Another Example of Republican Hypocrisy...
Headline spotted: McCain Receiving Social Security Benefits.
I don't get it. McSchmuck is a WORKING man. He's NOT retired in any way. Even when he loses the election this Fall, he STILL won't be retired. WHY THE HELL IS HE COLLECTING SOCIAL SECURITY?! Here's the article:
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Republican presidential candidate John McCain says he is receiving Social Security checks, but he says the system needs to be fixed if future generations are to enjoy the same benefits.Where does he get off collecting Social Security Benefits and then bemoaning that future generations (that's us young folk) won't get those same benefits. And this is ON TOP of his senatorial salary and his wife's beer fortune.
The senator from Arizona is about a month shy of his 72nd birthday and would be the oldest president elected.
Last week, McCain said the system for funding Social Security is "a disgrace" because it forces young workers to pay into a program that is unlikely to benefit them in its current form.
Social Security benefits are projected to exceed its tax revenues in about nine years. The program's trustees have said the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2041 unless the system is changed.
What Chutzpah.
19 comments:
He collects Social Security because he's allowed to. Once you reach your full retirement age, you can collect while working.
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10024.html
If he's entitled to collect it, then you have no legitimate complaint. Since McCain is past his full retirement age (66, in his case, IIRC), he can collect.
C'mon... if you have a legitimate beef with McCain, then fine - but this is silly. He worked his entire life and is eligible and entitled to the money.
The Wolf
[[ just adding this because I want to receive follow-up comments by email and I forgot to check the box with my last response...]]
brooklynwolf - Well, he certainly is entitled to Social Security and isn't doing anything illegal by collecting. But I think the point here is the hypocracy involved in saying that the system is a disgrace because the young current workers have to pay for the current senior citizens, while he himself is one of those senior citizens. When you're a professional politician, you always have to worry about how things look, and I would wager that all who have national ambitions make choices based upon perception. The perception here is not so great.
Not only that, but there is a fine line between "Can I" and "Should I." Can McHypocrite claim Social Security benefits? Absolutely, as you stated, Wolf.
But SHOULD he? No. He shouldn't. He just doesn't need it. He's not in debt. He's not struggling. In fact, he's pretty damn wealthy, while others out there who get barely enough, or most of the time, not enough, from Social Security are getting the royal shaft because of greedy bastards like McCain.
An example of can and should: Could Wal-Mart put all those mom and pop stores out of business? Were they within their legal rights to do? Did they break any actual laws? No. They didn't.
But SHOULD they have? Was it morally correct to do so? Was it morally correct to cause so many people so much hardship? Was it moral for them to force manufacturers to outsource by threatening, as their biggest customer, NOT to do business with them if they didn't lower their prices when they sold their goods to Wal Mart? No. It wasn't. Was it legal? Well, it certainly wasn't illegal, now, was it?
Again, there's a fine line between can and should. And sometimes, even when one can, or may, one simply shouldn't.
But SHOULD he? No. He shouldn't. He just doesn't need it.
But Social Security is not, and never was, based on need. His taking Social Security is no worse than his collecting on the life insurance policy of someone who dies. Does he need the proceeds of the policy? No, probably not. But he paid the premiums through the years and is now allowed to collect. I'm sorry, but I fail to see your problem with this.
If you have a problem with his statement as Anonymous does above, then fine... but I don't have any problem with McCain, Bill Gates, or anyone else who paid into the system collecting benefits. Sorry... SS is not welfare where we ration it out to the needy. He paid all these years and now it's time for him to collect.
Oh, and please, I can think of lots of things going on in the world that are far, far more horrifying than a person collecting money that he's entitled to. You cheapen the use of the word by applying it here -- even if you disagree with his right to collect and think he's outright stealing it.
The Wolf
Use of the word was satirical.
And I think you're missing the point. With life insurance, it is a private matter between the insurance company, with whom one has a one-on-one contract, and death entitles collection.
With Social Security, we ALL pay into it because we HAVE to. It's a tax, one that we technically will get back later in life, but it IS a national tax. And you and I will NOT get those benefits because of greedy bastards like McCain and his Republican and big business cronies.
And you are correct about the word, though its use, as I mentioned above, was satirical, so I've changed it.
Oh, and check out the last statement in the article: "the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2041 unless the system is changed."
Perhaps one of those changes should be making receiving Social Security benefits need-based (needs-based?). Part of our taxes go to pay welfare. It doesn't mean EVERYONE is entitled to receive welfare. Perhaps similar rules should apply to Social Security.
And you and I will NOT get those benefits because of greedy bastards like McCain and his Republican and big business cronies
No, you're wrong. You and I may not collect, but that's because it was poorly designed at the outset. The people who created it never thought that today's demographic and social situation could ever be possible. And the failure of *both* parties to do something constructive about it.
It's not "McCain's fault" any more than it is the fault of every other Senator, Representative and President in the last thirty years.
The Wolf
Perhaps one of those changes should be making receiving Social Security benefits need-based (needs-based?).
Perhaps it should, perhaps it shouldn't. That's a separate debate. But for now it's not and there is no problem in my eyes for any person who is eligible to collect.
The Wolf
I didn't say it was McCain's fault. I did imply he's perpetuating the problem.
Oy, my English...
For now it's not means tested and, as such, I have no problem with any person, however wealthy, collecting from a system which they paid into.
The Wolf
You said we're not going to get SS because of McCain and others. That, to me, implies fault.
The Wolf
Well, that's where you and a differ. And that's OK, and it's what makes this country great. We can differ and still be friends! :-)
I meant that they are perpetuating the problem. And rich people taking Social Security is part of the problem.
I meant that they are perpetuating the problem.
Well, then, the problem is not just McCain. As I pointed out, we've all known that this problem was coming for at least thirty years. Personally, I think it is the fault of all of them -- Republicans and Democrats alike.
And rich people taking Social Security is part of the problem.
I don't think so. Even if you means test SS, the number of people you knock off the rolls will not really solve the problem. People talk about the "richest 10%" or whatever. Well, unless you're planning to knock a significant percentage of people off the rolls, then means testing is not the answer. The problem is far more massive than that.
As an aside, let me ask you a question... I'm paying for SS now. The implied promise is that I will be able to collect when I retire. No conditions were made about any means-testing being done when I retire. Do you think it's honorable for the government to renege on it's promise of repayment to me just because I happen to have extra money lying around somewhere?
If you want to change the system from here foreward (so that contributions from now on are means-tested at repayment time) that's one thing.. but to unilaterally alter an existing agreement? That's hardly fair.
The Wolf
Existing agreements get altered all the time. It's nothing new.
Remember that when the rich pay into social security, they're paying based on what they make, meaning they pay quite a bit into the system, which is a tax. If they stopped dipping their grubby fingers into the cookie jar, there would be quite a bit left for those who do need it. Desperately.
And you're probably right. Both parties are pretty much at fault.
Also, if we changed it from here on, not making it retroactive, you know bloody well the rich and powerful are going to fight tooth and nail to not have to pay into the system any longer (they'll probably do it anyway, but they'll have less leg to stand on if we say it will be retroactive) since they won't be getting the benefit any longer.
Existing agreements get altered all the time. It's nothing new.
Unilaterally?
In any event, but now *you're* getting COULD and SHOULD confused. Does Congress have the authority and power to unilaterally change their contract with me? Yes, they can. But should they?
If they stopped dipping their grubby fingers into the cookie jar, there would be quite a bit left for those who do need it.
Again, you're maligning a lot of people for doing things that they are legally entitled to do. When people use the words "fingers in the cookie jar" the usual implication is that there is thievery going on. That's not the case here. People are collecting on a "retirement policy" that they paid into for years. Don't make it to be any worse than that.
Social Security has always been viewed as a "pay into it now, get it back later" plan. It is not a charity plan or a welfare plan. If you want to turn it into that, then by all means, cancel the SS tax, put all SS recipients on welfare, and charge higher payroll taxes to cover the costs. But don't bill it as a system where I get my money back regardless of wealth and then tell me that I can't collect because I'm too wealthy. Can't you see the dishonesty in that?
In addition, need doesn't (and shouldn't) play into it. Tell me, do you fault McCain, Clinton, Kennedy, Obama or anyone else for taking their senatorial salaries? Most (if not all) of the senators are fairly wealthy -- I'm willing to bet that at least 97 out of the 100 don't *need* their salaries. Or do you think they should work for free (as Bloomberg does as mayor of NYC) because they can afford it?
Of course you don't begrudge them their salary because they are working for their "benefits" (i.e. their salary). Well, I am working to pay my SS obligations. Should I get the "benefits" of it when they come due, regardless of how much other wealth I have? After all, I worked for it! Need does not and should not enter into it. It's not welfare.
Also, if we changed it from here on, not making it retroactive, you know bloody well...
What I know or don't know doesn't matter. People will fight for their own interests. Rich people will fight for the configuration that allows them to keep as much of their wealth as possible and poor people will fight for the configuration that gives them the maximum benefit. That's human nature and transcends party politics.
The Wolf
Bottom line is, though, you're NOT going to get it because it's all screwed up.
At the very least, I certainly don't think a person who is still working (and making quite a bit, at that), should be collecting Social Security. That would at least alleviate part of the problem.
But hey, I ain't no lawmaker or politician. I'm just a poor schmuck who has trouble making ends meet most of the time anyway... :(
Bottom line is, though, you're NOT going to get it because it's all screwed up.
That may or may not be true... but that has nothing to do with whether McCain collects SS in 2008. I'm not going to hit retirement age for another 25-30 years or so. The problem, as I pointed out, is demographic and was not thought of when the system was set up. That's not the fault of rich people.
At the very least, I certainly don't think a person who is still working (and making quite a bit, at that), should be collecting Social Security. That would at least alleviate part of the problem.
And, I suppose, you think that it would be unethical for Mike Bloomberg to take his salary as NYC mayor since he has his little business on the side? Sorry, but I see SS as a deferred salary or annuity. As I said before, it's not welfare and it's not the fault of rich people that you want to penalize them for taking what is rightfully theirs.
But hey, I ain't no lawmaker or politician. I'm just a poor schmuck who has trouble making ends meet most of the time anyway... :(
I'm in the same boat... but that doesn't meant anything one way or the other.
The Wolf
Post a Comment