Are changes to the Social Security system necessary?

Yes
No
Resources for this issue
    Reviews of this issue

    This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.

    Do not use this page to take a stand on this issue.

    This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.

    12/8/2006 5:50:33 PM

    I like it. "Are changes necessary" sounds more focused than "what should be done."

    12/4/2006 11:47:35 PM

    Anyone object?

    11/29/2006 7:23:24 AM

    we can lose the U.S., I suppose.  but we also need to lose the "for the program ...." language.

    11/28/2006 9:41:40 PM

    We don't have "U.S. Social Security" on any other issue here though.  Still want the U.S.?

    11/28/2006 9:40:55 PM

    Okay! 

    11/27/2006 4:43:02 PM

    i think we should revise this to:

    Are changes to the U.S. Social Security system necessary?


    no need for the "to remain solvent" language.

    i think this is ready.  anyone else?

    11/26/2006 8:32:28 AM

    i want to avoid the qualifiers.  it gets difficult to find a public figure that says something should be changed "significantly".  paul krugman would answer this issue as is with a "no."  i'm fine with it and think it's ready.  HOWEVER, i totally hear where esperanto is coming from.  i just think we'll find enough "fringe liberals" to answer this issue no.  thoughts?

    11/25/2006 5:37:07 PM

    We need something along the lines of

    -does social security have funding problems that must be dealt with?  Everyone assumes there is a funding problem because conservatives wanted to change the system.  Let's debate if there is a dire need to make changes so that social security remains solvent.

    11/14/2006 11:40:43 PM

    I agree that the "what should be done" issue is kind of a nightmare, but I don't know if I'm feeling this one. It's a little too general, 99% of people will answer "yes," and nobody will care. Then again, I'm a pessimist.

    If we could somehow incorporate the degree of change necessary in this issue, I think it would be more informative, and we could totally get rid of the old one. Like, "Major changes are needed/Minor changes/No changes" kind of thing... separate the tweakers from the private-accounters. Or is that too subjective? Apparently I'm very unsure of myself tonight.

    11/12/2006 2:53:22 PM

    i'm with brianr

    11/10/2006 11:04:35 PM

    That's really where I was going.  I want to try and clean this topic up a little.  Do you guys like this better than "What should be done with social security?"  I don't like all the crazy answer choices on that one.

    11/10/2006 10:22:50 PM

     Think of this issue as replacing the "What should be done to SS" issue and let me know what you think ...

    11/10/2006 4:11:02 PM

    I agree this doesn't capture anything new.

    11/10/2006 1:41:45 PM

    Going along with Eddie:  I'm not sure how this question will prove the source of new information not gained from other questions already posed.

    11/10/2006 1:22:24 PM

    Again, this reminds me an already approved issue, What should be done to Social Security?? in which one of the options is Nothing which equates to a No on this issue.

    11/3/2006 8:04:12 PM

    issue revision:

    Are changes to the Social Security system necessary for the program to remain solvent?
    Are changes to the Social Security system necessary for it to stay solvent?
    Yes
    No

    11/1/2006 7:20:01 PM

    how about:

    Are changes to the Social Security system necessary for the program to remain solvent?