For people who aren't anywhere near retirement - let's say teenagers to twenty-somethings and thereabouts for the sake of argument - I'm actually fine with that. Life expectancies have gone up, and a SS retirement age that reflects that by going up 2 or 3 years for the Gen Y folks wouldn't be a bad thing, IMHO. Though I suspect Graham isn't looking at the youngins with that statement...
"and wealthy Americans should receive less benefits across the board, says Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C."
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!