Tag Archives: Social Security


The website, ConservativeReview.com is the best site I’ve found for illustrating where the different Republican presidential candidates stand on the issues. The issues it lists are as follows:

  • Budget, Spending, and Debt
  • Civil Liberties
  • Education
  • Energy and Environment
  • Foreign Policy and Defense
  • Free Market
  • Health Care and Entitlements
  • Immigration
  • Moral Issues
  • Second Amendment
  • Taxes, Economy, and Trade

On the scorecard page, the website administrators give the candidates green, yellow, or red dots for their stand on each of the above issues. Green means good, yellow means mixed, and red means bad. For example, candidate Donald Trump was awarded a green dot for his stance on immigration because he wants to deport all illegals and build a wall on the United States/Mexico border. On the other hand, Mr. Trump is given a red dot on Free Market because he supports the seizure of private land for economic development by private investors, he supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, and he supported TARP.

An eyeball review of the colored dots indicates that Ted Cruz is the most conservative, being awarded 10 green dots and 1 yellow dot. The yellow dot was for Free Market. Lindsey Graham looks to be the most liberal having been awarded 8 red dots, 3 yellow dots, and no green dots. Cruz and libertarian, Rand Paul were the only candidates who received no red dots. Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina, and Lindsey Graham were the only candidates that did not receive a green dot.

Of the eight candidates that participated in the “primary debate” telecasted by Fox Business Network on November 10, Carly Fiorina was awarded the most red dots, 7.

By clicking on a dot under a particular candidates’ picture, you will be directed to a page with content outlining the details of each candidates’ stances.

Because we’ve all grown up with government provided safety nets and become used to them, no one is a pure conservative Furthermore, most of us are not in favor of eliminating government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, or unemployment compensation.

I’m not about to outline the details of the top eight candidates’ stances on all of the above issues. You can do that yourself. However, the following will give a brief description of Donald Trump’s and Dr. Ben Carson’s stances on the issues that are the most important to me and possibly to you, also.

Donald Trump

Healthcare/Entitlements: Has said, “I will fight to end Obamacare and replace it with something that makes sense for people in business and not bankrupt the country. However, he has advocated for universal healthcare in a system similar to the Canadian system and has indicated that our objective should be to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice.

Energy/Environment: Believes that climate change is a hoax. Advocates utilizing America’s natural energy and oil resources. Supports fracking and nuclear energy. Opposes cap and trade policies. Did support the renewable fuel mandate.

Tax Plan: Reduces the top marginal rates on individuals from 39.6% to 25%. The plan has a bottom rate of 0%, a tax bracket for anyone making between $25 and $50 thousand. Reduce the corporate rate to 15%. Reduce capital gains and dividend taxes. Eliminate death tax.

Immigration: Wants to build a wall on our southern border and get Mexico to pay for it. Opposes amnesty for illegals. Supports ending the birthright citizenship loophole frequently employed by illegals. Said he would deport any Syrian refugees let into the United States by the Obama administration.

Foreign Policy: Sees Obama as a serious threat to Israel. Says he has an absolute way of defeating ISIS that would be decisive and quick, but wouldn’t do so until ISIS toppled Syrian dictator, Bashir al-Assad. Opposed nuclear talks with Iran. Opposed the second Iraq War. Made the case for not removing troops immediately from Iraq because of the potential for Iraq to become radicalized by Iran. Believes U.S. forces have no role in the Middle East.

Dr. Ben Carson

Healthcare/Entitlements: Has said that Obamacare is the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. Supports health savings accounts and other free-market reforms in place of Obamacare. Believes that any fix to the long-term solvency of Social Security must start by gradually the age seniors become eligible for benefits based on the rise in life expectancy.

Energy/Environment: Opposes policies aimed at regulating climate change and supports increased energy production. Believes that developing our energy resources is a key component of world peace. Believes the EPA’s responsibilities should be focused on working with the private industry and academia to find the safest and cleanest ways to utilize our natural resources.

Tax Plans: Has proposed a ten percent flat tax based on the biblical concept of tithing. But has said that the 10% number is not necessarily the number he would propose. Has said that Obama is wrong that raising the minimum wage will reduce income inequality. Has said that he supports raising the minimum wage, a form of government wage controls. Proposed the democrat idea of indexing the minimum wage to inflation so that we never have to have this conversation again in the history of America. Opposed passing Trade Promotion Authority to give Obama fast-track authority.

Immigration: Supports a national guest-worker program. Said that immigration reform should start by ending 5incentives for illegal immigrants. When asked about a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in 2013, he said, “of course allow illegal immigrants to have a pathway to citizenship.

Foreign Policy: Has indicated simplistically that the solution for combatting terrorism is not war, but ending our oil dependency on Arab states, stating, “the terrorists will be defunded, and that’s the way you get them.” Blames low morale and weakness in our current military on the sequester spending cuts. Strong supporter of Israel. Called the Iran deal the worst deal in American history. Has shown a lack of understanding of the way foreign governments work.

In subsequent posts, I will continue outlining candidates’ stances on these issues. However to obtain additional details, which you will surely need to determine which candidate gets your vote, visit the conservativereview.com site.



In part one of this series, I outlined the Democrat lies about former president George W. Bush with regard to the Iraq war and the WMDs that were not found. I also refuted the Democrat lies about the Bush tax cuts.

In the following paragraphs, I will outline another liberal lie about George W. Bush. It’s the allegation that President Bush borrowed from Social Security to fund the Iraq war and his tax cuts.

We all know that anytime a Republican president cuts taxes, liberals scream to the top of their lungs that it’s a tax cut for only the very wealthy. Not true and I refuted this in part one of this series.

In summary, the Democrats are saying that President Bush spend every dime of Social Security surplus revenue that came in during his presidency. He used it to fund his big tax cuts for the rich, and much of it was spent on wars.

This is what really happened. For about 50 years, Social Security was a “pay as you go” system, meaning annual payroll taxes pretty much covered that year’s benefits’ checks. Then in 1982, President Ronald Reagan enacted a payroll tax hike to prepare for the impending surge of retiring baby boomers, and a surplus began to build.

By law, the U.S. treasury is required to take the surplus and, in exchange, issue interest-accruing bonds to the Social Security trust funds. The Treasury, meanwhile, uses the cash to fund government expenses, though it has to repay the bonds whenever the Social Security commissioner wants to redeem them.

In this broad sense, President Bush technically “borrowed” Social Security surplus to pay for the Iraq war. But even if this loose definition is used, we still run into a few issues.

The amount that President Bush borrowed is actually around $708 billion, and little more than half of the $1.37 trillion the Democrats have alleged. While around $1.52 trillion in bonds was added to the trust fund from 2000 to 2008, the Treasury only has access to the cash revenue collected every year, not the interest accrued on the entire surplus.

Second, President Bush didn’t exclusively spend it on the war, which has an estimated cost of $1.7 million. Other big costs include the financial bailout in 2008, something the liberals should be cheering, since their guy, Obama, carried on the bailouts.

The cash that the Treasury received from the Social Security surplus was not earmarked for any specific government program, according to Andrew Eschew, a former Social Security research analyst at the U.S. Government Accountability Office and current spokesperson for the Center on Retirement Research at Boston College. The larger question is whether the existence of the surplus influenced Congress’ spending decisions. But Eschew pointed out that no one can prove what was on the lawmakers’ minds. He further indicated that the idea that lawmakers consciously thought they could only go into Iraq because of a surplus was a stretch.

Eschew concluded that if we characterize the entire trust fund system as the government borrowing from Social Security, Bush was by no means the only debtor. By law, the Social Security surplus is converted into bonds, and the cash is used to pay for government expenses. If we agree then this is borrowing, that every president since 1935 has done it to fund all sorts of items. Even if Bush borrowed from the surplus, the amount is more like $708 billion and the borrowing wasn’t earmarked for a special purpose.

As for not paying back, the bonds won’t need to be repaid until 2020.

Politifact.com provided the material for this post.



Dating back to when I was in my twenties and beginning my career, I remember folks saying that Social Security would not be around when my generation became of age. I also remember the rants of the elderly…”I’m afraid Reagan is going to take away my Social Security,” I’m afraid Bush (referring to George H. W. Bush) is going to take away my social security,” and I’m afraid Bush (referring to George W. Bush) is going to take away my social security.” It seemed like the very mention of Social Security or any kind of change to the program brought reactions from the elderly. After having to listen to these rants all of my life, I made a pledge that when I got older I would never act like this.

Now that the baby boomers are reaching Social Security age, we’re hearing more and more rants about Social Security. A young libertarian on a panel of 5 on a Fox News Saturday morning show indicates that she thinks Social Security should be eliminated because it’s not fair to take money from someone young and poor and give it to old people who don’t need it. Then all of a sudden Fox News is an advocate of eliminating Social Security, according to liberals. I watched the video of these segment several times and from my observations, it was a dis-jointed discussion where opinions were floated, but no one had a chance to explain and conclude their opinions.

For all working Americans who have contributed to Social Security, there is not an envelope in a large vault with your name on it containing the money that you will receive when you become Social Security eligible. If this is news to you, I have some swamp land that you might be interested in purchasing located in Louisiana. As I indicated earlier, the baby boomers are reaching Social Security eligibility age and there’s a lot of them. Following the baby boom years, there was a decline in births which means less and less people are working and paying into Social Security. Furthermore, the economy is very sluggish with many people who would normally be paying into Social Security out of work or working in low paying jobs. This doesn’t make for an optimal situation and everyone who will reach Social Security eligibility age within the next five to fifteen years should be concerned about what benefits, if any, they will be receiving. I’m concerned. That’s why I’m working 14 hours a day seven days a week, trying to create some wealth so I won’t have to depend on Social Security.

A Democrat strategist on the same panel I mentioned above indicated that she would be an advocate for a system where those becoming Social Security eligible would have the option to opt-out of Social Security if they had income and assets to live out their senior years. This was a Democrat, mind you. If a prominent Republican/conservative had said something like this on the Sean Hannity Show and Sean agreed, I can’t imagine what the liberals would have done. They went ballistic when Michelle Fields, one of a five member panel, threw out an unpopular idea and claimed that Fox News was advocating the elimination of Social Security. I don’t know what liberals would have done and frankly I don’t want to know.

Several months ago, there was a photograph being circulated on Facebook by Occupy Democrats. It suggested that a group of millionaire and billionaire businessmen were advocating eliminating Social Security. Of course, a number of my liberal friends went nuclear. Did they do any research on this? Of course not! The subsequent research that I did indicated that this group of well-heeled business men had suggested that, in order to save Social Security, the retirement age would have to be raised at some point…a far cry from advocating the elimination of Social Security. When I pointed this out, one of them actually thanked me for doing the research.

As my generation reaches Social Security eligibility age, it looks as we’re going to be no different that our predecessors who whined that Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II were going to take their Social Security away. Unlike previous generations, my generation has Internet and social media and with Internet and social media, reams of information have been put out there, some accurate, some not.

I’m sure that I’m preaching to the choir when I say this. If you see something out there that is not accurate, point it out, no matter what the point of view. So many times we roll over. But before you take issue with something or share something that you like, take a few minutes to do some research on it. It may save you some embarrassment later.

If you’re a baby boomer who is approaching Social Security eligibility, don’t believe everything you see on social media. Again, research it before you pass it along and get upset.

I’m concerned that Social Security might not be there for me and I’m also concerned that the government, may, at some point, come in and tell those of “means” that they are not eligible to draw Social Security because they have enough assets to last them the rest of their life. The money they contributed will therefore go to someone else who actually needs it. So, what do we do? I suggest work hard and make every effort to create some wealth in order to diminish your chances of having to depend partially or totally on the government for your livelihood, no matter what your age. I know this sounds like an extreme concept and liberals are going to come at me with…”You mean you want people to work!” Call me anything you want, I’ve probably been called it before.



Again, a liberal Facebook friend posted a link to an article in liberal publication Daily Kos. The headline read: “Tough guy Chris Christie wants to beat up on disabled, elderly when he’s president.” No matter what your political persuasion is, always double check, especially when you see something as “sensational” as this headline.

I can honestly say that since the Internet has come of age and I have been following politics and current events on the Internet, I’ve only seen one conservative post where the quote of a liberal was taken completely out of context and I commented back that it was. Also, there have been many times that a conservative article or headline sounded harsh and upon checking I found it not as bad as portrayed. I’ve seen a lot more on the liberal side where liberals either out and out lie or stretch the truth to the nth degree. A number of posts on this website illustrate just that.

According to this article in the Daily Kos, Governor Christie, speaking at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, called for reduced Social Security benefits for retired seniors earning more than $80,000 and eliminating the benefit entirely for individuals making $200,000 and up in other income, along with raising the retirement age to 69 from 67.

Are the liberals squawking or what?

Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator from Vermont and avowed socialist said the following, “What Governor Christie is saying is just the continuation of war being waged by the Republican Party against the elderly, against the children, against the sick, and against the poor, in order to benefit millionaires and billionaires. It is an outrage.”

I only have a bachelor’s degree plus I’m southern, conservative, white, and Christian. According to liberals, this makes me an unenlightened oaf which I readily admit that I am.

Isn’t it the liberals that hate the “well off?” Isn’t it the liberals that believe in re-distribution of wealth? Isn’t it the liberals that believe our economy is a zero-sum game and if you are doing well, you must have cheated to get there and should be punished by perhaps, stripping you of your wealth?

What Chris Christie is proposing is indeed re-distribution of wealth/punish the rich. Even though Chris Christie is a Republican, what he said is straight out of the Democrat playbook.

The purpose of this post is not to debate Chris Christie’s ideas about Social Security, but to expose liberals for what they are and to remind them of some things. Though, in the past, they have, on many occasions, proven that they are not capable of reading comprehension. I’m going to try anyway.

You liberals are for expanding the federal government, you’re for increased entitlement spending even when there is no money available. You’re response to this is, “tax the rich.” You resent people who work hard just to have something. You hate corporations who employee millions of people, produce goods and services, and create wealth. You want to take from those who have and give to the have-nots. Your top elected officials discourage the work ethic; and instead encourage folks to follow their dreams and not to worry about stuff such as health care. The government will take care of you. Your goal is to make as many folks dependent on government as possible.

So when Governor Christie suggests reducing Social Security benefits for those making over $80,000 and eliminating Social Security benefits for those making over $200,000, you should be applauding. I know you liberals have trouble understanding what you read, even though the academic elites are in your corner, so I’ll take it slow.

Social Security is not an entitlement, employees and employers alike contribute to Social Security with the understanding that one of these days they will get some of that money back. If you can grasp the fact that those senior citizens earning over $80,000 have put money into the pot and Governor Christie is wanting to take the pot away from them, you should be on his bandwagon, shouldn’t you?

But this is what you liberals are all about. You’re okay the pot calling the kettle black. You’re okay with telling lies and you’re okay with being unethical. Most of you refuse to have reasonable discussion with conservatives because you know you can’t win. Instead, you hurl insults and do your best to get off subject. I have a hard time calling you stupid because so many academic elites are in your corner. Maybe your intelligence level is that of a genius and you have no common sense.

You know what I really think. You do these things because you can. No one holds you accountable. The press, except for Fox News, which you hate, is on your side.

Even though the headline of the Daily Kos article indicates Chris Christie wants to beat up on the disabled, nothing is mentioned about Social Security disability benefits in the body of the article. So, I’m going to say it with no regrets, the Daily Kos is a worthless idiotic liberal publication and the people that work there sure give the appearance that they are worthless idiots also.



I’m writing this post late in the afternoon on Wednesday, March 25, 2015. I’ve seen so many things that have upset me today with regard to the direction that this country is going. Oh well, I’m just going to say it, liberal lies. Since I started following politics and became a Republican, I’ve heard that the Republicans are going to cut Social Security benefits that they are going to destroy Social Security. “I’m scared Reagan is going to cut my Social Security. I’m scared Bush (George H.W.) is going to cut my Social Security. I’m scared Bush (George W.) is going to cut my Social Security.” Has it happened? I don’t think so. For those individuals born between 1946 and 1958, the retirement age has been increased from 65 to 66, and for those individuals born after 1959, the retirement age has been increased to 67. Benefits were not cut, though. Whenever there is a Republican proposal regarding Social Security, you can bet that the liberals will be out in droves saying that the Republicans want to cut or completely demolish Social Security.

Last week, two liberal Friends posted a photo of several well-healed looking business men sitting around a very nice table in what looked like an executive lounge or a private club. The caption indicated that a group of high income executives called the Business Roundtable or Roundtable Business group had advised Republican lawmakers to consider upping the retirement age for receiving Social Security benefits. Details were not discussed, although I would think the retirement age would stay in place for those individuals who are fifty or older. All of a sudden, the Republicans were beholden to the rich who wanted to cut Social Security. What a crock? I posted back in a very tactful way what my research had discovered. I indicated that when seeing something that looks unreasonable, you need to check it out before slapping it up there on social media. One of the liberals thanked me for bring the truth to his attention. One of them never replied.

This morning a different Facebook friend posted a photograph from Blue Nation Review and indicated that Republicans are trying to kill Social Security again. This is what I discovered when I did some research. The House GOP budget released this week included a provision to block a traditionally routine transfer of funds — known as a “reallocation” — from the Social Security retirement fund to the Social Security Disability Insurance fund, which is projected to be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2016. It affirmed a House rule adopted by Republicans in January to prohibit such a reallocation without reforms to improve the overall financial health of Social Security. A little more research revealed that transferring money from the Social Security retirement fund to the Social Security disability fund has taken place eleven times and the transaction was complete automatically. Whether you think making it not-so-automatic to transfer money from the retirement fund to the disability fund is a good idea or not, any reasonable and prudent individual can see that this is not “killing Social Security.”

The third thing regarding Social Security that made me mad to day was a quote from Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders. The Senator’s quote went like this: “Today, someone making $10 million a year contributes the same amount into the Social Security Trust Fund as someone making $117,000 a year. By lifting the cap, we can not only extend the solvency of Social Security by decades, but we can also increase benefits. And that’s exactly what we should do.”

Well, let’s not let the truth get in our way, Senator. A person making $10 million dollars a year receives the same amount as someone making the cap for contributions, $117,000. Social Security was designed that way. A low-income individual draws a larger share of their contributions than someone with a high income. It’s very much modeled after the Karl Marx philosophy, “From each according to his ability, to each, according to his need.”

Let’s say we life the cap and everyone must pay 6% or 12% of their income into Social Security. Will those high income folks draw more in Social Security benefits now that they are paying more? How will this affect the system? Will this have the same effect that taxing the rich does? That is, will we see a loss of jobs, and increase in the prices of goods and services, or a lowering of GDP? These are serious questions that the Senator and the rest of the Democrats/liberals must answer. Can you say “slippery slope?”

According to a number of liberal websites, the Social Security retirement fund has enough money in it so that full benefits can be paid until the mid-2030’s. After that only 75% of the benefits can be paid. Folks, that’s not very far away, only twenty years. Those twenty years will be here before we know it. It seems like yesterday that I was at the movies watching Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Bruce Willis, and Uma Thurman in the movie, “Pulp Fiction.”
With our out of control dictator, I can imagine that at some point, individuals who have faithfully contributed to Social Security might not be eligible to draw their benefits. At retirement age, the Feds would declare someone ineligible because of their net worth. If your net worth is over a certain amount at the time you reach retirement age, you can’t draw Social Security. Instead you live exclusively on your accumulated wealth. What you have contributed will be re-distributed.

The above is pure speculation on my part of what might happen if liberal Democrats are elected to the Presidency for years to come. My predictions about a lot of things that would happen when the current President was elected proved to be true.