Is the Social Security Safe with the Tea Party in Power?

Only posted this as an example of what Republicans are dealing with when it comes the Obama liberal media and for you to see how they will lie to get their point across knowing it is a lie.  No one with a brain could believe this is true. 

The reason for the link is that this story does not allow anyone to cut and paste. The man who wrote this, Joseph Lazarro, is living in a world of fiction by writing this piece.

Daily Finance Story

After you pick up your jaw from dropping after reading the lies, you have to ask yourself how any writer with once ounce of journalistic integrity could write such an article. He probably believed the ad used against Barry Goldwater by LBJ with the little girl picking daises too! Seems to be the Democrat mantra of why tell the truth when you can show your opponent in a bad light.

"Haven't heard the Tea Partiers talk about ending your Social Security payment yet? Just wait!

What kind of writer would make that remark? Let's be perfectly clear that Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and most of the members of the leadership team including Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan are not Tea Partiers no matter how much the Obama media wants to tar and feather them with the Tea Party mantra. We are having a hard time figuring out why the rank and file Tea Party members are being treated like dirt by the Democrats and the media. They are citizens of this country who have a right to speak out, but the Obama media wants them silenced.

Most of the Republican Leadership in the House are not part of the 51 members who do belong to the House Tea Party Caucus. Do they subscribe to less taxes, smaller budget, and getting government spending not only under control but cut just like the Tea Party principles that started the movement? Absolutely but that doesn't mean they take marching orders from any one group including the Tea Party. Yet writers like Mr. Lazzaro use the term 'tea partier' to describe the Speaker and entire House Leadership.

We think that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) when talking about the Senate Tea Party Caucus sums it up best as someone who was supported by a coalition of Tea Party groups in Florida when he ran for the Senate:

Rubio criticised the caucus, saying "My fear has always been that if you start creating these little clubs or organizations in Washington run by politicians, the movement starts to lose its energy."

Never have I heard John Boehner or any Republican in Congress say they wanted to do away with social security that was promised to senior citizens. Wanting to fix it is one thing but destroying it completely including to current recipients is not something that has been said.  When is a rollback the same thing as destroying the system?  Democrats seem to be lacking in reading comprehension along with some of their writers.

It is the Democrats when they were in charge of Congress for years that used social security dollars for the general fund and civil retirement dollars like a revolving account. President Reagan insisted the Democrat controlled Congress pay back the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).

What did the DEMOCRAT Congress ultimately do about the federal pension system. They came up with a new program called Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) that provided a lot less benefits and required new hires or those that were in CSRS that wanted to transfer to FERS a new system where part of their retirement would be a combination of social security, Thrift Savings, and FERS retirement.  Under CSRS, social security is not part of the calculation unless you fall under the windfall elimination provision or pension offset programs. 

Yet this writer talks about how Republicans want to do away with social security even for people already drawing a pension and never mentioned how the Democrats destroyed CSRS in lieu of FERS after being caught with their hands in the candy jar.  Republicans want to fix social security so that today's workers will get their social security when they are older. One way to fix it is to raise the retirement age. What's wrong with that? Personally think 55 to retire from civil service is way too young and 62 to get a reduced pension and 65+ for a full pension which goes up every year but not by much. 

Wonder how much Lazzaro got paid by the Obama Administration to write this piece of trash. Looks like Mr. Lazzaro would like everyone to do nothing so in 10-15 years there is no money for anyone because social security was never fixed.

Let me point out that Medicare/Medicaid also need overhauled and overhauled like a long time ago. For example, if I was a foreigner in this country for five years and fell below a certain income limit, Medicaid would pick up the full amount of the nursing home care say at $3,900. If you worked your whole life, had a nice pension, and required nursing home care, then Medicaid says your pension is too much and so is your house payment so we won't help. They will turn you down if you are one cent over your limit.

Someone can pay into Medicare for years and the only thing they get for nursing home care is 100 days of skilled nursing if you spend three nights in a hospital and the doctor says you need skilled nursing. After the first 20 days, Medicare only pays a portion of the amount and you better have a supplemental insurance that will pay the co-payment.

Now the Republicans want to make Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid solvent and writers like this say they want to take away all of the senior citizens pension. There is a huge difference between making those three programs solvent and canceling them.

Mr. Lazarro should be embarrassed to write this tripe, but we have noticed over the years that liberal, socialistic writers never are embarrassed at what they write and will continue to lie when confronted.