Should Republicans Refuse Social Security Benefits?

[grasswire]

Shouldn't Republicans refuse to accept Social Security benefits? And drug prescription benefits? And Medicare?

If they are to be thought serious about fiscal conservatism, they ought to get off the teat, don't ya think?

It's time to start asking them to give up their government support.

[iamjoy]

1. The Way I See It

Republicans hate entitlement programs except when they are the recipients. Come on, haven't you heard of "corporate welfare"?

What about all those farm subsidies to those red staters?
(I know, I know if not for farm subsidies we'd be paying $4 pound for tomatoes - oops)

[bleedingheart]

2. Yes but they will argue since they paid for it...they should get it

and it is true that they paid for it and deserve it...but what is funny is that if all of them got off the "dole" as they refer to it...then perhaps the system would just die off since no one needed it ...but alas where are those brave anti-Social Security warriors.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Exactly.

-----------------------------------
Fight the fraud; fund the recount!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Cleita]

13. The truth is if everyone got their share of the pie, we wouldn't

need entitlement programs. Everyone would be able to pay for their needs and would have extra to pay for dependent children and elderly relatives. Yeah, and fairyland is really a nice place.

So this is why we need government to collect taxes to pay for the well-being of it's citizens, whether it be roads, hospitals, health care, schools and child welfare and elderly care. This is what governments should do with our tax money, not rob the working class to gold plate profits on Wall Street.

[bleedingheart]

15. I agree

[TimeToGo]

3. LOL

Don't hold your breath.

[Dirty Hippie]

4. One of the most rabid Repubs I ever knew

was a student of mine. He and his son were receiveng the PELL grant to pay tuition costs.

I about blew my top when he mentioned his family received food stamps. I kid you not. This idiot was also a fundie preacher.

[0007]

23. This is beyond the pale.

A Federal Pell Grant, unlike a loan, does not have to be repaid.

[True Liberal]

5. Amen!

I'm not repugnican, but if I had the option to not pay Social Security taxes, I would gladly not accept Social Security Benefits.

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

6. No, they should get double benefits

for putting up with the pain of a government funded social program in the first place.

[idiosyncratic]

7. Personally, I think "means testing" should be done for all

recipients. I realize this is one of the "third rails" of politics, but if a person or a couple makes more than, let's say, $200,000 per year from pensions and investments and other income, shouldn't they decline their Social Security benefits?

That would help the bottom line of the bankrupt Social Security. account.

[True Liberal]

8. How do you determine the limit?

Who should be able to decide how much money someone needs?

[idiosyncratic]

11. I don't know . . . that is certainly a problem.

However, something like that would help the bottom line.

If a person has enough money to pay their bills and live in the style "to which they have become accustomed," the Social Security benefits are just "gravy."

I learned the other day about a CEO here in the San Diego area who gets a five-million dollar salary each year. When she retires, will her $1000.00 per month Social Security check even be noticed, much less needed?

[Cleita]

16. Republicans like to make this argument.

The truth is that they know means testing starts the decline of a program. If you pay 5% into Medicare shouldn't you be able to participate in it? The truth is if Medicare was funded properly without caps, the rich guy would be paying for his own medical care anyway, because chances are he would be contributing more than collecting. In the meantime the poor man who also needs medical care but whose 5% doesn't cover everything he needs would still get the care he needs.

This is how insurance works anyway. The big difference is that the private insurance companies have a huge administrative overhead that a government program doesn't have. Government single payer is more cost effective and covers everyone instead of just those fortunate enough to be covered.

[TahitiNut]

12. Do you think all insurance proceeds should be handled this way?

If a person's insured automobile is totaled, should they not receive insurance payments for it if their income is above $200K?

[idiosyncratic]

17. No . . . absolutely not.

That is completely different.

[TahitiNut]

20. It is? (Hmmm...) Well, "Social Security" is insurance.

So, how is it different? You pay a premium; you collect if the risk insured occurs. :shrug:

[grasswire]

18. absolutely

....there should be means testing. Perhaps the cap could be half a million in assets and $150,000 per year income. For SSA, pay them back their contribution with interest at retirement, in a lump sum. For Medicare, make their private insurance (and they all DO have private insurance at that income) pay first, with Medicare as the supplemental.

But I am not thinking of the change in the government program. I'm thinking they ought to voluntarily refuse benefits, for reasons of personal integrity.

[idiosyncratic]

21. Wouldn't it be wonderful if those people had that personal integrity?

My mother lives on a fixed income and her rent goes up each year by about the same amount as her Social Security is increased.

Since my father's death, she had some medical coverage for prescriptions from his medical insurance. That was until this past April when that was cut off completely.

My worry is that one of these days she won't be able to pay her rent. What happens then?

Meantime, the wealthy retirees are going on round-the-world cruises while their three homes in the U.S. sit idle. They use their Social Security check to pay for one meal for themselves and a few friends at a five-star restaurant.

[True Liberal]

22. Mutual Agreement

I would gladly voluntarily refuse benefits if government had the personal integrity to not force me to participate and steal my money in the first place.

[idiosyncratic]

26. You are not thinking about the possibility of disability

That is a group any one of us can join in an instant, through accident or illness.

If you haven't put money into Social Security, how will you survive? Will you have saved enough on your own, or invested wisely enough, to support yourself for thirty, forty, or more years after disability strikes?

Social Security disability helps many people prior to reaching the age of 65.

[True Liberal]

27. What about pro-choice?

If we were truly free, we should be able to choose whether or not to participate in a disabilty insurance program. Many people have social security in their families. For the remaining minority of people who don't there are many charities who would fill the slot. Regardless of all that, if we want to call ourselves defenders of liberty then financial participation should be voluntary, instead of extorted at the point of a gun.

[idiosyncratic]

28. Sorry . . . I just don't believe the average American will save

on their own. Look at all those idiots who voted for *.

They can hardly make their trailer rent payments. How are they going to save for the future unless it is a requirement?

And . . . these days, fewer and fewer people have family to depend upon. I know one person whose only child was killed. She might have depended on him in her old age . . . but he's gone, as is her husband of twenty-five years.

And what charity is going to pick up the slack when the numbers of needy increase exponentially? San Diego doesn't have enough resources for their homeless population now. That is the case for cities all across the country.

[True Liberal]

29. That's the price of freedom.

Ultimate freedom means the freedom to not prepare for the future and the freedom to suffer the consequences. I just can't say that we are a truly free nation if your money is stolen from you to give to someone else too stupid to prepare for the future. Freedom and Liberty mean that you have a choice. Just like with drugs or abortion. I believe I should have the choice to be charitable or not; prepare for my retirement or not.

If Joe Blow down the street wants to spend his money on that new Lexus, big screen TV, and $200,000 home, when I sacrifice and save my pennies, why should my money go toward his social security payments when he's old and penniless?

Most of today's "poor" and "helpless" are that way because of lack of financial discipline. I can't tell you how many times I have been in line at the grocery store and seen someone in front of me pay with food stamps only to later see them loading the groceries in a brand new SUV while talking on a cell phone. How many of these people do you know who complain about being broke but turn right around and talk to you about what happened on the Sopranos last night. And how they watched it on their new big screen TV. There's $70.00 per month for cable/satellite, and who knows how much they pay for the TV they could be using for their retirement.

Now throw in that $500.00 per month vehicle/insurance payment when they could be driving something mush more within their means. This "alleged" state of poverty that many people claim is of their own doing. I have no pity for those that do it to themselves. They can live on cat food or starve for all I care. It cheapens the significantly smaller amounts of people who legitimately deserve a helping hand.

Enough of my rant. To sum this up, I think these social programs should be voluntary, and administered more selectively.

[geniph]

9. I know a bunch of conservatives who went to Canada for flu shots

Now, we're talking people who rail, every chance they get, against the evils of "socialized medicine." Yet they brag about taking advantage of it by having taken trips to Vancouver for flu shots. They don't even see the irony.

:eyes:

[Cleita]

14. This is a blind spot with conservatives.

My husband's clinical nurse is a nice woman but a staunch Republican. Her stand is everyone should work for everything they get. If they can't afford it then they should go without.

The irony is that the clinic's income comes 99% from Medicare and Medicaid, because almost no HMO or Medical insurance covers renal failure. So her salary is paid for by tax payers through a middle man, the clinic. Not only that her husband is a fireman, someone else whose salary is paid for by taxpayers.

[forgethell]

19. But wouldn't that mean

they wouldn't have to pay? And isn't that their point?

[MattWinMO]

24. It depends on the Republican.....

I don't think the majority of Republican voters philosophically oppose Social Security, Medicare, etc.

[leesa]

25. Republicans are ALWAYS the first in line for a government handout

Rick Santorum comes to mind. My Republican brothers are the only ones in the family to ever get gov. assistance.