Nikki Haley – Back & Forth with the Wind

Sometimes, she SAYS things that other candidates need to be saying. This post shows her position, which include raising the age of retirement and limiting benefits for the wealthy.

Then, in the same appearance, she also promotes expanding Medicare Advantage, and pegging increases in SS to inflation.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I sell Medicare Advantage. For SOME people, it’s great, providing sufficient coverage and ancillary benefits to make it a good deal – for THEM.

For others, I run the numbers, and give them my honest opinion that they should stick with what they have, whether that’s Original Medicare, VA, employer, or other coverage.

Medicare Advantage is not a magic solution that will work for everyone, despite the commercials. Expanding it makes little sense, as those that benefit are moving to that option, more every year. No reason to change that.

And, the idea of changing COLA to inflation increases is truly demented. There should be NO FURTHER INCREASES in Social Security, EBT, or any other entitlement. Those receiving government money need to face an unpleasant truth – EVERY increase in the national debt – all those programs that The Left just loves and takes credit for, as they know those programs will serve as a legal bribe for recipients to vote for them – will just make the finances of Americans WORSE. To exempt a FEW from the pain of government’s fecklessness is not the answer.

ALL American voters need to wake up and smell the coffee:

I know, I know. Reality is a mother.

But protecting people from the consequences of their bad decisions is worse.

And, this suggestion from Haley is beyond Stupid.

Maybe she should read The Federalist Papers and other early American writing that was anonymous. She might learn something about using pseudonyms, and the utility of commenting about volatile issues without identifying yourself.

Nah. She doesn’t strike me as someone who is open to learning.


Skip to comment form

    • J J on November 15, 2023 at 1:23 PM

    Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley should not be elected to any office above dog catcher.   She’s just another totalitarian in RINO clothing 

    • OneGuy on November 15, 2023 at 5:15 PM

    I would hope that you see the difference between SS and Welfare.  SS recipients contribute during their 47 years of work to the SS system and it pays them back pennies on the dollar.  (Estimates are that if you invested your SS contribution into the stock market you would have between $2 and $5 million when you retire.)  Welfare recipients contribute zip.
    This is also true for Medicare vs Medicaid.
    They both may be called “entitlements” but obviously there is a difference, a very important difference.
    Also the federal government siphoned money from the SS Trust Fund and between the amount taken and the interest promised that is about $4 trillion in todays dollars.  

  1. The premise of SS was that it was intended to be PART of people’s retirement funds. Too many people thought of it as something that would provide ALL their money. As a result, since starting the program, people stopped saving for the future, stopped living frugally, and starting looking at their retirement years as the time when they would live the life they always to have, but couldn’t afford.
    What hurt the program (and is causing it to be The Giant That Ate The Federal Budget) is that, starting around the 70s, people on SS started having trouble making ends meet. So, rather than slowing inflation, the dunderheads in government decided to provide more money by using a concept called COLA – Cost of Living Adjustment. BTW, when the cost of living has gone down, it is NEVER reduced.
    In essence, this protected the retired from facing the consequences of electing people who spend like drunken sailors (my apologies to all sailors, drunk or sober). That insulates them from recognizing the harm caused by their stupid electoral choices. I’m in favor of cutting off ALL raises/COLA/other methods of giving more money to federal employees/recipients of government money/contractors. Why should they escape the consequences of the money pinch the taxpayers face in their non-government-provided lives?
    And, to be fair about it. no, SS recipients didn’t “earn” their checks. They paid for the relief of not having to fully support their grandparents, parents, and other family members without the means to provide for themselves when they retired.
    At some point, there will be a generation that is the End Generation. They will have supported all previous generations through their FICA forced ‘contributions’. They won’t get a dime, as the money spigot will have run out.
    And, that will be the last generation that will pay in. After that, the public will refuse to let the government take the money.
    Do I like that outcome? No. But, unless people are smacked in the face with a Reality Fist, they will continue making the easy, comfortable choices.
    BTW, that loss of income WILL personally affect me. I’m retired, and collecting SS, as is my husband. We also have savings and teacher pensions. We began planning for our old age when we were in our 30s. There were a lot of sacrifices we made along the way – few vacations, bought a home that was considerably less than our peers, drove our cars 10-12 years, rather than leasing or trading in more frequently, bought clothes at 2nd hand stores.
    Partway along our careers, the government passed WEP – the Windfall Elimination Penalty. A substantial portion of our SS check is withheld, as we also qualify for our pensions. We re-figured our budget, and made changes to our plans. My husband has continued to work – he just turned 75 this year. I run a part-time business to make sure that our money will be sufficient for our lifetime.
    Reduction/no further increases in SS will affect me and my family. Still, I think it’s an essential part of reducing the cost of government.

    • OneGuy on November 17, 2023 at 9:48 AM

    The SS system is a contract.  Like it or not the federal government will have to illegally back out of the contract to reform SS.  What harmed SS was all of the legislation that allowed people to benefit from SS without contributing to SS.  The SS system should return a benefit consistent with the individuals contribution, but the congress used it to buy votes.  I would be OK with returning the system to it’s original intent and remove the “welfare” components.  That is if your and your employers contribution was $100,000 over your work career you get 5% of that (or whatever the sustainable percentage is consistent with life expectancies) a year.  But by the same token if your contribution is $1,000,000 than your 5% is ten times higher,, again consistent with good financial practices. 
    For those, like yourself who do not want SS there should be an option where your contribution and your employers matching contribution goes into a IRA type retirement.   Why not!  But not an opt out.  And most certainly not an option to destroy the system simply because you don’t like it.
    They took the money and made a contract, period!  Now they should live up to the contract, period!  

    • Linda Fox on November 17, 2023 at 5:54 PM

    When has the government ever lived up to their promises?
    Any government, American or other?
    Look at the history of devalued currencies, government land grabs, promises to military veterans, promises to “take care of a civic function” in return from forcible taking of money?
    The less money we “give” them, the better.
    Contracts only bind the weaker parties.

    • OneGuy on November 18, 2023 at 9:30 AM

    Your tone is you want to end SS.  Fine!  Let’s end it.  Pay off everyone their contributions, their employees contributions plus interest and call it good.  But don’t talk about ending it and leaving us all hanging with nothing to show from our lifetime of contributing.  THAT’s the part no one wants to talk about.  I will settle for a cool tax free million $.  I can live with that.  

Comments have been disabled.