Republicans: Forget the White House, IF.......

Republicans: Forget the White House, IF you insist on cutting one dime from Social Security. It's bad enough that you go against the tide of public opinion of raising taxes on the rich, but cutting Social Security ? Pheeeeww!! That's the kiss of death, guys.

Not only will you not get any Democrats or many Independents, but you're even going to lose a lot of Conservatives like myself, who absolutely will not vote for anybody with the slightest suspicion of being a Social Security cutter. I don't know why you guys cling to this "cut spending at all costs", but I, and many Conservatives like me, will not accept Social Security cuts.

This is very irritating, because as we struggle to get rid of Obama policies on immigration, affirmative action, gay marriage, and Islamization, we now get derailed by Republican talk of cutting Social Security. You think you have a problem with Hispanics ? Dudes, for every vote you might lose from a Hispanic (who are notorious non-voters), you could lose 20 from old people (who vote in droves). The last time I voted (2012), I was in a voting room with about 60-70 people. ALL of them had gray hair, and I imagine I might have been the youngest person in that room (I was 66).

I'm writing this because I know there are huge problems that can't be solved as long as a Democrat sits in the White House (and controls the Senate). And with the prospect of Miss Muslim Brotherhood 2013 (Hillary Clinton), and her Muslim Brotherhood close aide (Huma Abedin), I get chills up my spine. And fear of Social Security cuts (and in my case VA benefit cuts) is the reason why I don't vote Republican. I suspect a lot of seniors (and younger people with Social Security Disability) feel the same way. An April 2013 Gallup Poll of retirees showed 61% relying on Social Security as a major source of income + 28% more relying on it as a minor source. That's 89% reliance, with, by far, most of it major.

So dudes! You know what you have to do. The polls overwhelmingly show support for raising taxes on the rich. Do that and get it over with, and then advocate a slight RAISE in Social Security benefits. And then, just maybe, you might be in the driver's seat to win the Senate and White House, in the near future. Otherwise, go play golf.

PS - if anyone thinks the George W. Bush idea of privatizing Social Security is a good one, consider what would have happened if anyone had put their life savings into that in 2007 (and lost the whole thing a year later).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1693/social-security.aspx

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80153.html

 

You don't have to cut SS. Just deny it access to the general fund. Demographics will do the rest.

 

I didn't know that Obama had policies on affirmative action and "Islamization". Cool!

 

Eventhough we had a historic economic downturn, it would be worth more now than it was then....jus sayin. As far as saying what if they were retiring in 2008?...sound investment practice would never have more than a fraction of an investment portfolio in the market if you are retiring within 10 years.

 

Getting rid of the SS base wage cap would significantly help things.

So would putting a lockbox on funds.

Until these things happen, however, SS is headed for insolvency.

It would probably be a good idea to raise the minimum retirement age over time as well.

 

Well ... "putting a lockbox on funds" is perfectly okay with me ... as long as the lock works both ways.
If Social Security is kept separate from the General Fund ... It should remain separate when it can no longer support itself.

I mean it is reasonable that Americans over the age of 45 should be concerned about the solvency of Social Security ... And do what they can to shore it up for the long haul.
But ... For people my age (33) ... If you honestly think that Social Security will ever provide you with an acceptable return for your investment ... Then you are fooling yourself.
You had better start putting away money on your own ... And preparing for your own retirement.

Younger people are currently forced to pay into a system they know damn well won't be able to take care of them in the long run.
Some of us aren't fooling ourselves with the idea that anything the government can do will ever help us out.
My personal experience has taught me there are winners and losers ... Winners get ahead of the crowd, and don't look back.

 

I plan on doing something like that. I don't plan on still living in America by the time I reach retirement age. I plan on living in Canada by the time I'm 40. (I'm 34 currently.)

 

Belize is tax friendly ... A lot shorter on bureaucracy ... And the weather is pretty good if you don't mind pretty much getting rid of seasons.
But in any case ... Making a plan for yourself is often better than waiting for someone else to make it for you ... So you got that right.

Good Luck In Your Endeavors.

 

All of this just delays exhaustion, it doesn't fix the problem, a problem Government can't solve without forcing people to produce more kids.

 

How 'bout people be in charge of their own retirement? I like being in control of my own money, thanks.

 

Canada has higher taxes and it's illegal to leave USA with more than $20K. Good luck retiring in Canada on $20K. There are probably ways to sneak the money out of the country, but god forbid you get caught you could end up having all of your money confiscates and having your passport cancelled. At that point you would be broke and would be a man without a country.

 

It's pretty easy if you're a large corporation. I say he form a fake company and move his money to a Canadian bank and call it 'expanding his market'. Problem solved.

 

Thanks, you too. I favor Canada because, despite how strange it sounds, I like cold weather.

- - - Updated - - -

..or push immigration agendas.

 

Um, I'm not sure where you got that. That's not true at all.

As for the taxes, it depends on the state/province. Ontario does have higher taxes than North Carolina, but wages are also considerably higher.

 

"It would probably be a good idea to raise the minimum retirement age over time as well."

Taxcutter says:
That's one right answer out of three responses.

 

I am beginning to think you might have been conservative at some point in you life but not any longer. Class warfare is oh so very Marxist. And bigger government and a smaller private sector is not conservative. Stop kidding yourself and just admit that you want something and to hell with the nation.

 

I forgot where I heard that, but I heard US Customs stops you. It was $10K or $20K. And I went to Europe for vacation last year and I kind of remember seeing that on the form you fill out while still on the plane. I will google around and if I find something definitive will let you know. That's why I put the kibash on my idea of taking all my money, converting it to Philippine Pesos, and retiring there. Each dollar is like 45 PHP and you can live like a king over there on 10 million to 20 million PHP.

 

They might stop people from physically moving that much cash, but that's pretty easy to circumvent with online banking.

 

That is referring to the amount you can carry through customs.

Man................this place has some character!

 

In act of utter insanity, the House will take up the Senate's devastating immigration "reform"
bill.
Would allow millions of illegal aliens to enter our work force! Environmental devastation as
millions more could join them via family chain migration. Deport them in a humane but
no-nonsense manner. Accomplish that and a veritable economic and social renaissance
would burst forth!

 

You must be young. That is, too young to remember the years when REAL Conservatism flourished. That was the time before Reagan came along and single-handedly changed the definition of a Conservative from meaning big strong govt, well-funded by high taxes on the rich and supporting a strong national defense and homeland security, to the current definition of small, weak govt, incapable of providing a strong national defense, and which hands the country over to Islamic loonies and immigrant invaders.

You can skip the class warfare argument. The rich have been waging class warfare on the poor since ancient times. If anyone is letting this nation go to hell, it is today's Reaganists who, like him, are for amnesty for illegal aliens, and supplying work visas to skilled foreign workers. You don't even know the real meaning of the word Conservative. Eisenhower was a real Conservative. Your leader Reagan was a fake, only interested in preserving as much of his big movie star income as possible. What a clear-cut comparison. Eisenhower had a 92% tax on the rich; Reagan lowered it to 28%. Eisenhower chased millions of illegal aliens back to Mexico with Operation Wetback in 1954. 32 years later Reagan undid all that good by giving them amnesty. And when Ike was grinding his way across Germany to Berlin and victory, as the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II, psuedo-conservative Reagan was in Hollywood, making movies about it.

You are not a Conservative. I am a REAL Conservative. You are only a Reaganist.

 

I think you are Ok.

Most SS cuts are aimed at future generations.

I expect the money I have paid into it to disappear, and I assume the cons will applaud it. I would have been Ok if Bush had been able to just give me a portion of it back and then killed the program.

Now I assume it was spent on nothing.

I hope you keep on getting your benefits. You paid for them, and it is all Washingtons fault the money you put in is gone.

But everyone who was born after 1970 knows that we will get shafted.

peace

 

"...when Ike was grinding his way across Germany to Berlin and victory, as the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II, psuedo-conservative Reagan was in Hollywood, making movies about it."

Taxcutter says:
In the winter and spring of 1945, Capt. Ronald Reagan was doing what soldiers do: Obeying orders from his superiors. Just like Ike, JFK, Nixon, Jerry Ford, GHW Bush, and Bob Dole, and 16 million other Americans.

As a practical matter, once a person starts collecting SS, it is nearly impossible to eliminate those benefits. They might never get increased but the current recipients will get something. What has to happen is for the eligibility threshold to rise.

The simple fact of the matter is that people today live longer than they did in 1935. Why is it so difficult to adjust to that simple fact?

SS is the single biggest line item in federal outlay. Is it beyond control?

And remember this: No further taxation - on anybody - is acceptable.

 

They need to raise the SS age to match up with the longer lifespan we have now. Or better yet, cap SS to a certain % more than you put in. Baby Boomers have already taken out far more than they ever put into the system. Their kids are not going to see a dime of what they put in.

 

"Their kids are not going to see a dime of what they put in."

Taxcutter says:
If that is true, younger voters should be clamoring to eliminate SS.