Let’s Talk Social Security
Social Security costs us more than national defense. It is the largest government program in the world, eating up 37% of government expenditures and equaling 7% of the GDP.
Every Democrat’s political bag of tricks contains an idiot card that reads: “The mean-spirited Republicans are out to cut your Social Security.” Idiots have been getting elected for years using that fear-mongering card. Ahh, there is nothing like the politics of fear. The real mean-spiritedness is in scaring old people for votes.
Here’s another one of my favorite political utterances: “We definitely need to reform Social Security.”
How many times have we heard that one?
The liberal politicians can’t…or I should say won’t…directly address the issue, so the only solution they could come up with is death panels that cut your health care. Remember, the faster you die, the less Social Security you collect. Why do you think the death panels are so important to the Democrats, who promised to remove the panels, only to put them right back into the health care legislation again? It is the only way for them to cut your Social Security without actually saying why they are doing it.
Very few people seem to have noticed this very important point that is left out of the current health care legislation debate by the liberals and mainstream media for obvious political reasons. If a Social Security recipient’s lifespan is cut by 10 years, not only will the government be saving money on your healthcare, but they will have also saved paying out a couple of hundred thousand dollars in Social Security. Excuse the pun, but by denying us healthcare and deciding when we die, they kill two birds with one stone and they tell us it is in our best interest. I propose we stop them from gambling on us dying and start approaching the situation from the viewpoint of the living.
While the Democrats have come up with a unique approach – Kill off old people by denying them health care and giving them death panels, I think we conservatives can do better than “murder by neglect,” don’t you?
O.K. let’s propose a solution. Let’s reform it…and I don’t mean bandages. I mean major surgery.
Just think, if we address the issue and devise a real solution, we might be able to die from natural causes.
But, before we propose a solution, let’s briefly take a look at Social Security;
It was started in 1935 by FDR as part of his New Deal. The constitutionality of it was challenged, but the proponents of Social Security got around it because the funds were paid as general taxes, not “earmarked.”
And speaking of constitutionality, the Supreme Court also ruled in 1960 that “entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right.” To my mind that means it is just a tax, not an entitlement program for which there is NO promise of future payment. In other words, we are FORCED to pay into Social Security, but the government doesn’t have to pay you Social Security in return. People should really think hard on that one. Social Security IS NOT an entitlement program.
According to Wikipedia(all quotes referenced from link listed above), the first recipient of Social Security did very well, as do all who are in at the beginning of a ponzi scheme:
“The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.”
Since then, Social Security has been paying out more and more:
“In 1940, benefits paid totaled $35 million. These rose to $961 million in 1950, $11.2 billion in 1960, $31.9 billion in 1970, $120.5 billion in 1980, and $247.8 billion in 1990 (all figures in nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation). In 2004, $492 billion of benefits were paid to 47.5 million beneficiaries. In 2009, nearly 51 million Americans will receive $650 billion in Social Security benefits.”
They also lied about how much in taxes you would have to pay. According to a 1936 pamphlet on the Social Security website, the federal government promised the following maximum level of taxation for Social Security:
“… beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.” However, by the year 2008, the tax rate was 6.2% each for the employer and employee, and the maximum income level that was subject to the tax was $102,000, raising the bar to $6,324 maximum contribution by both employee and employer (total $12,468.)”
Yep…and if you are self-employed, you pay both portions of the Social Security tax – that would be the whole $12,468.
Of course Social Security also covers dependent children and pays out a very small death benefit. The death benefit should disappear completely and covering dependent children should be dealt with as a separate matter.
Now the Baby Boomers are retiring and, ironically, those Boomers, the ones who have paid the most into the Social Security and Medicare System, are about to be treated to the liberals’ ultimate cost-saving solution: death panels. Remember, the Supreme Court has ruled we are not entitled to these so-called “entitlement programs.”
So, the question is: What can we do about the largest portion of Social Security, the retirement benefit? We have some excellent ideas. Join us as we work together to propose REAL solutions for REAL Change at The BiG BridGe .
