• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you view Social Security as an entitlement?

Do you view social security is an entitlement that can be altered?

  • Yes, it should be eliminated completely.

    Votes: 10 20.4%
  • Yes, I could handle a small level of program reduction.

    Votes: 5 10.2%
  • No, its my money, and the government has no right to touch it.

    Votes: 27 55.1%
  • I dont know and/or it depends on what is offered as a replacement program.

    Votes: 7 14.3%

  • Total voters
    49
the only lies I have seen tonight come from people who claim that because the marginal tax rates have decreased that means the FIT structure is less progressive

Oh, we have made progress, you used to claim that marginal tax rates have not decreased. Now, all you have to do is learn that trickle down economics creating a recession so that the middle class have less jobs with which to pay taxes does not make your case that the middle class is not paying their fair share.
 
Yawn, you make so many excuses for people who have become addicted to entitlements and have no ambition. You seem to think you are entitled to wealth you didn't earn.

What people are addicted to are jobs. That is why we have decided to scrap trickle down economics and the politicians that support it.
 
Go ahead touch SS I would love to see the republican party self destruct, the USA would be much better off with the party of NO no longer a part of our politics
IMO, the GOP has sold out to the scum of America. There, I have said it, but it does not make me happy.
We do in fact need the conservatives to balance things, and "things" are not in balance.
Most, or many people today are healthier, there is no reason why social security cannot "keep up".
Change the retirement age to 67 for most Americans...but not the coal miners....and other hazardous to ones health occupations..
 
What people are addicted to are jobs. That is why we have decided to scrap trickle down economics and the politicians that support it.
But this seems not to be working, judging from the latest election results.
And of course, social security is an entitlement, but, like so many other things, it needs to be "fine tuned".
We need politicians willing to do this....both conservatives and liberals....willing to work together for the benefit of their nation,,,maybe thats what we need, a "rebirth" of idealism, and a death of negativism.
 
the only lies I have seen tonight come from people who claim that because the marginal tax rates have decreased that means the FIT structure is less progressive

Narrow mindedness always can only see one point of view...their own
 
Yawn, you make so many excuses for people who have become addicted to entitlements and have no ambition. You seem to think you are entitled to wealth you didn't earn.
A false statement....from one who has ,evidently, not accepted social security......nor the basic equality of man...Fortuniately, the Ebenezer Scrooges do die off and are sometimes replaced with Bob Crachets..And our society improves.....but this takes time....
 
So this is Catawba's arguing point? That the Dems have placed the elderly in fear so much that the GOP "wants to take away their money", so they brainwash, delude, and bold-face lie about their counterpart in an effort to scaremonger the populist vote?

Wow. I'd brag about that.
 
Just curious, how have all you Greedsters and whiners making out getting social security abolished lol.....
 
Not our fault. Democrats do well at scaring the old farts into thinking their checks will go away when they won't.

My worry is that when all the Freds and Ethels die off, other ignorant old people will take their place.
 
I couldn't care less. What matters is that the majority decides the policy direction of our country.
Sometimes. Sometimes the majority is overruled by the minority.
:shrug:
 
Go ahead touch SS I would love to see the republican party self destruct, the USA would be much better off with the party of NO no longer a part of our politics
Seems to me there are many suggestions from both sides as to how to deal with SS - among them is the reduction of benefits and raising the age for retirement.
If you want to save your precious program, you need to get it into your head that outlays MUST be reduced. Anything else is simple folly.
Enjoy your folly...
 
Sometimes. Sometimes the majority is overruled by the minority.
:shrug:

Every poll I have ever seen on the subject has very strong numbers saying that the majority wants to protect Social Security.

If you want to save your precious program, you need to get it into your head that outlays MUST be reduced.

Perhaps you have never taken an accounting course, but there are two sides to a budget - INCOME - which is the money coming in and EXPENSES - the outlays your refer to. Your comment above seems to indicate you are only aware of one side.
 
Last edited:
What people are addicted to are jobs. That is why we have decided to scrap trickle down economics and the politicians that support it.
And, in their place, add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt, all in the name of job creation, with nothing to show for it.
 
The US has never operated under pure capitalism because it is not practical. What you are describing is a libertarian utopia, which does not exist anywhere on the planet.

Your brain is an enormous fail bucket, isn't it? You want to bitch about trickle down failing and I tell you that its not possible in this system we have today and you tell me I was talking about pure capitalism? WTF is wrong with you?



Yeah, right:

I imagine you have some braincells caked on the inside of your skull somewhere.
 
But this seems not to be working, judging from the latest election results.

People fell for the pre-2010 GOP talk, until they saw the post-2010 GOP walk.

And of course, social security is an entitlement, but, like so many other things, it needs to be "fine tuned".
We need politicians willing to do this....both conservatives and liberals....willing to work together for the benefit of their nation,,,maybe thats what we need, a "rebirth" of idealism, and a death of negativism.

Yes, SS will need to have the FICA cap raised to make it solvent for the long term.
 
So this is Catawba's arguing point? That the Dems have placed the elderly in fear so much that the GOP "wants to take away their money", so they brainwash, delude, and bold-face lie about their counterpart in an effort to scaremonger the populist vote?

Wow. I'd brag about that.

The GOP budget proposal is what scared seniors. Catawba had no part in writing it!
 
And, in their place, add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt, all in the name of job creation, with nothing to show for it.

GOP presidents have approved more of our National debt than have Democrat presidents, but don't let facts get in your way!
 
That wasn't SS; That was the rightwingers under bush*

It is simply amazing there are some who are not aware that SS has not added one dime to our national debt. Clearly, we are not spending enough on education in this country.
 
GOP presidents have approved more of our National debt than have Democrat presidents, but don't let facts get in your way!
Not surprisingly, you're sidestepping the point.
But then, when you cannot actually address that point, what choice to you have?
 
It is simply amazing there are some who are not aware that SS has not added one dime to our national debt. Clearly, we are not spending enough on education in this country.
Thanks for your opinion; it only denotes that neither you nor she understood the point that was made.
 
GOP presidents have approved more of our National debt than have Democrat presidents, but don't let facts get in your way!

It is simply amazing there are some who are not aware that SS has not added one dime to our national debt. Clearly, we are not spending enough on education in this country.

Both of these statements are very misleading.

If you don't read anything else in this post, please look at the last link included.

The President doesn't control the spending. Yes, he's supposed to put forth the budget, but Bill Clinton was the only President who had a line item veto for awhile. Meaning, if Congress wants to do something strongly enough, the President can't stop it. He sure can't hold up the budget because then everybody screams "fire" ("government shut down").

Republicans controlled the House and Senate from 1995 to 2000.
1996 Debt Increased by 6.71%
1997 Debt Increased by 3.37%
1998 Debt Increased by 2.03%
1999 Debt Increased by 2.88%
2000 Debt Decreased by 1.97% (a product of the "Contract with America" led by Newt Gingrich in preceding years)

in 2001 and 2002 the House and Senate were split and the debt grew by an average of 6.37% (9/11) and to a height of a 9.25% increase by 2003 when Republicans (not particularly conservative Republicans) regained a slight majority. Then the increase decreased (politician speak) gradually each year (9.25%, 8.55%, 7.56%, 6.24%) to 6.24% in 2006. The Democrats gained control of both House and Senate in 2007 (elected end of 2006) and in 2008 the increase in debt jumped from 6.32% in 2007 to 15.93% in 2008 another 15.06% in 2009 and another 13.92% in 2010. About a 52% increase in debt in just 3 years -wow!

Social Security, primarily, pays people from what new people put into the system (not from what people put in themselves). When it runs short, it's backed by the Treasury. When the Treasury runs short, Congress raises the debt ceiling. If, eventually, Congress doesn't balance the budget and can't borrow more money, Social Security, at some point, will default.

For example, the fund was nearly depleted in 1982. No beneficiary was shortchanged because the Congress enacted temporary emergency legislation that permitted borrowing from other Federal trust funds. The borrowed amounts were repaid with interest within 4 years.

In 1996 the Treasury Dept. announced it did not have enough money to pay Social Security benefits for the month of March because it could not issue new debt. However, Congress passed a law allowing the department to temporarily issue securities in an amount equal to those payments, in such a way that would not count against the debt ceiling in the short-term. The benefits were paid and Congress subsequently raised the debt ceiling from $4.9 trillion to $5.5 trillion. The payments are not protected if Treasury does not have the money to pay them.

On paper, it looks pretty stable right now: Social Security Online - HISTORY -- the worry is the increasing population in retirees compared to those putting money into the system -- starting about 2020: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9649/08-20-SocialSecurityUpdate.pdf (BAD NEWS!)
 
Insane to even think about eliminating social security., now....but maybe in 100 years when we are a lot smarter and less greedy....
Most of us are healthier, live a lot longer, so YES... increase the retirement age to 67....
Perhaps an age of 55 for our coal miners....But even their "deal" has improved over the years, thanks to OHSA.
 
Back
Top Bottom