Social Security provides income to retired, unemployed, and disabled workers. Benefits are based on how long a worker was employ
ed. The comments below are from a discussion between two speakers with different perspectives on the future of Social Security. Speaker A:
Social Security is now facing a real problem. Soon the system will be paying more in benefits to retirees than it is collecting from payroll taxes. If we don’t fix this situation, the system will soon have nothing left. The best solution is to stop paying benefits to retirees with high incomes.
Speaker B:
What you propose is unfair. Workers pay into Social Security their whole working lives. After they retire, they are entitled to receive benefits based on what they have paid into the system. Even if they have high incomes, they are entitled to benefits from their own payments.
How do Speakers A and B differ?Immersive Reader
Speaker A believes too much money is paid to rich individuals; Speaker B sees the wealthy as the main drivers of the economy.
Speaker A fears Social Security will soon not have enough money to pay anyone; Speaker B feels retirees are entitled to benefits they have paid for.
Speaker A would rather invest in schools than pay retirees; Speaker B believes retirees are more in need of government help.
Speaker A believes the current system is unfair; Speaker B argues the system is basically fair.
Speaker A differs from B because of one reason, which is this story: money
"A" has a good point by thinking that if you have enough money to buy a house on the spot, you shouldn't need to gain Social Security. But heres one thing "A" doesn't think about: what if said person runs out of money. The point of Social Security is to give money to the people that paid their taxes and if your retired. If your retired, you don't have a job, which means the only money you would be getting back is Social Security. Now, this starts to make it sound like im siding with "B" yes I am. However, I think to even this out, lower the amount of Social Security you get so both "A" and "B" get an even share of their opinions.
(hope my mindset was in the right place for this question)
The major advantage is that the states have their own right to choose which laws will apply to them and in what way, based on their own interpretation of the laws.
Answer: It is A. the buying and selling of slaves in the District of Columbia was oulawed.
Explanation:
The North gets: California is admitted as a free state, Slave trade prohibited in Washington D.C. and that Texas loses boundary dispute with New Mexico.
The South gets: No slavery restrictin is Utah or New Mexcio territories. Slave holding permitted in Washington D.C. , Texas gets 10 million. and Fuigitive Slave Law
