In the ongoing debate over the future of Social Security, the policy proposals put forth by former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris present starkly different visions. While Trump has suggested potential cuts to "entitlements," including Social Security, the Biden/Harris administration's budget proposal aims to strengthen the program's funding and expand benefits. Both approaches have their merits and drawbacks, leaving voters to weigh the potential consequences of each.

Trump's stance on Social Security has garnered support from those who prioritize fiscal responsibility and government efficiency. Advocates of Trump's proposals argue that reigning in spending on entitlements could lead to a more sustainable budgetary outlook, addressing concerns about the long-term solvency of Social Security. Additionally, some view Trump's willingness to consider changes to entitlement programs as a pragmatic approach to addressing fiscal challenges.

On the other hand, Harris' commitment to protecting Social Security benefits has garnered support from those who prioritize social welfare and economic equality. Supporters of Harris's plan applaud the Biden/Harris's administration's efforts to strengthen Social Security and Medicare by increasing funding for the Social Security Administration and expanding benefits for those in need. They argue that the proposals reflect a commitment to upholding the social safety net and ensuring financial security for older Americans and individuals with disabilities.

The question for debate is: Trump proposes efficiency and potential cuts to Social Security while Harris proposes bolstering the agency's operating funds. Which policy is better?