Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Social Security provides vital financial support for more than 57 million beneficiaries. Social Security also provides critical benefits to widows and those with disabilities. With approximately 10,000 “Baby Boomers” turning 65 every day, it is essential that we work to preserve the programs these seniors have come to count on. As Speaker of the House, one of my top priorities is to preserve the Social Security safety net and make sure the program remains solvent for future generations."
Reasonable people would find nothing wrong with that at all.
You can read that and the rest here on his website:
Many puppets of big money do not care about being re-elected. They serve their financial overlords and when the job is done, they'll do just fine afterwards.
Will they relegate the task to the Supreme Court with it's current makeup? We'd better hope not.
You don't want Social Security to be reformed in order to preserve it? Would you rather it whither on the vine? Why do you hate Social Security and hate old people?
"Cut social security in order to preserve it"...fewer and fewer people buy into that scam. The people who want to "cut/reform" have always hated the concept of Social Security.
It should not be cut. It should be massively increased.
You don't want Social Security to be reformed in order to preserve it? Would you rather it whither on the vine? Why do you hate Social Security and hate old people?
SS reform is overdue and inevitable.
Medicare is the real drag.
Congress allowing Medicare to negotiate/ regulate drug prices would be a start. That initiative failed more than a decade ago.
"Cut social security in order to preserve it"...fewer and fewer people buy into that scam. The people who want to "cut/reform" have always hated the concept of Social Security.
It should not be cut. It should be massively increased.
Sustaining as is, let alone “ massively increasing” requires gradually increasing Payroll taxes, older eligibility ages and likely increasing caps on taxable incomes.
Neither party wants to be that party” so they kick the can.
The demise of Social Security would create major problems for the elderly. The private pension programs that employers offered are almost long gone. I guess we would go back to the America of the 19th century. One of the kids with the most money and a spare bedroom would take you in until you passed. Sitting on the porch in a rocking chair watching the world go by.
1. no-body is talking about killing it
2. it NEEDS to be reformed
3. some have talked about privatization, or linking to the market like our 401ks, which does have some risk, but also has historically paid much better
4. even if it was killed, it would be killed for the future, no for anyone who has already donated to it
"Cut social security in order to preserve it"...fewer and fewer people buy into that scam. The people who want to "cut/reform" have always hated the concept of Social Security.
It should not be cut. It should be massively increased.
why do liberals constantly lie??
reform... increasing the tax and raising the age (for those born after 2000)...is NOT A CUT
would you rather see it die a slow death that it currently is under??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
