President Reagan, of course, did more than any other person to entrench the Republican reputation for toughness on national security.
Limos are fine for prime ministers or presidents who need the security, but there's no need for CEOs or executives to have one as a status symbol.
To allow all U.S. workers to put part of their earnings into private investment accounts would definitely erode the Social Security system and cause uncertainty for new investors.
I agree that we must expand opportunities for retirement saving, but we must not undermine this worthy effort with a flawed privatization scheme that takes the 'security' out of Social Security.
The president and Republicans in Congress have repeatedly promised to revisit Social Security privatization after November. But Americans have already said, loud and clear, that they don't want Social Security to be privatized or dismantled.
The privatization plan weakens Social Security and threatens our economic security by creating trillions of dollars in new debt.
We're the party that has fought for Medicare. We're the party that has fought for Social Security. The Republicans have tried to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare.
I never sought to privatize Social Security.
However, the Administration's plan to privatize Social Security will undermine retirement security for all Americans by cutting guaranteed benefits by more than 40 percent, and risky private accounts won't make up for the loss of benefits for millions of Americans.
They ought to be focused on saving healthcare. They ought to be focused on making sure we don't privatize Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That's where the Democrats ought to be.
I oppose the president's plan to privatize Social Security.
I've never said anything about privatizing Social Security.
Privatizing Social Security will take dollars out of young folks' pockets.
We can preserve Social Security benefits for generations of Americans without privatizing this important program.
Most people assume that once security software is installed, they're protected. This isn't the case. It's critical that companies be proactive in thinking about security on a long-term basis.
It's tempting to dismiss the debate about the National Security Agency spying on Americans as a technical conflict about procedural rights.
If the militarily most powerful - and least threatened - states need nuclear weapons for their security, how can one deny such security to countries that are truly insecure? The present nuclear policy is a recipe for proliferation. It is a policy for disaster.
We will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it - not by turning it over to Wall Street.
We're taking on Social Security as a property rights issue. We figure that every single American has an absolute property right interest in the fruits of his or her own labor. What I work for should be my property.
It would be naive to imagine we have solved all our income security problems simply because the roles of the federal and provincial governments in the area of skills training have been clarified.
