Mumia W wrote: > Social Security is not highly suspect. It's not even suspect. It's > simply the most popular social program in U.S. history.
Just because it is popular doesn't mean people don't find it suspect.
> How does protecting the poor and elderly destroy society?
Vote pandering, class and race warfare, wealth redistribution and other
such activities when engaged by the government and religious groups upon the
population at large destroy society.
> The entire problem with Social Security funding is Bush II's. Your
> opinion that Social Security should not exist is an opinion that you
> have a right to, but the fact that Bush is depriving the government of
> income is a fact.
No, it's not. As I pointed out Social Security's problems were being
debated IN 1998 BY BILL CLINTON! At the time Bush II was still Governor of
TEXAS! TWO YEARS prior to being elected and you're blaming him for all it's
woes? The fact that it's very structure is known to FAIL has no bearing or
relevance?
> Please don't bore me with another lesson in Reagan's failed voodoo
> economics. Reagan indebted this nation more than any president before
> him. To keep things from truly getting out of hand, he raised taxes
> (renamed as "revenue increases").
Pst, the bankrupting was Carter's fault. Reagan reigned in Carter's
explosive inflation. I'm curious how, exactly, taxing helps the economy.
That's the true voodoo economics.
> The state's power to tax is legitimate. The state's power to tax to help
> the poor is legitimate. The state's power to tax to keep its agencies
> afloat is legitimate.
*sigh* Are you even trying to understand?
> Social Security was never a scam because no one was tricked into it.
> Just because you don't like something does not make it a scam.
Did I exactly have a choice in the matter? No. Does the fact that you
like it make it less of a scam? Nope.
> I bought one of his books back when I was smaller-brained and
> right-wing. His is the typical Right-Wing mantra, Reaganomics, Laffer
> curve, racism is an illusion, all very boring now and all proven 100%
> false.
Oddly enough, they haven't. If so, please cite sources. So far, time and
again, they've been proven right.
> The purpose of Social Security is *not* high-income. It serves as a
> safety-net for the lower middle-class and working poor.
Never said it was. The point, however, is that the people from which
social security is forcably removed WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF IF IT HADN'T.
That includes the lower middle class and working poor!
> The Social Security Administration invests in the U.S. government, and
> yeah, I think that's going to pay off :-)
And you say it isn't a Ponzi. Wasn't one of the points of a Ponzi scan
was that they got people to reinvest into the scam. So the government taxes
people for this scam and reinvests it in the government.... *laugh*
> He raised taxes and gave us the longest period of economic growth in
> American history. Heck, he could've grown us out of the Social Security
> problem. Too bad we couldn't give him a third term.
Pst, reality check. Clinton's economic boom was because he cut taxes and
deregulated the telecommunications industry. He also got to come off the
economic policies set in motion by Reagan/Bush I. Clinton's economic legacy
is evident in the downturn that started prior to Bush II taking office (which
he is often mistakenly credited for) that was further harshened by 9/11's
chilling effects on business and pleasure travel. 9/11, of course, was a plan
that was dreamed up and set in motion during the years of Clinton's lax stance
on terrorism. Let's not forget that the intelligence wall between the FBI and
CIA which supposedly prevented vital intelligence which could have prevented
9/11 was a CLINTON policy.
As much as I dislike Bush II at least I have the honesty to understand
that the first year or two of his presidency will be heavily influenced by the
polices and procedures set in place by the prior administration's term in
office. As much as people would like to blame him entirely for the economic
downturn and 9/11 those were things that took years to come to fruition. That
means the last 9 months that Bush was in office is really the smallest portion
of what people need to look at. Of course everyone is so focused on Bush they
don't even try to look at Clinton's culpability in any of this. Which is
exactly why you think that Bush is the sole reason why Social Security is in
shambled and ignore the fact that Clinton before him faced the exact same
issues and did nothing.
Facts are inconvenient to your world view.
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
