this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
-22 points (13.3% liked)

Conservative

551 readers
76 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

The federal agency also announced it has terminated cooperative agreements with the Retirement and Disability Research Consortium (RDRC)—a program for research on Social Security, retirement and disability policy issues. Ending these agreements is expected to result "in about $15 million in cost savings for hardworking Americans in fiscal year 2025," the SSA said.

So, we're eliminating inefficiencies by eliminating programs that identify inefficiencies.

Me personally, I'm okay with spending $0.10/year to have experts both inside and outside of the Social Security Administration identify problems with Social Security that they can work on.