REPUBLICAN MICHELE BACHMANN WANTS TO WEAN EVERYBODY OFF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

I think they should take the cap off social security. The ones who make the most should pay the most. Let them pay social security taxes on their millions. Why should ordinary Americans be forced to pay social security taxes on their entire incomes, while the rich only pay on a portion of theirs? A low portion at that. Social Security would be solvent in no time, if they paid on their entire incomes, like we do.

YES!!!!

The solution would work but the political will is not there. No politician will fix social security for next generation because: (1) Politics is not a poor man’s hobby. Most politicians are rich, make good money while in office, and earn even more working the speaking circuit when they retire. So good luck finding enough politicians who will voluntarily increase the amount of social Security taxes they pay. (2) Young people do not vote in significant enough numbers for politicians to give a damn about them. (3) Most of our current politicians will be dead by time the younger generation is eligible for social security so they care little about its long term financial solvency.

Dagum, just lifting the cap that is currently at about 102,000 of earnings would make it solvent till the baby boomers die out. Here's the fucking problem we have too many rich bastards that are sucking the wealth of this country out from the the mouths of all of us.

I'm sure no politician would be willing to even discuss it. They get a raise, plus a raise during the year, when their Social Security cap has been met. It's a win, win for them. They vote in raises every year. They aren't going to bite the hands of those who feed them.

They get to stop contributing to Social Security, thereby getting an increase in their income. I never did understood why they were able to stop paying into Social Security during the year. To many, the dollar amount at which the cut off happens, is a small fraction of their overall income.

I agree, everyone will at some point need help. But why is it the duty of the US Government to be the one giving hand outs?? Does someone collecting $22888.92 in SSI after only paying in $24.75 even seem right to you?
IMO, all of the walfare type progams do more harm than good.

I agree with you tommic. Maybe he is thinking of the Articles of Confederation.

well... its amazing.. In my narrow mindedness i did forget a few.
But, if you would please. Read the Constitution again, and copy and paste here where you think that it says that we are supposed to tax the people so the government can pay other people for doing nothing.
Here, i'll make it easy for you.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
That'd be the link you need
It does state and i quote "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." If that is your basis for saying its a dull interpertation.
Then i guess you're just reading more into it than it actually says.

So I guess we can kiss good-bye to the Post Office, FDA, FCC, FAA and scores of other government programs designed to provide services for Americans and keep us safe.

Oh ya make the post office a private industry so we can have 10.00 dollar ups envelopes, brilliant!

I bet the Repukes would really bitch if they didn't get their mail. The U.S. Post Office is a government program.

Would you also be for ending our military because that is also a government program?

no, defense is important to protect the people from outside threats and to ensure people's property is protected

if it were up to me, i would call all the troops home and dismantle our own weapons of mass destruction

I was in my drug store the other day and I asked the pharmacist what old people are doing who don't have health insurance and he said they just go without the medicine the doctor has prescribed to keep them alive. That is not right.

Glad you have done so well and if you happen to become one of the needy then I will be glad for you to get help. I still say that NOBODY should be "Entitled" to receive their money back if they don't need it and those that can take care of themselves don't need it!!! It is suppose to be a "Social" program, not a savings account. It is the cost of living in a country that cares about it's poor, although the rich are trying to turn things around and leave the poor to fend for themselves while they rape the accounts of the working class with the help of the government.

SS is Not a savings account!!! You and others in your income bracket and above do NOT deserve to get your money back!!! It is a program to help the elderly poor, not a savings account for the "comfortably situated". I do get it, you don't care about them, it's just you, you, you, but the me, me, me tea baggers are going down!!!

You are wrong. Social Security is a savings account for all United States Citizens. That's why the repub mantra has been to "privatize" the accounts so that Wall Street could get richer as they do with 401k's and SEP's and the banks with IRA's. The problem with that solution is now you have people who don't understand market trends and stock price indexes trying to prevent their life savings from disaster.

Sorry, I should have said "was not created as and should not be a savings account..."

That's really one of the simplest things that could be done - we make a law that forces all media to allow free political advertising and debates on a completely equal basis - and do this for no charge as part of their licensing duties.

Maybe another law that says anyone yelling lies over the media gets thrown into a specially built roto-rooter machine.

U R not serious?

Just roll your car window down and you'll hear oinking and baying.

I don't know anyone who won't claim they need it.

Actually there are many very wealthy people who have stated they don't need Social Security payments upon retiring and some have even stated they feel SS taxes should be raised on incomes over 90,000 . warren buffet for one

When I say need it I am talking about those that have barely made enough money to just get by in life and the employer did not offer a retirement plan. My cut off would be a retirement income of less than $25,000.00 a year and/or net property value of less than $125,000.00. Also, Medicare should cover ALL expenses for those people, not just 80%. Stop giving "Entitlement" checks and benefits to the RICH!

Ya, the private sector has done a GREAT job keeping health care affordable...

Just because someone like you can't afford it doesn't mean that others can't. Face the truth, pal. You can't take my money by force, so weaklings like yourselves have to use the force of government to take my money through taxation and redistribution. You vote for whoever will give you the biggest handout at other peoples' expense.

Tell me something, how long do you think that's going to work? Eventually parasites like yourselves will run out of other peoples' money. What will happen then? Who will be your next host?

LOL! OK Yurtle, people just like you at the top of the heap will come tumbling down just like the rest of us "parasites" when the weight of your ego and that chip on your shoulder get to be too much. When are people like YOU who live off of the cheap labor of third world countries (and our country, for that matter), squeeze as much out of the working lower and middle classes without considering the fact that it's their health and well-being that holds up this economy. Besides, you overlook a HUGE aspect of Social Security and Medicare - THEY AREN'T HANDOUTS!! - we each PAY into them and you don't have to be poor to be eligible. There are wealthy people all the time who think their wealth will last until their dying days, but low and behold, something out of their control (unscrupulous & greedy bankers/stock brokers, oil barons and insurance companies, etc.) causes them to lose everything - are you going to throw them out on the streets at 70 years old when they aren't physically able to work, but don't have money saved for retirement? Life has a funny way of teaching us important life lessons when we get smug - I hope, for your sake, that your maker doesn't have a hard life lesson for you. Trust me, it can happen to ANYONE, even your smug a$$.

She is speaking for all Republicans. They just can't say it themselves for fear of not getting elected. She happens to live in one of the wing nuttiest, conspiracy theory driven districts in the nation and can get away with it.

Absolutely. But Obama will NEVER cut military spending. Can you imagine how the Republicans would berate him for it? It would be political suicide... which really fucking sucks because that is exactly what we should be doing.

Bush is the one that has destroyed your freedoms with the UnPatriot Act.

Lame.

Bush was the king of the Neo-Cons.

Do you know what a Neo-con is?

That's actually not true, crob.

SS and Medicare/medicaid absorb about half the budget, together. military spending is only about 20% or so.

The difference is that there is no war withholding on your w-2. Something tells me that if there was, war would be treated differently.

I fully support Military as a line item on all Paychecks the same as SS, then lets see how popular Wars will be.

Sorry. I disagree with those figures. Military spending clearly absorbs HALF the budget. SS and Medicaid much, much, much less. We're not trillions in debt because of Social Security. It's fighting two wars at the same time overseas, Missle Sheilds and buying the latest fighter jets at $500 million a piece. For what we spend just on new military toys alone we could finance universal healthcare for decades and have plenty left over to pay SS.

Those were links to some "highlights" of spending programs....they did NOT show ALL spending nor did it put ALL military spending in relationship to ALL other government spending.

So....no, you're still wrong.

The military CLEARLY takes up HALF our budget.

Please some me a link that shows how SS and medicaid take up half the budget.

All you did was link to a paper with a few military "highlights" that have no relationship to anything.

Your links did not tell us how much we spent last year on Iraq or Afghanistan.

Was it $1 billion total? Or was it closer to $1 TRILLION total?

Please stop pulling numbers our of your ass and out of context and trying to pass them off as "proof" to the larger discussion. Simply quoting "$250 million for missle shield" doesn't mean shit if it isn't rolled in with all the rest of the military spending that we did.....and that includes EVERYTHING we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan.

No fucking way -- none! -- Social Security comes close to matching what we spent on just Iraq alone. Roll in the trillions we've spent on Afghanistan over 7 years and it's no contest. Military spending far outpaces anything we spend on social services.

Yes, but who has pensions any more? Corporations realized with social security around, why bother funding pensions for workers. And with retirement accounts primarily based on investments in the market, someone who has been financially responsible for years could still lose everything when they're about to retire.

I don't know about anyone else, but at this point I'm pretty much operating on the assumption that I'll be working for the rest of the life, without any sort of safety net and quite possibly without any health care. I gotta say, it doesn't make for a very cheery state of mind.

Many, if not most corporations have retirement plans. Turn off the Fox news, it will set you free!

Which is why I specified not offering pensions--which most don't have, and which are vastly different than retirement plans as commonly offered.

Retirement plans are offered, but as I said, are pretty much uniformly tied to the market. A 401K that you've added to is great, unless the market crashes and you get to watch your investment disappear before your eyes.

All those plans are paid for by employees and are just a way for the company to steal. They generally have it arranged so that investments are tied to set company stocks and the employee can't get it back. It's a name only thing where the tax man hovers like the dark angle. meanwhile they've been making money on your money and writing you off - and do everything but rape you after work every night.

Where did you get the $2.4 trillion annual cost? Can you please post a link?

Not so simple: the TRUE underlying problem is special interests which control gov't spending despite massive deficits: this is bankruptcy of the corporatists, pure and simple.

e.g. Boeing pretty much armored the C-17 from critics by arranging for the aircraft to be made by sub-contractors who contribute parts from 44 States. Thus no politician is going to be willing to cut THEIR constituents from the mix by voting against this expenditure, even though the military says they don't NEED more aircraft. BO recently high-lighted this example of massive fraud, waste, and abuse, which was APPROVED by Congress.

And don't be so quick to dismiss the general public, the NIMBYs who want free gov't cheese but don't want to pay for it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize SOMEONE has to pay for all the entitlements we've expected as a basic right all these years (and the Chinese have had enough of buying worthless bonds, thank you very much; we're fresh out of suckers).

However, I can't believe Bachmann dares touch this topic, which clearly is the 3rd rail of American politics. After decades of ponzinomics and policies based on "you can have your cake and eat it, too!"(whether trickle-down, no new taxes, etc), the Republicans have done more than their share to put us into this intractable mass hypnosis with a land-slide towards economic failure.

Further, she loses credibility by referencing Glenn Beck, an infotainer. Now THERE'S a good source of unbiased information (and it's not like SHE doesn't have access to better information, as an elected representative).

The government does not have to be weened off anything - they are only and solely the financial conduit for Mil industrial corporations. They (along with all the others, spend just about equally for both dems and republicans) - they aren't hedging their bets - they are 100% in the corner of the winner, for whom they are 100% the provider of their office, careers and incomes.
They simply buy their long-held position as receiving all your money (that you are paying).
People pay the "government" which is there, bought off and paid for, to pass that money to those who are taking that money. Corporations, banking and finance services. And yes, they are cheating in every way that is possible.

Think of the government as their personal lawyers. The money goes from your pockets, directly into their pockets.

Everything else is BULLSHIT and illusion - so any of you who have been duped into thinking there's a Republican side or a Democratic side that might be, in some way, trying for to you: - forget it.

That's why all these people yelling about how bad Obama is blowing it, are complete dupes.

The system needs to go through a revolutionary change - BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION. And I mean revolutionary - because the government and it's agencies have been entirely stolen.

So get your head screwed on right. Stop being a dupe. You look like blow-hard - it simply isn't "hip" - you know, looks bad.
etc - etc

Yeah, gotta love the hypocracy of Tea Baggers railing against socialism, not even realizing they've relied on 'socialist' principles for their entire lives (and would be the first to cry "Foul!" if we halted their checks, or cut their Medicare).

Exactly

When I hear Repukes bitching about government programs, I always ask them if they send back their SS check and when they go to the hospital or doctor keep their Medicare card in their pocket.