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 ...
I'm way over 40, I want out of SS. Keep my contribution, but I pay no more FICA. I'd be good with that.
So do I.
However, it seems you are opposed to cutting it even a little bit.
I blame his dad. He should have simply pulled out.
What a piece of sh*t he is...
They need to be cut too.
Bring it. Wealthy people know where to hide their money, LOL!
It should be allowed to collapse entirely then, than continue in a manner thats 'politically tenable'.
Why would a conservative advocate continuing it in a manner that even more closely resembles another entitlement program for the needy?
People deserve from social security what they put into it regardless of how rich they have become. To describe that minimum return of what is actually yours as "federal aid" is wrong.
As for those who say they deserve it because they paid in, well I’m sorry, but like all other ponzi schemes someone gets left holding the bag.
All ponzi schemes aren't forced government ponzi schemes. Again, people deserve the same value out of social security as they put into it. Anything else is just theft and that's what you advocate.
Unless you want the entire economy taken down, which is what we get if we keep waiting to face this unpleasant truth, we have to get on the road to controlling the entitlements and that means Social Security and Medicare.
No, I want them to go into your personal bank account to prevent our economy from being taken down.
Once they deny SS to “wealthy seniors”, it becomes nothing but another government welfare program. And after they do that, they will remove the maximum amount any person must pay so that they can make the rich “pay their fair share”.
Hey! LG...wake up and smell the coffee. Those people paid in, just like the rest of us, with the full expectation that they would be receiving their due, just like the rest of us. For you arrogant gasbags to continue to hoodwink the populace will only bring you down. We are finished with you and the idiots like you who have mortgaged the future for many generations, and who can’t seem to understand simple economics.
It’s time to get this insatiable federal leviathan back within the confines of the Constitution. WE will do it...with you or without you. Your choice.
I get frustrated as so many people on this board and in general seem to not understand the situation. I will attempt to explain it in away that everyone understands....
82% of federal spending is related to:
1) Defense (24%)
2) Medicare/Medicaid(22%)
3) Social Security/Fed Government retirement (21%)
4) Welfare (15%)
These four programs account for 82% of Federal spending. Items 2 and 3 are especially troubling as the commitments to these programs go through the roof over the next few years as the boomers start retiring.
I think most people understand that we need to get to a balanced budget quickly or the US will quickly deteriorate (if you disagree, save the argument for another time and ignore the rest).
With this set of facts, where do people think we should be focusing in order to reduce government spending???
The problem, that does not have a good solution, is that this problem was not addressed 10 years ago where reasonable measures could have been implemented in order to protect those currently qualified for these programs. Therefore, to get to a balanced budget, significant cuts need to be made to the programs which will impact people in these programs now.
This means:
1) Military spending needs to be significantly reduced.
2) Raise the retirement age now.
3) Cut current social security payments
-Means test is a reasonable place to start, but does not come close to getting the job done.
4) Reduce Medicare and Medicaid benefits
-As painful as it is, the spending to prolong and improve the quality life of the elderly needs to be reduced.
5) Welfare benefits need to be reduced.
There are certainly places for cuts in the ‘other’ 18% (this includes interest payments on debt) but it will not come close to balancing the budget. And for those who want to complain that this is too painful and we can’t do it, go ahead and wait another 5-10 years. Then you will know real pain!
Simply put, the longer we wait the more drastic the cuts need to be.
Lindsey is right, but he does not take it far enough. Painful choices need to be made and they need to be made now!
If this generation sucks up the SS payments currently authorized we will be beggaring the next generation. I for one don’t want to be remembered as the generation that left the country worse off than we found it.
Another Marxist looking for a handout eh?
I suppose it's no surprise that a troll like you agrees with Graham.
Let's see, you are pro-abortion, you wanted Rooty to be president, you want homosexuals in the military and now you are in favor of redistribution of wealth. You are a full-fledged leftist.
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.
We have a few posters on this thread who don't understand your point. They seem to share the left's point-of-view that the redistribution of wealth is a good thing.
I disagree on your logic about the “annuity”....most people....not me,lol....would have been able to invest in property or the stock market IF they had access to the portion of their paycheck sent to SS....thus, that $10,000 might have turned into $200,000....
Reduce or eliminate benefits for wealthy Senators and Congress!
Participation in Social Security is forced. To imply that somebody who monetarily is forced to "support" SS is voluntarily supporting or even benefiting from the redistribution of wealth is incorrect.
Lets start the 'painful choices' with them for a change, eh?
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.