on top of social security. my plan is social security plus. the governor's plan is social security minus. your future benefits would be cut by the amount that is diverted into thek stock market. and if you make bad investments, too bad. but before then, the problem hits, because the money contributed to social security this year is an entitlement, and this is how it works. the money is used to pay the benefits for seniors this year. if you cut the amount going in 1 of every $6, then you have to cut the value of every check by 1 of every $6 unless you come up with the money from somewhere else, and i would like to know from the governor and i know that we are not supposed to ask each other questions, but does that trillion dollars come from the trust fund or from the rest of the budget? >> no. there is enough money to pay the senors tod s t-- the seniors fr current surplus, and the surplus is more than needed. your plan is not social security plus, it is social security plus huge debt. you are leaving the future generations with a huge ious and

but not at the expense of social security. on top of social security. my plan is social security plus. the governor's plan social security minus. your future benefits would be cut that by the amount that is diverted into the stock market. and if you make that investments, that's too bad. but even before the problem hits, because the money contributed to social security this year is a entitlement. that's how it works. and the money is used to pay the benefit for seniors this year. if you cut the amount going in. one out of every six dollars, then you have to cut the value of each checked by one of every six dollars unless you come up with the money from somewhere else. i would like to know from the governor. i know we're not supposed to ask each other questions. but i would be interested in knowing. does that trillion dollars come from the trust fund or does it come from the rest of the budget? >> now. there's enough money to pay seniors today in the court of years of social security. the trolling come from the surplus. surplus is more money than needed.

same with social security. i think there was a good opportunity to bring republicans and democrats together to reform the social security system so seniors will never go without. those on social security today will have their promise made, but also to give younger workers the option at their choice of being able to manage some of their own money in the private sector to make sure there's a social security system around tomorrow. there are a lot of young workers at our rallies we go to that, when they hear i'll trust them at their option to be able to manage, under certain guidelines, some of their own money to get a better rate of return so that they'll have a retirement plan in the future, they begin to nod their heads and they want a different attitude in washington. mr. lehrer: one minute rebuttal. mr. gore: well, jim, under my plan, all seniors will get prescription drugs under medicare. the governor has described medicare as a government hmo. it's not, and let me explain the difference. under the medicare

we also need to continue to index social security payments, so if inflation rises, social security payments would rise to a commensurate degree. and let the buying power of a social security check continue intact. in the past, the relationship between social security and medicare has been very important to provide some modicum of need for senior citizens, and the retention of health benefits. governor reagan began his political career campaigning around this nation against medicare. now, we have an opportunity to move toward national health insurance with an emphasis on the prevention of disease, on outpatient care, not inpatient care, emphasis on hospital cost containment to hold down the cost of care for those who are ill, and emphasis on catastrophic health insurance so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically because of a very high medical bill, then the insurance would help pay for it. these are the elements of a national health insurance that are important to the american people. governor reagan typically is against such a proposal. >> governor? fmr. governor r

all the have a social security. i remember sitting at the social security office with my grandma because our thought was that she would get both her check and my grandfather's check but the woman said you'll get a death benefit which was about $300 in my grandma said when will i start getting willy's check? and the woman said you will not. you will get the higher of the two. and it was like some of the punch my grandma and i got because she was thinking oh my, how do i pay for all these things? folks deserve the money that they have put into this system. lindsey graham said, he said that social security and medicare are promises we can keep. senator, i am sorry they are not promises. people have paid into the systems. they deserve to get the money back they put into it. that is the livelihood they have. sen. graham: man? number one, you want a senator who can fix a problem you have to acknowledge you have a problem before you can fix it. in 1950 there were 16 workers for every social security recipient and now we ar

that's social security minus. our plan is social security plus. [ cheers and applause ] we will balance the budget every year and dedicate the budget surplus first to saving social security. in the next four years, we will pay off all of the national debt this nation accumulated in our first 200 years. this will put us on the path to eliminating the debt by 2012, keeping america prosperous far into the future. but there's something else at stake in this election that's even more important than economic progress. simply put, it's our values. it's our responsibility to our loved ones, to our families. and to me, family values means honoring our fathers and mothers. teaching our children well. caring for the sick, respecting one another, giving people the power to achieve what they want for their families. putting both social security and medicare in an ironclad lockbox where the politicians can't touch them. to me, that kind of commonsense is a family value. hands off medicare and social security trust fund money. i

the social security act passed in 1935 gave us unemployment insurance, social security, and our welfare system known as aid, aid to dependent children designed to help the children of parents of mothers left to raise her children alone. the fair labor standards act passed in $0.1938 at 40 hour workweek and minimum-wage. it put the ban on child labor. other things she did, as they change insurance. she was the primary booster of the civilian conservation corps. she was the largest single supporter of the wpa. truly, this was a really remarkable woman. now, it's a little interesting and unusual that i came to write this book, i came from a staunchly republican family and from a family of roosevelt haters. but when i came to washington, d.c. , in 1988, as a young business reporter, one of the first things i did as i sat at to learn my way around the town was to sign up for a trolley bus tour of the city. one of the first things i noticed was the frances perkins department of labor. those of you who live in washington know, there is very few buildings in washington named after women. and so

how many of you know someone on social security, please raise your hand? how many of you know someone who is receiving unemployment insurance, or who has ever received unemployment compensation? okay, friends perkins work. how many of you know someone who is working a 40 hour week generally more less? france inspirations worked. how many of you know a 12-year-old whose quite going to school, so she could work full-time in a factory? frances perkins work. her ban on child labor, enacted in a fair label standards act, made it possible to keep kids in school longer, instead of in mills and factories. let me start by telling you a little bit, it's awfully noisy here, but let me start about telling you a little bit -- i wanna read a little bit of the prologue from my book so that you know a little bit more about the breath of frances perkins accomplishments. on a chilly february night, in 1933, a middle aged woman waited expectantly to meet with unemployment at the residence on each 63 are new york city. she clutched a scrap of paper with hastily written notes.

and then to terminate to finance social security. not just a liberal think tank or a newspaper but the actuary the social security says and playing in for tens of millions seniors with the only thing they rely on all this president knows how to do is play games with their futures. announcing he was walking away from negotiations is not walking away he never fully engaged to provide any additional relief american families. debbie is working like the devil in the house and then to provide for the ability for being kicked out of their homes. and then to turn his back on firefighters and those who depend on those that have to be balanced just make note when we inherited the largest recession since the depression what happened? the president for me in charge of the recovery act of $800 million. the first thing to do to manage it myself is $147 million to help state and local authorities to balance the budget, not fire first responders were closed on health clinics local governments are strained to the breaking point and in the way of supp

it had nothing to do with social security. >> my question is aren't you demagoguing social security? >> no, and i just have to correct the record. that simply until true. now, we're not a parliamentary body. you vote on rez executions if you don't get a two-thirds your resolution doesn't pass. everybody knows those who voted against c.o.l.a.s, we did so, we did so empathically, i never made that statement. never would. the point is, as we look at this nation's future and we have two very different visions of this future. i want to move ahead. the vice president talks about a thousand points of light. i'm interested in 240 million points. i'm interested in 240 million citizens in this country who share in the american dream. all of them, in every part of this country. but as we look at the decisions that the next president of the united states is going to have to make, i just don't believe the place you go first, those programs, those so-called entitlements which provide a basic floor of income and a modest amount of medical care for the elderly, for the disabled. for people who can't

>> it affects social security and a couple of ways. an important one is stagnant wages means lower revenues going into the social security trust fund. more wages are but the tax maximum and that affects their revenues going and and a key revenue source for social security has a negative effect on the system. >> thank you. we'll want to work closely with you and senator cassidy and senator hassan and my colleagues because by my reading if you look at several decades with wages stagnating wages have gone through the roof while middle-class wages have been stagnant and the result is so security takes in less and less funding over time and we have a demographic tsunami that the program is facing. mr. director thank you for the answer to that and the answer to the unemployment insurance and i'm going to repeat for my colleagues i thought the direction the team did professional work on the prescription drug issue but no one thought the senate finance committee could produce a bill that has a fair amount of bipartisan support including chairm

think of that, increasing social security benefits. and yet when they had the opportunity they took 750,000 people off the social security roll. i wonder if they think they can fool the people of the united states with such poppycock as that. there's a long list of problems in the republican platform. if it weren't so late, i'd tell you about all of them. i've discussed a number of these failures of the republican 80th congress, and every one of them is important. two of them are a major concern to nearly every american family. the failure to do anything about high prices and the failure to do anything about housing. my duty as president requires that i use every means within my power to get the laws the people need on matters of such importance and urgency. i am therefore calling this congress back into session on the 26th of july. [ cheers and applause ] >> on the 26th day of july, which out in missouri we call turnip day, i'm going to call that congress back and i'm going to ask them to pass laws halting rising prices and to meet th

income but now donald trump is threatening to defund social security, neighbors depend on social security as possible source of income and for a president to break his promise to us is unconscionable. before covid-19, social gatherings and so much more but everything changed. covid-19 turned my life upside down, trying to keep in touch with friends over the phone but it is simply not the same. i am fortunate to be living with my daughter who works from home but i don't ever leave my house unless it is to purchase groceries and essentials every two weeks. the simple truth, it didn't have to be this bad. none of us want to live a life at home in front of the computer screen and if donald trump hadn't lied to us and decided to take this virus seriously things might be different for florida seniors. this administration has written seniors off as expendable. guess what? we aren't and we won't. the president has been a disaster for seniors. we deserve better, we deserve a leader who cares about us. i know joe biden will look after us, he will strengthen social security and i know he has a real

and that involved social security. now it is true as you said. originally you sought exemption for security cool was in this national governors association vote. >> right. >> no new less about you than indoors overall fierce proposal. and what's more, you had great criticism of your federal -- fellow governors who wouldn't go along as political cowards. you said -- >> that is absolutely not true -- >> you said it takes guts -- >> no. that is absolutely not. true >> it had nothing to do with the debate on social security. it had to do with the discussion we had the previous day on the overall question of reducing the budget. >> my question is, aren't you demagoguing the social security issue? >> no. i just have to correct the record. that simply isn't true. now, we're not a parliamentary, body the national governors association. we vote on resolutions. if you don't get a two thirds, then your resolution is a. pass but everybody knew that those of us who voted against the freezing of coal as did so, we did so emphatically. and i never me that. stat

but now donald trump is threatening to defined social security. some of my neighbors depend on social security -- defined -- as their sole source of income. and for a president to break his promise to us is unconscionable, especially now in the middle of a pandemic. before covid-19 and my weeks were jammed with so many things, meetings, social gatherings, trips and so much more, but then everything changed. covid-19 has turned my life upside down. meetings are over zoom now and i try to keep in touch with friends over the phone, but it is simply not the same. i am incredibly fortunate to be living with my daughter who works from home, but i don't ever leave my house and less it's to purchase groceries and essentials every two weeks. the simple truth is, i -- it didn't have to be this bad. none of us want to live our lives at home in front of the computer screen. and if donald trump had not lie to us and he had decided to take this virus seriously, things might be different for florida seniors. but this administration has written seniors off as exp

to change social security." the actuary said if the changes he puts in place occur that , social security will be bankrupt in 2023. so, go home and tell your parents and grandparents just what trump's about to do. i'll protect social security, medicare and medicaid. but folks, nothing's worse that this president has done than the way he spoke about those who served in uniform. he called them "losers and suckers." my son, beau, gave up the attorney general seat in the state of delaware to volunteer to go to iraq for a year. he won the bronze star, the conspicuous service medal. he wasn't a loser or a sucker. he was a patriot, so many of you as well. [cars honking] [cheers and applause] no wonder the six generals who worked directly for the trump administration have left and they say, "he does not deserve to be the commander-in-chief of the united states." that's never happened to any president before. and that's why special operations commander stanley mcchrystal, navy seal commander admiral craven along with 24

social security. it always works that way. i am precinct politics in texas and i've seen it at the national level. we have made the social security trust fund sound. and it is gonna be operating its surpluses, and i don't want their liberal democratic congress to spin out of that social security trust fund or go and take the money out for some other purpose. i don't want that. and i will not go in there, and suggest changes in social security. i learned that the hard way. and the governor and i, both support it, slipping the cold for a one-year. he supported it at the national governors conference. and i supported it in breaking a tie, in a major compromise package. and we got a sale, by the democrats in the election over that. and i am going to keep that social security trust fund sound, and keep our commitment to the elderly, and maybe down the line, maybe when you get two decades, or one, into the next century, you're gonna have to take another look at it. but not now. we do not have to do it. keep

he lied about social security. you saw that. social security. he also won't tell you the truth about decades-long quest -- he had a decades-long quest to renegotiate social security and medicare, and he said he did not do it. we have a tape here someplace. do we have the tape? i hope it works better than the big ten tape. play both videos so we have one real quick. >> i never said i oppose fracking. >> you said it on the tape. >> show the tape. put it on your website. >> i'll put it on. >> would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in the biden administration? pres. trump: turn it up. >> no, we would work it out. we would make sure it is eliminated. >> what about safe fracking? -- what about you said stopping fracking? >> no new fracking. you got to transition away from it. you're going to ban fracking all across america now, right? >> i would love to. >> i would love to, too. i would love to make sure we don't do any oil or gas, period. i guarantee -- i guarantee we are going to end fossil fuels. pres. trump: ok. so

it had nothing to do with the debate on social security. it had to do with the discussion we had had the previous day on the overall question of reducing the budget. warner: my question is: aren't you demagoguing the social security issue? dukakis: no, and i have to -- [applause] dukakis: i just have to correct the record. that simply isn't true. now, we're not a parliamentary body, the national governors association. we vote on resolutions. if you don't get a two-thirds, then your resolution doesn't pass. but everybody knew that those of us who voted against the freezing of colas did so, we did so emphatically. and i never made that statement; never would. the point is that as we look at this nation's future, and we have two very different visions of this future. i want to move ahead. the vice president talks about a thousand points of light. i'm interested in 240 million points of light. i'm interested in 240 million citizens in this country who share in the american dream, all of them in every part of this country. but as we look at the

purdue: to protect social security and medicare. donna: henneman, that is all the time we have a questions. each candidate will now have 60 seconds for closing statement. senator purdue you get the first closing statement. mr. purdue: thank you donna. i think the viewers concede tonight that what i'm saying is exactly right. these desperate and say anything to hide his radical socialist agenda. he wants a renewed deal party was to defund the police . close military bases in georgia party was to force socialized medicine . in my for your business career, but on how to create tens of thousands of jobs. to make a difference and get results for georgia. we . the greatest economic turnaround in u.s. history after eight years of total disaster under barack obama and joe biden. we are building a military back we are confirming judges that will not make law. we are now achieved energy independence waited so right now, and i think that georgia is very clear. just seems to me that he is standing together briefly standing and we can solve the

we will the payroll tax pays for medicare and social security. medicare and social security. the social security actuary says your that would be depleted three years from now if that one fourth. these are called entitlement programs which can give the perception people deserve these programs but the truth is the american american people have paid into these programs with every paycheck over the course of their lifetimes. what be our plan moving forward? moderator: senator graham? sen. graham: let me take about me and social security. i'm the first in my family to go here to college. neither one of my parents finish high school. my dad was a world war ii veteran. we owned a liquor store and a bar. you cannot afford not to get stick because if you get -- if you don't work you do not get your wife paid. we were uninsured and got wiped out. 15 months later my dad died. if it was not for social we would makeif it was not for social security benefits, we will would not of gotten -- we -- we would not have made it. i am a republican, i get that, i do. what would i do to save social

it, by mid-2023 there will be no money for social security. and the relentless effort to eliminate the affordable care act which provides health care coverage for 22 million people. over 100 million with pre-existing conditions. this is going on at the same time. it has already cost 10 million people their health insurance because the companies have gone bankrupt. it is unconscionable. instead of focusing trying to take your health care away. it's literally before the supreme court as i speak, to strike down the entire affordable care act. take away that health care for 20 million americans. that is 282,000 nevadans. take away protection for pre-existing conditions. 1.2 million nevadans. complications from covid scarring and her damage could become the next pre-existing condition. tossing out the affordable care act that allows children to be covered on their parents' insurance policy until at least -- age taking us backward where 26. insurance companies could charge a woman more for health care a man for the same procedure just because she's

and social security is an issue where senator quayle voted eight times to cut the benefits on social security, where this administration came in and tried to cut the benefits, the minimum benefits, $122 a month for widows, for retirees, tried to cut the benefits for 62-year-old retirees by 40%, tried to do an end run on social security when they first came in after promising not to cut it to cut it by some 20 billion, and while we were working together to reform the social security system and to be certain that that money was going to be there for people when they retired. at that point, they tried a $40-billion end run to cut social security. now, the record is clear. and we saw vice president bush fly back from the west coast to break a tie in the united states senate. he doesn't get to vote very often in the senate, but he made a special trip to come back and vote against a cost-of-living increase. now, when you talk about social security, the people that are going to protect it are the democrats that brought forth that program. and i think it's very important that we not see thes

what would you do specifically with social security? >> first of all i would are taxed beneficiaries but the greatest threat and i will get to that antonette i have not said anything about jon ossoff yet. i will tell you the greatest threat is all the democratic spending that they want to do that puts medicare and social security in great jeopardy. right now believe you can solve social security by working on several different things but you've got to protect the beneficiaries and make sure nothing happens. you've got to grow the economy keep career politicians from raiding the trust fund and the meantime what they want to do is basically more entitlement and so there is no more real solution.n the democratic spending between socialized medicine and the green new deal with definitely jeopardize medicare beneficiaries and social security beneficiaries. >> where would your focus be in getting more money? social security or curtailing the benefits i'm asking specifically where's your focus going to be on that? >> it's a business guy you wo

on social security. raising the age limit is not the way to go. the question for senator mariannette miller-meeks, the level of taxation on an unfairly penalized self-employed but also the workers who work for a company in their level of taxation. how would you put out a plan to keep social security solvent for decades? >> bipartisan groups have come together before to address issues like social security. it happened under ronald reagan and it will take that again for anybody running for office but we need to look at the ways to make sure social security, young people are concerned there will be no social security for them. this is a program we pay into, not an entitlement, people getting a return for what they paid into so looking at bipartisan consensus if you raise taxes on small businesses small businesses grow and become large businesses and employ people and if you are a small business owner you are paying 50.4% so the rest of your overhead because you pay the employer and employee so small busines

bush will keep the promise of social security. no changes, no reductions, no way. [ applause ] >> our opponents would say otherwise. this is their last parting ploy, and don't believe a word of it. now is the time -- now is the time for republicans and democrats to end the politics of fear and save social security together. [ cheers and applause ] >> for younger workers, we will give you the option, your choice to put part of your payroll taxes into sound, responsible investments. [ applause ] >> this will mean a higher return on your money, and over 30 or four years, a nest egg to help your retirement or to pass on to your children. when this money is in your name, in your account, it's just not a program. it's your property. now is the time to give american workers security and independence that no politician can ever take away. [ applause ] >> on education, on education, too many american children are segregated into schools without standards, shuffled from grade to grade because of their age regardless of their knowledge. this

the actuary of social security said if that plan goes through, social security will be bankrupt by 2023. folks, i promise you, we can do this. let me close by saying this. i know, i know a lot of people around here are tired of feeling overlooked and disrespected. i get that. the people i met this week taking a train through northeastern ohio and western pennsylvania, people like the dedicated elementary school teacher from lordstown, ohio, whose husband, when lordstown shut down, accepted a transfer, kentucky, eight hours away. each direction. in order to be able to keep his health care and his pension after the g.m. plant closed. folks who worry about health care, will the affordable care act still be there for them? why, why, they ask, will i be the 100 million americans who will lose the protection for pre-existing conditions like asthma and diabetes? where once again women will be able to be charged a higher premium simply because they're a woman. where insurers no longer have to allow you to be able to keep your kids on a health care plan until age 26. what will happen to your med

security, social security will 2023 with no way

into the social security trust fund. [inaudible] that affects the revenues going in and the key revenue source for social security is a slow wage growth and has a negative effect on the system. >> thank you. we will want to work closely with you and chairman cassidy and senator haskin and colleagues because by my reading if you look at several decades of, in effect, rages stagnating and other income have gone through the roof while middle-class wages have generally been pretty stagnant and the result is social security takes left funding over time and we all understand the demographics that the program is basing so mr. director, thank you for the answer to that and thank you for the answer to the unemployment insurance and i want to repeat for my colleagues that i thought the director and his team did particularly professional work on the prescription drug issue because nobody thought the science committee can produce a bill which had a fair amount of bipartisan support, including chairman cassidy and we took a fresh app

security medicare, i want to focus on social security. we are looking for specifics. would you raise the social security tax coming out of paychecks? would you raise the age someone gets full social security benefits. looking for specifics on what you want to focus on in a second term, what would you do specifically with social security? >>perdue: i would protect medicare beneficiaries. the greatest threat to them, i'll get to the internet. i've not heard anything from john ossof yet. the greatest threat to it is all the democratic spending they wanted to put medicare and social security in great jeopardy. i believe you can fall social security by working on several things, you protect the beneficiaries and make sure nothing happens to them. you have to keep career politicians operating the trust fund and in the meantime, more talk, more entitlement, no real solution. the democratic spending between socialized medicine and green new deal, would jeopardize medicare beneficiaries and social security beneficiaries. >> where would your focus

security when you get the cap quit paying social security tax there is some talk taking it off completely come i think that is too much but there are ways to extend that top cap and we should look at that. fischbach: i will add since the congressman brought it up to make sure medicare is there for people it's very important to the elderly and people rely on it to make sure that remains although i do not support is the medicare public option and most recently nancy pelosi and senator smith have come out to support that both reimbursement rates that will coincide with the public option plan would be harmful to rural hospitals. that is something i will not support. peterson: i did vote against the public option when it came up in the house. the bigger threat to our hospitals is not the public option what they are trying to do is critical access hospital funding in 2003 that thomas came to me asking me to work with him on his bill i said if you tell me that i will be with medicare advantage of the democrats opposed it we went to work you put 30 billion into a bill for rural hospitals reimburs