What question would you like to ask the Republican presidential candidates about Social Security?

Thank you for your questions. We hope you had an opportunity to watch the GOP debate on Saturday, Dec. 10, to see how the candidates addressed some of the issues you raised. If you didn’t see the debate, turn to Yahoo! News and ABC News’ coverage at the links below to read about the candidates’ stances on issues based on your questions. Thanks again for your questions and for participating!

Analysis: Newt Gingrich survives first big night of attacks

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/analysis-newt-g...

What now? Why the next 10 days are the most critical of the GOP campaign

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/now-why-next-10...

Yahoo! readers rate the debate: ‘$10,000 is more than some people make in a year’

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/yahoo-readers-r...

Full Transcript: ABC News Iowa Republican Debate

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-abc...

I suggest that the upper limit for contributions be done away with, and that the maximum payouts in retirement still remain as they are, adjusted for inflation. Social security is not a "give away" program but one that we all contribute to like a savings plan, and should be protected from other uses by the government. Do you agree or disagree and why? If you are so worried about it then why don't you; first put it back into the private sector and make to were no can take out money from it for their own interest, second pay back every penny you have borrowed from both Social Security and Medicare, third take the illegal immigrants off of it and those who come over here but never paid a penny to it, and lastly have it the same for everyone; in other words government officials are to participate in it and if they want something more they do it on their own without the tax payers funding it?Yet, the monetary stytem feeding the imbalances had never been really changed. They, a group of scholars, suggested that all interest rates would be 3% or less for everyone to become rich if desired (that must be true also to taces). The best economic situation would be, they said, when there were no interest rates. Why not try this solution? The rich would still be rich. My question is: when soial security becomes a problem connected to federal debts, why not work with a balanced or gain budget and spend no more than comes in, as any family has to strive for? Why not ban all loobying gifts in order to get laws that serve the country? God bless America.

It seems regressive that those above a certain annual salary (not income, because the amount is based on wages) no longer have to contribute. It seems that the people in the highest pay brackets will need the retirement benefits less than those who, thoughout their careers, have earned below the cut off point, and yet, their excess salaries are excluded from contributions. I suggest that the upper limit for contributions be done away with, and that the maximum payouts in retirement still remain as they are, adjusted for inflation. Social security is not a "give away" program but one that we all contribute to like a savings plan, and should be protected from other uses by the government. Do you agree or disagree and why?This money is taken out of our paycheck and our employer/employers match it. This money DOES NOT belong to the government of the United States. It belongs to the American people, but yet we do not have a say in when and how we get it. How can you fix a system that the government has dipped it's hand into for so long to finance other countries, wars, and God knows what else you do with it? When do we the American working class get a say in what happens with the hard earned dollars that we give you each week. Why are our seniors having to suffer for the negligence that goes on in Washington? If you can fix this, then the American people might just start trusting in our government once again. Can you really say, for the people and by the people?

It seems that the people in the highest pay brackets will need the retirement benefits less than those who, thoughout their careers, have earned below the cut off point, and yet, their excess salaries are excluded from contributions. I suggest that the upper limit for contributions be done away with, and that the maximum payouts in retirement still remain as they are, adjusted for inflation. Social security is not a "give away" program but one that we all contribute to like a savings plan, and should be protected from other uses by the government. Do you agree or disagree and why? If you are so worried about it then why don't you; first put it back into the private sector and make to were no can take out money from it for their own interest, second pay back every penny you have borrowed from both Social Security and Medicare, third take the illegal immigrants off of it and those who come over here but never paid a penny to it, and lastly have it the same for everyone; in other words government officials are to participate in it and if they want something more they do it on their own without the tax payers funding it?

I was a republican for many years but now see what your party is all about. President Obama does not have all the answers but does not believe in taking away things that the american people have paid for. Social Security is a program that all americans pay for every week from their paycheck and congress uses the money to support unjustified wars.Now you say SS will be bankrupt, why don't you put the money back into the fund instead of use it to bomb countries that are of no use to us.Cut defense and take care of our senior citizens.For the first time I will be working hard for Barack Obama.The need for this downsizing is often cited as being due to our current fiscal situation, which is seen as unsustainable because we're constantly borrowing money from China. Considering that Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George Bush Jr. created the vast majority of our debt by slashing taxes on the rich (by over 20%) and then just borrowing from China to make up the difference, how will your economic policies be different ? Do you believe that tax breaks for the rich, are more important than maintaining Social Security?

This money is taken out of our paycheck and our employer/employers match it. This money DOES NOT belong to the government of the United States. It belongs to the American people, but yet we do not have a say in when and how we get it. How can you fix a system that the government has dipped it's hand into for so long to finance other countries, wars, and God knows what else you do with it? When do we the American working class get a say in what happens with the hard earned dollars that we give you each week. Why are our seniors having to suffer for the negligence that goes on in Washington? If you can fix this, then the American people might just start trusting in our government once again. Can you really say, for the people and by the people?If this money was placed in the Social Security trust fund instead of the general fund which was used to finance other government programs - there would be no problem. Legislators created this problem by placing IOU's in the cookie jar and now as usual the American public is suffering. The solvency of Social Security should never have been an issue but it is because every dime of the surplus has been spent and replaced with IOUs. How would you replace the IOUs?

Why would we want to raid the Social Security Fund by reducing the amount of taxes that are currently being collected when we hear of how soon the Social Security Fund will be bankrupt? Maybe one of you could offer a better solution to this issue and ask for Congress to consider reducing the Federal Income tax rate by two percent instead of robbing the Social Security Fund. The same income levels could be used and let the Federal Government reduce spending by that amount or more to offset the tax reduction. If the Payroll Taxes are reduced, then what we don't pay in during these Tax Holidays will reduce our future potential amounts that we could receive. You are smart people, figure this one out and either refuse to support the Payroll Tax Holiday or push to put the same amount in the consumers pockets by reducing the Federal Income Taxes. Call it a Federal Income Tax Holiday! I was a republican for many years but now see what your party is all about. President Obama does not have all the answers but does not believe in taking away things that the american people have paid for. Social Security is a program that all americans pay for every week from their paycheck and congress uses the money to support unjustified wars.Now you say SS will be bankrupt, why don't you put the money back into the fund instead of use it to bomb countries that are of no use to us.Cut defense and take care of our senior citizens.For the first time I will be working hard for Barack Obama.

It has been cited that a possible change to SS would be to reduce or eliminate the benefit if is not needed. In other words it is insurance to cover those who for whatever reason have little to help themselves. So for instance why should those having yearly investment income (let's say of over $500,000) or still working and making a large sum collect SS benefits.

As well as SS should there not be a restriction on government workers getting paid big salaries while getting a good pension from another position. Especially when so many are out of work?

In Michigan recently it was exposed that University police chiefs were making up to $200,000 while receiving their retirement from the police department. How does this seem ethical with so many unemployed police? Is this not the problem of opportunity that so many are upset about? That some have too much opportunity while others who are more than willing and able are finding little.

You can ask any piece or allow them to choose.

Hope that helps:]

Tom

MI

I expect that the politicians on the debate to avoid direct, consice anwers to any clearly stated

politically stated questions. They can't defend themselves. First we, the taxpayers ARE the bottom line source of their politically paid positions which they control, not us. Second, we cannot vote them out entirely in any given election because they are not elected in the same time parameter and therefore that is not a threat to them. They have already destroyed a considerable number of the middle class which by its shear numbers paid collectively more money into the governments revenue than the wealthy thereby reducing the amount of money to pay them and run the country. None of them would vote to cut their own paychecks and pay into and recieve the same benefits as a social security recipient. Why should the wealthy pay more? When doing tax returns, most of them have a business and so they can deduct the cost of almost everything from wages, health benefits cost, depreciation, utilities, interest payments etc reducing the amount their taxes are based on. There are two ways of figuring taxes one a personal figure and the other to show a higher income for stock holders. In either case the wealthy get those deductions, yet the government is moving to remove the interest payment on a person's main residence from the few allowable deductions left for the middle class working man. Politics in this country is no longer about what is right for the country as a whole but is right only for those with money and power. I see little in the political field from anywhere that addresses the issues of putting the middle class workers back into jobs that have been eliminated (thereby helping tokeepthecongress/representatives paychecks coming) therefore the politicians need to ask themselves who is going to pay them. The idea that the wealth create jobs is not entirely true. DEMAND creates the need for people to produce and the wealthy when that opportunity exists will invest to meet that demand. DEMAND comes from the middle class. What I see happening now is movement that seems to have us moving back to a time when the elite dictated everything and the peons were forced to fullfill their demands. Any one else remember things like the Magna Carta or the phrase "let them eat cake"? Those involved in this debate will offer nothing but political spins which if the average person does not think beyond their answers to the underlying or further consequences will gain backing for that said person and a vote for them. DIANE

I suggest that the upper limit for contributions be done away with, and that the maximum payouts in retirement still remain as they are, adjusted for inflation. Social security is not a "give away" program but one that we all contribute to like a savings plan, and should be protected from other uses by the government. Do you agree or disagree and why?This money is taken out of our paycheck and our employer/employers match it. This money DOES NOT belong to the government of the United States. It belongs to the American people, but yet we do not have a say in when and how we get it. How can you fix a system that the government has dipped it's hand into for so long to finance other countries, wars, and God knows what else you do with it? When do we the American working class get a say in what happens with the hard earned dollars that we give you each week. Why are our seniors having to suffer for the negligence that goes on in Washington? If you can fix this, then the American people might just start trusting in our government once again.

consice anwers to any clearly stated

politically stated questions. They can't defend themselves. First we, the taxpayers ARE the bottom line source of their politically paid positions which they control, not us. Second, we cannot vote them out entirely in any given election because they are not elected in the same time parameter and therefore that is not a threat to them. They have already destroyed a considerable number of the middle class which by its shear numbers paid collectively more money into the governments revenue than the wealthy thereby reducing the amount of money to pay them and run the country. None of them would vote to cut their own paychecks and pay into and recieve the same benefits as a social security recipient. Why should the wealthy pay more? When doing tax returns, most of them have a business and so they can deduct the cost of almost everything from wages, health benefits cost, depreciation, utilities, interest payments etc reducing the amount their taxes are based on. There are two ways of figuring taxes one a personal figure and the other to show a higher income for stock holders. In either case the wealthy get those deductions, yet the government is moving to remove the interest payment on a person's main residence from the few allowable deductions left for the middle class working man. Politics in this country is no longer about what is right for the country as a whole but is right only for those with money and power. I see little in the political field from anywhere that addresses the issue