Graham: Reduce benefits for wealthy seniors

Charleston City Paper ^ | 2011-01-02 | Greg Hambrick

[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.

[beandog]

I agree, threads like this make me weep for my country, but not in the way you are suggesting. I’m appalled that there are actually people on a conservative site that believe the people who actually saved for their retirement in addition to having their money taken from them for SS, should now be penalized for making good decisions. It not only makes be weep it makes me sick.

Why do I believe the people who think this way are, for the most part, either those already receiving SS benefits, and know their payments are safe, or those who believe they won’t be considered “wealthy” enough to have their SS taken away from them.

I think people better think twice about the definition of wealthy, because it could very well be you.

[gloryblaze]

Threads like this make me weep for my country.

That is the EXACT phrase I started to type before. O will go out on the trail and proclaim SS safe and sound under his reign.... Turn out the lights; it's over.

[drbuzzard]

>Why do I believe the people who think this way are, for the most part, either those already receiving SS benefits, and know their payments are safe, or those who believe they won’t be considered “wealthy” enough to have their SS taken away from them.

I dunno, maybe it’s the people who can do simple math. There’s no damned money to pay for the promises currently made. It’s not there. It’s not going to magically appear.

We either find a way to cut back these programs or we just print money to plug the hole (which is hyperinflation, and is far, far worse than anything you are to imagine).

[metmom]

wb: "Has it occurred to you that the wealthy seniors paid into Social Security, it's THEIR MONEY, not Zero's, not Graham's and not yours. "

mariner: That's the BIG LIE and only stupid people believed it.

Once the government took that money (essentially at the point of a gun) it was the governments to do with as they pleased.

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Just wow.....

Do you always consider that that what a thief stole then becomes his property once he's in possession of it?

Have you ever heard of a *representative republic? That the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people?

The government is not (supposed to be) some kind of separate entity which produces its own wealth or is permitted to engage in extortion.

That money was promised to the people from whom it was taken, without their permission.

Whether there once was an opt out option is irrelevant at this point. People now have no choice about the government illegally absconding with their money, just as it does illegally with income tax.

It IS our money. It's not theirs once they taken it. Your property is still your property even if someone took it illegally aka... stole it.

[metmom]

Before moving on to the approach *you* support let me tell you the approach *I* support:
-drug testing for anyone on welfare, food stamps, Section 8, WIC
-immediate cessation of any benefits for anyone breaking the law
-work required by everyone receiving benefits. Even if you can’t walk you can still contribute in some way.
-Begin reducing benefits to unwed mothers. Cut them drastically if they get pregnant again.
That’s just for starters.

**************************************************************************

I LIKE the way you think. That’s a great start.

[Mariner]

"Who tried to put a stop to the scheme? "

Read Reagan's "The Speech" from 1964.

Conservatives had finally accepted Social Security to avoid destitution by reason of old age unemployment, but were insisting SS taxes be deposited as real dollars in private banks.

If that had been done, the economic growth of those NATURALLY low interest rates and available capital would have made much of this argument moot...especially the part about "where's my money".

And yes, every Congress member, Senator and President, past and present who signed off on this scheme should have all their assets confiscated (inclusive of their "estates") and the living should be imprisoned.

[VRWCmember]

Both SS and Medicare will have to be "means tested", increased eligibility age AND benefits frozen at inflation minus x percent ... And yes, it's an approach I support.

Do you also advocate means testing and freezing benefits for your 401(k) account, and your savings account, and insurance plans?

[noinfringers2]

I would suggest that person includes man, women, child, immigrant, indolents etc.

[skeeter]

And yet you keep making inane comments about “the right to the money paid in”

That explains it, you're confused - you believe I'm someone else.

Although I agree with the basic sentiment, its not my point.

All I've said is lets start making the TAKERS go without first.

[Mariner]

We're doomed.

Not even the so-called "right" will agree to a reduction in government spending.

FDR and Fabian were right.

[metmom]

Fourth, military budgets must be reduced before ANY social welfare net benefits are cut to taxpayers.

Wrong.

Cut welfare and all entitlement programs FIRST. Do not destroy our military.

[trisham]

Amen! Excellent post, metmom.

[Postman]

Can we all agree, TP or not, that Lindslee, the quintessential RINO, will be among the top targets for a primary challenge when his time is up?

Anyone with as clogged and tangential a memory as his does not deserve to represent anyone. Lindslee has obviously forgotten that since the mid-1980’s, everyone with an annual income or more than $25,000 has had his and hers and its SoshSecurity taxed at some rate or another. Changes in 1993 upped the taxes somewhat but kept the floor (defines “rich”, Lindslee???) at $25,000+...
check it out: http://www.ctj.org/html/socsec.htm

[metmom]

Seventh, the Tea Party needs to get real about their “consitutional view of Limited Government” because SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Military budgets, and Federal highway and transportation subisides that allow Americans to live suburban lifestyles must be on the chopping block equally to other programs.

Oh? you mean the same people who live suburban lifestyles that pay the taxes to those services?

How egalitarian of you. What do you have against people living lifestyles that they're earned?

In light of your comment that the military budget must be cut before social welfare entitlement expenditures, I'd say you're a bleeding heart socialist.

Do you support reparations and wealth distribution as well?

[DManA]

It is not your money personally. It belongs to the collective. If you don’t believe me as a lawyer to help you get your share back.

[Mariner]

"Your property is still your property even if someone took it illegally aka... stole it"

They took it legally, they just lied to you about what they were going to do with it. In the last couple of decades the government didn't even lie...it was formally acknowledged as a "pay as you go" system.

[rolling_stone]

BRAVO post of the day!!!!We need to all send it to our Congress Critters.

[BunnySlippers]

So, it IS about class warfare!

[Postman]

You’ll need to keep that hat on as long as any RATS and RINOs remain in any position of government power.

[Mariner]

"Do you also advocate means testing and freezing benefits for your 401(k) account, and your savings account, and insurance plans"

Do you not understand the difference between a government welfare program and a private investment account?