Actually cutting Social Security in order to a limited or control the deficit is a fallacy. Social Security has nothing to do with the death or deficit. It does need to be restructured if it's going to be completely solvent in 25 years, but even as it is right now it's going to return 70% for those people getting Social Security in 25 years.
Things do need to be done to resolve this problem, but it is not imperative it be lumped in with deficit reduction. BTW, I watched the State of the Union, but my DVR didn't get all of the Republican response. In my opinion it was a pretty good speech, although it didn't have a lot of specifics. But hardly any of the State of the Union speeches do have a ton of concrete data. Q On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM, bob quinn <[email protected]> wrote: > Unfortunately, given the country's huge deficit (thank-you hedge-funders, > corrupt mortgage brokers, and W's foray into Iraq), cuts in "entitlements" > (I hate that inappropriate phrase), namely Social Security and > Medicaid/Medicare are inevitable ...especially, considering the increasing > demands on them as the Baby-Boomer generation reach retirement age. > > It's incredibly unfair, but they are too big an expense to escape it. In > that regard, I fear things are going to get worse for many before things get > better. About the only thing you can take some consolation in is that I'm > sure the tax cuts for the upper-most 2% will be eliminated before > entitlements are attacked. > > > At 08:04 AM 1/27/2011, [email protected] wrote: > > Anything is palatable if you place enough real whipped cream over it. That > is today's politics. That being said... I enjoyed the speeches. I enjoy > listening to a standing President who speaks English, and doesn't make up > their own words. I felt as though I was at a pep rally and the speakers were > hoping to motivate those who listened. I am much aware that the President > is the person who signs the bills into law. Its those other people both men > and women that represents their states that make up bill, argue their > validity, and spend tons of money, trying to get others to agree with them > and their policies. > > It bothers me when spending cuts are mentioned and the big two are always > mentioned. Social Security and HealthCare. Keep in mind, those who are > promoting spending cuts are wealthy enough NOT to be affected by those > spending cuts. And yet they make the decisions for all of us. > > I want those people who represent us to have exposure to the very same > benefits as we do. No more... No less. Granted, its only a dream and I can > wish....... > Best Wishes > > In a message dated 1/26/2011 9:58:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > Well, Eric... So whatd'ya think? Good, Bad, Impartial? Left, Right, > Centrist? Too much, too little, not enough? (almost an hour) > > Me... I'm primarily curious in knowing just how many folks really watched > the whole thing, and/or the Republican rebuttal, and/or perhaps the > Bachman/Tea Party response/rebuttal (if it was aired on your station). And, > of those who watched, what did they hear in that which was said? > I'm very often dismayed at how much arguing about politics happens when > it's compared to how much people actually watch, and more importantly pay > attention to all sides of an issue, when our officials are working in > Congress or speaking to the media live (not edited soundbites for/from > pundits). > > I'm glad at least two of us decided to hear what Mr. Prez had to say. Good > Deal, my man! > > Best regards, > Tod Santee > Tucson, AZ > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Eric W Rudd <[email protected]> wrote: > I am keeping an open mind...but thinking 'what the hell'...let's hear > what u have to say mr president. > > Eric W Rudd > [email protected] > >
