Graham: Reduce benefits for wealthy seniors

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

[nikos1121]

Although I respect your right to say it, I think your post goes over the edge. It makes all commentary on Graham look like we’re right wing idiots.

Graham is the poster child for what has been wrong with our party for years. He and people Like Warner and McCAin....all feel that you have to compromise...with the liberals.

No, no more compromising on what is right....

I’m of the opinion that we’d have a far better country if the Senate would just stay the heck away, and do nothing.

I shudder to think what my Social Sec would be like if just a small portion was put in the stock market....or left with a return of just 3% per year....

I hate this congress, and until I see some real change, I’m not holding my breath....

[2ndDivisionVet]

Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham confer on ObamaCare.

[Lion Den Dan]

>I think your post goes over the edge. It makes all commentary on Graham look like we’re right wing idiots.

Are you one of the TINOs who think people of solid conservative conviction are "Right Wing" idiots or are you simply resorting to colling me a right wing idiot? You are right about so many of our elected/anointed ones and their treasonous compromises, however, stromg commentary does not put one "over the edge."

[convertedtoreason]

In the same interview, I think, Lindsay admitted that Romney was giving him a “hardon”.

Romney/LindsayGrahamnesty 2012!

Romney for President and Lindsay for First Lady.
Yikes!

[drbuzzard]

>Can you tell me what is wealthy? There are not enough Warren Buffets around to make up shortfalls so what actual numbers is Lindsey talking about? I’m pretty sure I fall into the category and I wouldn’t mind if I’d be assured my kids wouldn’t be screwed by the tax codes the next time rats take power. I think this would have to take place only after the budget is scrubbed of all waste fraud and useless duplicate programs are eliminated. I also think gov. workers have to be reigned in and depts. eliminated. Than and only than will upper middle class American except the reduction or elimination of their SS payments. You keep saying this won’t amount to much but it’s a matter of fairness.

Yes, I get the fairness angle. I get the symbolism angle. I get all that matter of principle.

I also understand that if you put preconditions on any moves to solve the problem, you are just putting it off and making it worse.

Come on people, can we stop with the nonsense? How about actual solutions being proffered? Cutting an aggregate single digit percentage of the budget from a bunch of departments is going to do exactly nothing in the face of the budget busting entitlements.

How many times have we heard that they are going to cut waste and fraud? How many times has it been tried? How many times has it succeeded?

I’ll answer:

A) Very many
B) Many
C) Bloody rarely.

We can keep whimpering about how “the government better do this before they touch my entitlements”, but face facts. Either something gets done and pronto, or this ship is going down.

The iceberg is directly in our course. Right now we’ve put off a course change too long to completely dodge it. We’re at the point where we decide if it’s a grazing blow or if we hit it dead on full steam ahead.

Why are so many of you dead set on sinking the ship?

[catfish1957]

Looks like Lady Lindsey is giving his left wing constituents another knob job.

[al_again2010]

Okay, now I gotta say FU! Those "wealthy Americans" already have paid more into Social Security than they will ever collect, and now they should get even LESS on their "investment"?!? FU!!!

At the end of the day, the R's are the same as the D's. Calling taxes an investment!

My friends, it is simply a case of spending vs revenue. We spend way more than we collect in taxes. If you are a beneficiary of government spending, you need to realize and support reductions in this. Look at all the union employees who did not accept this and are now without their pensions, it is the same concept. The longer you refuse to address it, the more drastic the reductions will be later. And later is only 5-10 years away!

[al_again2010]

So the people that forcibly paid the most into the system should get nothing out of the system. Hey Lindsay, be a man and just go to their houses and rob them at gun point. At least it would be an “honest” crime.

Is your point that the government should continue to spend at unsustainable levels?

[al_again2010]

COULD EVERYONE HERE WHO IS AGAINST CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY SPENDING PLEASE CHECK OUT THE FOLLOWING SITE:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

Look at federal spending vs federal taxes. Also understand that boomers are now just starting to retire and the expenditures related to Health (Medicare/Medicaid) and Pensions (Social Security) are about to explode to much higher percentages. Once you are able to see and understand the problem then maybe you might be able to see significant changes/cuts need to be made now!

GET EDUCATED

[justlurking]

you’ll NOT collect what you paid in to and an employer matched under either of the below scenarios:

Most will not collect what they (and their employer) contributed PLUS INTEREST (at prevailing Treasury bond rates) unless they live to be about 120.

Otherwise, the only way you can collect something close to what you contributed is to go on Social Security disability early in life.

[abb]

Good morning. I agree. The government retireds need to get ready, because they’re first in line, along with all the other handout programs.

Once that’s all done and done, THEN we’ll talk about SS.

[mimaw]

What makes you think the dems will allow the SS plan to become a poverty program? They'd demagogue it to death. You still haven't told me how far down the economic ladder this would have to go prevent economic disaster.

[jersey117]

In our new socialist utopia, you can be wealthy today and poor tomorrow if the government confiscates your assets. And what’s wealthy? If you have a 401k are you considered wealthy? We better get our country back before its too late.

[justlurking]

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.

If that was offered to me, I wouldn't have to be forced.

But, here's the problem: that payoff would bankrupt Social Security even faster.

I've done the calculations. In order for someone to receive the actual value of their Social Security contributions (plus interest), they would have to live to about 120 years. So, paying them the currently legislated monthly benefit would actually be cheaper.

A clarification: this is true for a taxpayer that has contributed the maximum amount to Social Security each year for the last 10 years of their working career. That's not necessarily "wealthy", but definitely upper middle class.

[kindred]

Just another democrat is liberal Lindsy Grahm and he gets worse and worse with time.

[al_again2010]

Good Morning to you. Please see my post 449 and then I have the following questions for you:
1) Do you think the government should continue to spend at unsustainable levels?
2) If your answer to 1 is no... In the very short future, if nothing changes, the US will only collect 35% in taxes of what it spends. Look at the charts and tell me how we make up the 65% in either spending cuts or increased tax revenue?

[pleikumud]

Socialist Security is already an income redistribution scheme, in addition to being a Ponzi scheme. Those who earn lower salaries already receive proportionately more than those who earn higher salaries. For example, a friend “contributed” less than half of what I did over a lifetime, but she will receive about 65% of my retirement payments. Socialist Security should be completely dismantled, along with the entire federal income tax system. Congress should enact the Fair Tax. See www.fairtax.org for details.

[kindred]

[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 ]

Wrong. The politicians stole the money and used it, not the people. Most do not even know the DC politicians stole the working peoples money long ago, with the help of the central bank of couse.

[BykrBayb]

My friends, it is simply a case of spending vs revenue. We spend way more than we collect in taxes. If you are a beneficiary of government spending, you need to realize and support reductions in this. Look at all the union employees who did not accept this and are now without their pensions, it is the same concept. The longer you refuse to address it, the more drastic the reductions will be later. And later is only 5-10 years away! ~ al_again2010

In other words: "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton

[al_again2010]

I disagree with your premise (all is simply taxes and spending regardless of the what), but your figures are very misleading. Retirees receive benefits from both Social Security and Medicare. When you look at both of these benefits you quickly see that seniors are receiving far more benefits than they ever paid for.

That being said, this line of thinking is bogus as the government simply cannot continue to spend at unsustainable levels.