What USA today said-
The elderly are especially dependent on the program, with almost nine out of 10 Americans aged 65 and older collecting benefits to make ends meet.
What SS said -
Nearly nine out of ten people age 65 and older were receiving a Social Security benefit as of December 31, 2022.
Social Security benefits represent about 30% of the income of the elderly.
Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 37% of men and 42% of women receive
50% or more of their income from Social Security. *
Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on
Social Security for 90% or more of their income. *
https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf
What T.A Gardner said -
Useless News conflates the two into a lie. While roughly 9 out of 10 people 65 and older get Social Security only a small fraction of them rely on it as a primary, or only source of income. In other words, Social Security is a supplemental rather than a primary source of income for most people.
USA Today, took the statement from SS in blue and made a claim not really supported by what SS actually said.
You took the statement from USA Today and made an argument that isn't based on what USA Today actually said.
In reality, USA Today's statement is better supported logically than yours is.
USA Today, took that the average person getting SS gets 30% of their income from SS and extrapolated that to all of them needing that 30% to make ends meet. That is probably likely for the average SS recipient but 9 out of 10 SS recipients can not all be average.
You took USA Today's statement that the money needed to make ends meet must mean it is the primary or sole source of their income. Your failure in logic is worse than the one that USA Today made. At least in the case of USA Today, it's easy to see how they made that wrong logical conclusion. In your case, there is no path from needed to make ends meet to your claim of primary or only source of income. Because USA Today linked to the SS article, it would be unlikely that they were claiming 9 out of 10 had SS as their primary or only source of income since the numbers showing that wrong are right there with the other 2 predicates they used to make the wrong conclusion. Then as further evidence that you likely knew your attack was unwarranted you left out the part in blue from the SS article. Not only did you make a logical leap that didn't exist, you attempted to hide that leap by hiding the evidence of how USA Today made their false conclusion.