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.

[unique]

I just wish that someone would step up to tell the truth about SS - it's not about the wealthy getting their money back, the problem was not funding it from day one to cover those that did not pay in but started to receive benefits anyway and turning it into a welfare program (covering the disabled, death benefits to children/spouse, etc).

I'd guess that math on the low end payments don't work out that well either, producing another short-fall to fund the welfare state.

We seem screwed.

[abb]

A suggestion here. Let’s take a stab at trimming back gov’t employee benefits (perhaps means testing?) before anything is done anywhere else.

[dforest]

LOL. I was kind of reluctant to put it away. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

You know, If they did what I said, I still think we would let them get away with it.

Pretty sad.

[misterrob]

but there are in a sense since SS/Medicare is a welfare payment more than anything else. Why are we issuing checks to wealthy (asset income) people when the program is insolvent?

[Lurker]

You’re not advocating cutting it. You’re advocating theft from the people who have put the most into it. All you want to do is tinker with the amounts being stolen and from whom.

[skeeter]

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

I keep hearing that the money I was paying into SS all those years wasn't real money, so I guess anythings possible.

Like I asked before, since the contributions you alleged to have paid into your retirement account cost the government the time value of the deferred taxes, whats to stop them from appropriating it as well?

They did it with SS, after all.

[abb]

but there are in a sense since SS/Medicare is a welfare payment more than anything else. Why are we issuing checks to wealthy (asset income) people when the program is insolvent?

That's not accurate. If they paid into it, it's not a welfare program. If someone didn't pay into it and receives a payout, THEN it is welfare.

[Mariner]

"You’re not advocating cutting it. You’re advocating theft from the people who have put the most into it. All you want to do is tinker with the amounts being stolen and from whom."

That's not true. I do, and have, advocated for complete elimination of the program.

Absent that, I support any and all reductions.

[bukkdems]

If you took away all taxes on dividends and capital gains, millions of worker bees would grow financial wings. There would be a much higher incentive to work and save, and many more people moving from the middle to upper class.

But the democrats are going to make sure that never happens. They will bust you up every 20 years or so.

[Mariner]

"whats to stop them from appropriating it as well"

It's called the rule of law.

That said, I don't have a 401k. I have no tax deferred accounts.

[skeeter]

It's called the rule of law.

Oh, thats a good one.

[Mariner]

"whats to stop them from appropriating it as well"

And yes, the commies MAY come after "tax deferred" accounts.

We M U S T make the government smaller, much smaller.

[FreeReign]

Yes, theft from me instead of theft from youth. Brilliant moral ground you’re standing on there.

You completely missed the point.

[misterrob]

The fact that people receive benefits who have not paid into it makes is a welfare program. And, SCOTUS ruled back in 1960 that SS is an entitlement program and open to amendment or abolishment by Congress. The whole retirement angle was a con job.

[Jacquerie]

Float the retirement age annually as needed to achieve annual break even.

Sanity emerges on this thread.

[Postman]

Now, THAT makes good sense!

[skeeter]

And yes, the commies MAY come after "tax deferred" accounts.

And they will use the very same reasons you advocate here for SS.

THAT is my point. For the sake of expediency YOU are giving them the means.

[rolling_stone]

Where have you been for the last two years? We no longer have rule of law, Chrysler and GM investors and hundreds of years of law- poof gone by a corrupted lying judge...Voter intimidation-nada-Bernanke raping the country -nada-Dodds and Franks conflicts of interest-nada-a President who lies at will-nada-A Supreme Court who refuses to answer legitimate eligibility questions-nada....the only law is by the elites against the peons. Invest in Pitchforks and Torches.

[meyer]

So, it IS about class warfare!

Always is - just seems odd that some freepers have taken the same side as the democrats.

[Mariner]

"And they will use the very same reasons you advocate here for SS"

It's an enormous leap from adjustments a government entitlement program to the confiscation of private savings accounts. However, I have no doubt the commies will try to make that leap.