Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="vantexan" data-source="post: 5735651" data-attributes="member: 24302">I have stated numerous times over the years that those who benefit most from the system should pay more.&nbsp; Not be gouged, but pay more.&nbsp; And if that means that there should be less given to them if they have other sources of income or assets then in my view that&#039;s fine.&nbsp; Social Security was created to alleviate senior poverty.&nbsp; And many of the wealthy if not most of them got wealthy from restricting worker pay to do better themselves.&nbsp; So at the very least they should help insure that lower paid workers get their Social Security even if the wealthy get less.&nbsp; I&#039;ve been consistent with this for decades.&nbsp; It&#039;s not a conservative/liberal viewpoint, it&#039;s a do the right thing viewpoint.&nbsp; No matter the party anyone who would make poor SS recipients struggle to eat and keep the lights on while they&#039;re playing golf and partying is a scumbag in my opinion.As for other government spending we have $33 trillion in debt that&#039;s not tied to what SS recipients get.&nbsp; Profligate spending got us here.&nbsp; At what point are you willing to keep the government from collapsing?&nbsp; You do know that interest payments on the debt with the onset of inflation has risen to a trillion?&nbsp; Almost tripled.&nbsp; Is this sustainable?&nbsp; Think of how that money could have been used.&nbsp; If we are to sustain programs that most will need at some point we have to start making hard choices.&nbsp; Are you willing to make those choices?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="vantexan, post: 5735651, member: 24302"] I have stated numerous times over the years that those who benefit most from the system should pay more. Not be gouged, but pay more. And if that means that there should be less given to them if they have other sources of income or assets then in my view that's fine. Social Security was created to alleviate senior poverty. And many of the wealthy if not most of them got wealthy from restricting worker pay to do better themselves. So at the very least they should help insure that lower paid workers get their Social Security even if the wealthy get less. I've been consistent with this for decades. It's not a conservative/liberal viewpoint, it's a do the right thing viewpoint. No matter the party anyone who would make poor SS recipients struggle to eat and keep the lights on while they're playing golf and partying is a scumbag in my opinion. As for other government spending we have $33 trillion in debt that's not tied to what SS recipients get. Profligate spending got us here. At what point are you willing to keep the government from collapsing? You do know that interest payments on the debt with the onset of inflation has risen to a trillion? Almost tripled. Is this sustainable? Think of how that money could have been used. If we are to sustain programs that most will need at some point we have to start making hard choices. Are you willing to make those choices? [/QUOTE]

Verification