it pnwmom.

[TwistedTinkerbelle]

143. How about you read what I wrote.

I said his remarks about Russian Trump mess was noble...Not the bit about Social Security.

[pnwmom]

144. The OP to which you responded was about Social Security, and you didn't address it. n/t

[RandySF]

83. No

Link to tweet

[ALBliberal]

84. We need everyone to collect or it is will accurately be labeled an entitlement.

Republicans call it an entitlement now but it's not. Sorry if this has been covered already. But I do think Grahams intentions are good.

[pnwmom]

88. Even worse. It will be considered WELFARE. n/t

[still_one]

95. It is an entitlement ALB. Entitlement means YOU are ENTITLED to receive certain benefits. That

word has been misused and distorted mostly by right wing sources

[pnwmom]

98. YES. It isn't charity and was never intended to be. nt

[still_one]

100. The media is also notorious to distort the meaning of entitlement also.

[exboyfil]

121. Charity can also be an entitlement

For example Medicaid is an entitlement because if you meet a certain set of conditions, then you receive it. Food stamps are another example.

Entitlements are items defined by law and are mandatory spending.

Actually social security is structured for the higher lifetime earners (those earning up to $115K/yr today) to subsidize the lower income workers. The three levels that define the benefits make this happen. These levels are 90%, 32%, and 15%. If you remove the cap a fourth tier can be put in place for that income over $115K (inflation adjusted like current program) of 5% for example. The higher earners still get something for their contributions. In this their situation is no different than the individual earning $115K/yr.

Additional program subsidization also occurs with the taxing of benefits for higher earners.

[ALBliberal]

106. True...but our side should not use the word since it fits with their meme....nt

[still_one]

109. Perhaps, or take the time and explain the actual meaning

[RandySF]

86. Lindsey Graham was a prosecuted Bill Clinton in the Senate after he was impeached.

He will NEVER have my respect.

[worstexever]

91. I agreed with​ some of what he said, but...

I'm extremely offended by the GOP's hypocrisy on the Gorsuch nomination. Gaaaaaaa!

[meow2u3]

104. I'll believe it when he actually votes to do so

Otherwise, it's all talk.

[yardwork]

110. The reason we still have social security and Medicare is because everybody is covered.

Take it away from rich people and they'll take it away from us.

[pnwmom]

113. EXACTLY. Turn it into welfare and its support will plummet. n/t

[SMC22307]

131. Third Way supports Social Security-destroying means testing...

along with raising the retirement age.

--Raise retirement age to keep pace with longevity

--Means-test and eliminate benefits for very high income seniors

http://www.thirdway.org/report/saving-social-security

Fuck 'em.

[mountain grammy]

132. Disagree! If someone pays in they should collect.

it's not means based and shouldn't be.. the minute it's for the poor only, it's gone.

[suffragette]

133. No. Graham has been trying to means test and cut SS for years. This is buying into his propaganda

And no Democrat should do that.

Here's an example from 2011 when he was trying to hold the budget hostage to get his cuts and means testing in place on SS. Hypocrite that he is he had been voting for budget increases for years for GWB, but took the first "opportunity" he could to try to decimate SS in the guise of reform.

http://crooksandliars.com/heather/lindsey-graham-dont-allow-debt-ceiling-be-ra

Looks like Lindsey Graham is continuing to pander to the extreme right wing of his base, which isn't too happy with him right now, with this rhetoric. Graham wants to hold raising the debt ceiling hostage even though he admits here that it would not be a good thing to have the United States default on our Treasury obligations. But he wants to use this "opportunity" to raise the retirement age and means test Social Security and Medicare Part D, or in other words, turn them into welfare systems.

And as I've said before, we all know what Republicans think of welfare. This is nothing more than using the debt ceiling as an excuse to destroy Social Security and our social safety nets in America. Although Graham later admitted that Republicans really didn't want to shut down the government, he apparently is more than willing to play political games with our entire economy in order to get their last chunk of flesh from the working class.

~~~
Of course, Graham and the rest of the pearl-clutching Republican Party had no problem doubling the national debt under President Bush and raising the debt ceiling seven times, as Jon Perr points out.

[Demsrule86]

135. I absolutely disagree...when you means test this you begin the death process. nt

[spanone]

137. fuck him. eom

[tammywammy]

140. Means testing Social Security is a major step in killing it. n/t

[shockey80]

145. I need to clarify my original post.

First of all i was not thanking reagan. What i heard graham say i did not take it as means testing. The way he said it people like him should pay more, which is true. Then he said they should not collect. I took that as voluntarily not collect. Maybe i took it the wrong way. He never said means testing.

[Eliot Rosewater]

165. It even sounds good they would have a "choice" where the rich

could option out and not collect, but EVEN that would leave the door open for the GOP to destroy it.

AS it is, right now, the Trump admin is preparing to destroy ACA and they can do that.

The hope is to kill and make homeless a lot of democratic voters.

[WinkyDink]

147. You are wrong, and so is he. It is NOT INSURANCE. But hey---If you want to trust a REPUBLICAN,.....

[whistler162]

152. So we don't pay into a central pool of funds

along with other people and receive payouts when certain requirements are met?

Sounds like insurance to me.

[USALiberal]

149. Bullshit, SS is not a handout. If someone is expected to pay more then their benefits should......

be more.

Means testing is insulting to those who saved their money correctly.

Bill Gates deserves SS just like I do.

[NutmegYankee]

151. Terrible idea, do that and it becomes a welfare program.

And then it can be killed as justification.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

156. He's full of disingenous shit.

[lostnfound]

158. Wake up. Means testing turns it into welfare program which will get cut and destroyed nt

[clementine613]

164. A Rethug will never earn my respect.

nt