...When Social Security was enacted 80 years ago, Alf Landon said the Soc. Sec. trust fund contained "worthless IOUs."  Chris Christie said the same thing during the last Republican debate.  Who knows, in another 80 years, the Republicans may actually be right about this issue - if the party is still around.

and I'm sure many, of both parties, will use the line in the future.
to say Christie stole it from Alf is rather dishonest of you but what's new.  
Also how do you know that Alf was the first to say it, maybe he stole it from someone.  

...come up with anything new so they have to go back 80 years for the same trite talking points?  That's what the OP is about.  Speaking of trite, how about some more of your subject-changing posts since you obviously have nothing with which to respond to the OP?

"Also how do you know that Alf was the first to say it, maybe he stole it from someone(?)"  Social Security was enacted in 1935, Landon ran for President in 1936.  "Maybe he stole it from someone(?)"  WHO?

"So" again you take the bait.

Look at what a simple Google search of "worthless IOU's" brings up, go ahead and take your pick from any of the dozens of references to "worthless IOU's" where it comes to SS.

That could be part of a solution but it wouldn't save all that much (depending on the setting of the means test of course). There already is a cap on the SS retirement payments to the "rich". They don't get paid any more in SS payments than a person whose income was just at the annual cap.

and yes I completely agree the system for means testing needs a lot more than a tweak to save the system. I think it should be much more slanted towards actual need. If a person has $500,000 a year coming in from dividend or other passive income that person is most definitely not in "need" of SS income. The same thing goes for a person with a ten million dollar bond fund who is only drawing less than one percent and whose actual income is less than $100 K.  

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=254609&boardID=39&page=1#254609

Well, I’m not rich. Richer than most but I’m only a couple of years from retirement and I am counting on SS. If I live to present life expectancy (which I doubt) I’ll get back 190% of what I put in (that includes both halves since it was really mine to begin with as part of the total cost of employing me). That's 190% over 42 years with no adjustments for inflation. Not really a very good savings strategy but one strange thing is how some view it as not fair that I am getting back more than I put in. Of course that was the big original lie that somewhere along the way it was sold a savings for retirement plan.

So I will simply copy and paste my reply to your last post on the subject, and give you the BOD that someone else got your post pulled

If you're interested, just comment on what one person wrote.

for income. But please tell me you are NOT suggesting wealth testing? You open up wealth testing, you're opening Pandora's box for the liberals. How do you define wealth? Are all assets on the table? I can only imagine the unintended consequences!

I will agree that there are only 2.9 workers for every retired SS recipient, but that number is not down from a peak of 3.4, which would be a rather modest, easily tweaked problem to solve. In fact at the height of SS, there were over 40 workers for each retiree, this is a problem that is unlikely to be reversed without some serious changes to the system. At a 15% combined contribution from both employer to employee how in the fuck are only 2.9 workers supposed to support a retired person. The numbers just don't work. We need to drastically reduce the numbers of people feeding at the trough.

In the book "The World according to Laffy" Every rightie speaks for ALL righties, but each leftie speaks only for himself. Unless of course Laffy agrees with said rightie, and then by definition that person is not a "Real" rightie. Got it?

You said $10M, then you adjusted to $5M. Why not $1M. It now becomes a moving target, and if one party controls all 3 branches, like the Democrats, you are giving them carte blanche to go after anything and everything. Look how the goal posts for estate tax changes?  

The number of people that are worth more than $10 MM yet make less than $200K a year are probably not enough people to be worth opening that particular door.  

Today, a self employed person who is at full retirement age making $400K in wages, that has reached the SS cap over his lifetime, is eligible for the maximum $32000 in SS income. Yet he only receives $6500.

regarding repeated failed attempts.

Much better than if the dems get their way and rather than simply losing any claim to SS, your hypothetical senior citizen would end up paying $60,000 a year into a system that is supposed to be paying him back at this stage of his life instead.

Your hypothetical $400K unearned income would pay about $25K into the SS/MC system and if they'd capped out over the years they would pay about $13K in income tax on their $32K SS benefit.

all I ever hear is "Lets tax the rich!!!" I suppose people who make a 118,501 are now "rich people" who need to pay more.

Theoretical is my phrase, nothing you would have read.

Under any circumstance that the government chooses to "sock it to the rich" by eliminating the cap, there is ZERO chance that they will vote to give any of that money back to those "evil rich people"