- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Do Any Dems/Liberals/Progressives Support Obamas Cuts To Social Security?
Yes?
No?
Why?
Yes?
No?
Why?
Do Any Dems/Liberals/Progressives Support Obamas Cuts To Social Security?
Yes?
No?
Why?
They will most likely fall in line sooner or later.
Do Any Dems/Liberals/Progressives Support Obamas Cuts To Social Security?
Yes?
No?
Why?
Do you have any evidence of this? Any at all? Or is your statement just as it seems--empty, meaningless political rhetoricThe United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.
Why is making a minor adjustment to future increases in SS payments an attempt by Obama to "pacify the right wing nuts?" Maybe Obama has gotten some sense and realizes that changes to entitlements have to be made and is no longer kissing the feet of the left wing nuts who oppose any changes to the welfare state. Ever consider that?No ... he is trying to pacify the right wing nuts and that is wrong. I support about 72% of his decisions/polices ... not this one!
Although, I am left leaning I am ala carte on issues and not a party loyalist.
The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.
It depends on the whole package, but I am not entirely opposed to the cuts.
The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.
Because those on SS get paid more than those working now........
That will not last...........people will get pissed .
Those around me (on SS) pay $500 month rent. I can only pay $190 month working 3/4 time...........
Same with all those working jobs today.
The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.
Social Security is something people were told they would get and in many cases they paid into it and earned it. Social Security is one of the last cuts we should be making, at least to the previous generations. If they want to tell my generations or future generations that it is not going to be there so those people have a lifetime to prepare I may be more open to it, but those on SS should get what they were told they would get.
SS is a Ponzi scheme. If we want to wring as much out of it as possible it must be means tested. I am in favor of getting rid of it for future workers, yes. For those who are now on it or will be on it if they have other means of income then a proportion of that would have go against their SS share. It doesn't matter what was promised eighty years ago young workers should not bear the burden of the cost of the system which they will not benefit from. We can print more money to sustain those who are on SS and need it but the program must not have the bulk of the burden on workers who are generally poorer that those who are now benefiting from it.
The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.
The United States is not broke and doesn't have to cut anyone's benefits. The problem is that we gave all the money to the rich, and they stuck it in offshore bank accounts.
SS is a Ponzi scheme. If we want to wring as much out of it as possible it must be means tested. I am in favor of getting rid of it for future workers, yes. For those who are now on it or will be on it if they have other means of income then a proportion of that would have go against their SS share. It doesn't matter what was promised eighty years ago young workers should not bear the burden of the cost of the system which they will not benefit from. We can print more money to sustain those who are on SS and need it but the program must not have the bulk of the burden on workers who are generally poorer that those who are now benefiting from it.
I understand what you are saying, but previous generations paid our government that money and were promised returns in their later years. Our country has an obligation to them. I am all for reform to the SS program or dissolving it all together, but not for the people are country has an obligation to.