Skip to comments.Graham: Reduce benefits for wealthy seniors
Posted on 01/02/2011 10:24:47 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Seniors should be older before the receive Social Security and wealthy Americans should receive less benefits across the board, says Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
He made the argument in an interview on Sunday's Meet the Press, but it's a position Graham has advocated for on the stump in South Carolina, including a 2009 stop at The Citadel with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
"What I'm going to do is challenge this country to make some hard decisions," Graham said at the time, telling the crowd of cadets, Tea Partiers, and Graham supporters that they shouldn't give Congress a pass on the tough stuff.
(Excerpt) Read more at charlestoncitypaper.com ...
First, the Tea Party will fire treasonous bastards like you and your BFF!
Linda should work on reducing government employees and their benefits, including her own.
Sorry Lindsey, I don’t think “wealthy seniors” are the real problem here. Comprende?
Leave it to Graham to pick up the chant for CLASS WARFARE!
Butt, butt that might reduce HIS benefits and he certainly doesn’t want GOVERNMENT hellcare. He’s too good for that.
as God is my witness, I'll never vote conservative again!!
Let’s start by cutting the salary of congress wienies in half, you sonsa... Show some leadership you treasonous ba$tards.
Graham is a poster child for abortion. Why did his mama not do the right thing. I am anti abortion but in a few cases, exceptions should have been made.
Well there are some easy ones too. No more JUANnabie, RINO Senators.
They take your money and they promise to give it back to you.
Then they don't give it back.
So much for equal treatment under the law.
Te way scum like Graham think it was never your money to begin with.
It’s those damned chickens again . . . the political establishment is getting desperate. The day of reckoning is on the event horizon.
What about reducing Federal Pensions for Wealthy Politicians first and set an example lol I would love to see that they can start with clinton how many millions has he made?
How about all those wealthy Retired Senators why don’t they give their federal pension money up?
Screw them they forced people to pay into Social Security and it is not the wealthy (who determines wealthy anyway?)seniors fault the politicians looted the fund.
About that wealthy part with the Fed devaluing our currency and near zero interest on savings as a result and inflation they are doing their best to strip them of anything they have left as it is.
So let me get this straight....
you’ll NOT collect what you paid in to and an employer matched under either of the below scenarios:
You die before getting old enough to collect
You were too successful in helping the economy hum
Do i got this right?
Here comes that “wealthy seniors”
thing again. Is a wealthy senior one that’s scrimped and saved their whole working life to put $500,000 into a retirement fund for themselves while the governmant gave away their tax money to those who have spent their entire lifetime on welfare?
Sure Lindsay, America needs another welfare program.
Miss Lindsey can drop dead.
How low do you have to be to suggest that people who have taken risks and worked hard and saved for retirement and paid taxes their whole lives should be stripped of the social security benefits they’ve earned, just so there’s more money for irresponsible losers, bums, and parasites, as well as “crazy check kids” and other “disability” frauds?
I better get every last dime I got coming, even if only to help with my boat payments.
Drop dead, Miss Lindsey.
I agree with the idea but to do that you need to have a two teer SS system, a private account SS and an optional public SS system.
How about trimming government spending? How about we make SS only for retired people again?
Lawmakers who engage in highly risky sexual practices should have their tax-payer funded health care revoked.
Both SS and Medicare will have to be "means tested", increased eligibility age AND benefits frozen at inflation minus x percent to have any chance of bringing the deficit under control without raising taxes.
And yes, it's an approach I support.
Bottom line is that this is just another proposal to tax the rich. The rich pay into the system, and it is their money that they should receive back. They already pay a lot in taxes.
If they want to give it away to charitable causes or back to the government after receiving it, that is their choice. Perhaps there can be a way to encourage the wealthy to give more to charity or toward a common good purpose, but it must be their choice.
Most of the very wealthy already give back through charity, employment opportunities for many people, and a variety of ways not commonly known or advertised. Their amount and way of giving should be their choice, however.
This is my view on this, and I think Graham is wrong.
Upping the retirement age is certainly a start. That is necessary and would go a long way towards making the federal Ponzi scheme solvent.
Means-testing benefits would also increase solvency. After all, paying out less in benefits is better for the bottom line. However, it then becomes even more Marxist than it already is - it will explicitly be taking from those who are productive and handing it to those who aren’t. It’s already essentially welfare, though, so I’m not sure it’s much of a change.
I think it ironic that these asshats of the Leftist perspectives such as Graham project ideology that could work only if we had a decent economy, which means we have in place everything they have fought for years to take away from us.
They only have themselves to blame for the situation today.
Then don’t call it ‘Social Security’ anymore, call it what it really is, ‘welfare.’
Wrong answer; very wrong, as usual for Graham. They should delay the retirement age equally across the board, eventually, but they should not change it for anyone over 50 since those people are too close to benefiting from the promise we made. As for benefits for the wealthy, for those who paid the most and were promised a proportionate amount in return, Graham is an idiot. Class warfare is morally wrong and won’t even have the questionable virtue of getting him re-elected. Given a choice between a RINO and a true socialist, the Dems in his state will vote for a socialist while any decent American will choose a third-party candidate rather than vote for this thief.
How about we reduce employment opportunities for Lindsay Graham. Benefits should be based SOLELY on the amount a person has paid in over their lifetime. Anything else is pure theft, plain and simple.
I am all for it, if it starts with the rich Senators themselves. Let’s tax 90% of their income while they are still working, 100% especially after they retire.
And what exactly constitutes “wealthy” you pompous RINO!! It’s simply unbelievable to me how a state can continuously vote idiots like this into office!
I think the age for getting Social Security should go up. When it was first established, people who were 65 were in pretty poor shape, compared to now. Should we really be making payments for people who are going to live another 30 years? Shouldn’t we look at winding down slowly on retirement, with part-time or seasonal work, as long as people are able? With fewer young people around to pay into social security, this is a reasonable adjustment.
Or, we could grant amnesty to a bunch of illegal aliens and have them support the system. /s
They most likely have in mind what the Brits have proposed.
All ur paycheck are belong to us, the gubmint first.
They will make your employers send all pay to the government and they will deduct what they see fit, including your healthcare costs. Then they will send the remainder to you. Another reason for wanting to get into your bank account is explained.
I will put my tinfoil hat back on the shelf now. Or should I keep it out?
I’m dying to hear who Graham thinks is wealthy.
$30k a year is going to be top drawer with these people.
What’s wealthy where Graham is from, is not here on Long Island.
Wow - another progressive.
Reduce benefits for Senators. And fire at least half their staffs.
How about we just end the flippin' thing and give me ALL MY MONEY BACK. Lowlife flippin' thieves. If the bass turds came through the front door to steal the fruit of my labor, I'd put a .44 caliber through their forehead. Why should this act of theft be any different?
Linda should get out of government, altogether. She is unfit to serve this nation.
Actually, this is worse than taxing the rich. Because he wants to punish those who paid the most into SS and Medicare, and reward those who paid little or nothing.
I see it as you do. Give it back and stop stealing it. I can see a fund that everyone pays into. There is a major problem, that “fund” doesn’t exist.
It HAS been welfare for at least 40 years. SS disability, survivors benefits etc.
And, both of those "features" will have to be jettisoned as well...whether turned entirely over to the states or separately funded and accounted for in the federal budget.
While we're at it, we should eliminate farm subsidies and stridently "scrutinize" all ag imports. Eliminate all bailouts for governments and businesses too. All of them.
Hey a$$hat, you'd do well to do a little research before you start calling people names.
You're exposing yourself.
Yeah, as a conservative, unlike yourself.
I guess that I’ll go out on a limb and state that, regardless of the advertising, Social Security has ALWAYS (or just about always) been a transfer program, as the future recipients decided to spend the withheld money (collectively, of course) on higher priority items - such as the Great Society, public housing, and, of course, ‘education’, rather than saving it.
Given that, the first ‘reform’ that I would make is simply change Social Security into what it really is now, which is a WELFARE PROGRAM. Since the old people are no longer spending their own savings (if they ever were), then the government has a right, a responsibility, to make sure that the money it demands from younger people is spent wisely - after all, we expect it (maybe not get it, but expect it) in traditional welfare programs.
Bottom line - if you drive a Winnebago, I do not want MY KIDS to have to pay for YOUR INDULGENCE.
p.s., I sure as hell never defend Graham (look up my posting history), but in this ONE case, he is right - even if he has no clue as to why.
I have to agree with Sen. Grahmnesty. Social Security won’t even last long enough to pay its current obligations to retirees. Wealthy seniors should be forced to take a buyout equal to the amount of money they put in over the years, plus a reasonable amount of interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.