Mumia W wrote:
> Social Security is a government program. There's nothing wrong about
> using taxes to support a government program.
There is when the program is highly suspect. Like the Alaskan bridge to
nowhere.
> It's part of the upkeep of the society.
Don't buy that one, either. Quite frankly it looks like part of the
destruction of society.
> The fundamental nature of social security was never illegal or unethical.
In your opinion. Other people's opinions differ. Especially those who
see it as a state run, vote buying ponzi scam.
> It's not Social Security that's failing. It's your Republican President
> and Congress that have failed. The entire problem with Social Security's
> funding is that the President cut taxes five times.
*laugh* First off, he's not my President nor my Congress. I voted for
candidates other than those in office.
Second, this problem is part and parcel of the program. It was set up on
a flawed concept.
Third, these problems were well known in the Clinton days. I believe they
were hinted at in the Bush I days. So this problem is not new and not just
Bush II's tax cuts.
Fourth, in case you missed it the economy is booming. In fact it is at a
point which, by almost any measure you pick, is better than when Clinton made
his bid for reelection on the strength of the economy. So, what does this
mean? Do some simple math for me. What's 2% of 100? What's 1% of 200?
Yeah, there is a point.
If taxes are cut from 2% to 1% people always scream, "oh mah gawd, we're
going to lose 50% of our tax revenue!" That is because they think, wrongly,
that the economics upon which the taxes are levied are static. They see 1/2
the tax rate they think 1/2 the taxes. But if taxes are cut in half and the
base economics double then what happens? Taxes remain the same. So now if
taxes are cut by, say, about 1% and the base economics grows by, say, 6%, what
happens? Oh, uh, tax revenue is increased? So screaming about tax cuts in
the absence of all other factors is either ignorance or pandering to
ignorance. And why did I pick those numbers? Because Bush's tax cuts amount
to less than 1% of the total taxes taken in. A lot of chest beating for so
little amount. Meanwhile the economy has grown by 3-4% per year for at least
the past year or two. Of course my numbers are almost certainly off as I
don't have the exact figures committed to memory and you could use the
practice of looking up these statistics before you spout of something ignorant
(or pandering to ignorance) instead of having them pointed out to you after.
Makes your arguments stronger that way.
>> Oh, right, the collapse of the Social
>> Security system in the mid 2020s. Sorry, already saw the man behind the
>> curtain, Mumia. Might I suggest before you take anything on Wikipedia as
>> gospel you do a minute amount of critical thinking. Flaws like the above
>> aren't hard to spot.
> There is no flaw in the logic of a government program being supported by
> taxes.
Which isn't what I said. What I said was that the flaw was that because
the government could impose taxes to fund the scam it would not fail. The
fact is that it is projected to fail anyway, in spite of the state's power to
tax. Two different things.
> You're right Steve. The flaw isn't hard to spot. It's the Republican
> Party that is the flaw. It's now the current policy of the Republican
> party to "Starve the Beast," that is, to wreck the country's finances so
> thoroughly that Social Security and a host of other government programs
> have to be scrapped or privatized.
Uh, no. Might I suggest you do a Google on Thomas Sowell and read his
columns going back a few years. He explains these concepts in clear, concise
english and points out many of the fallacies people operate under. Besides,
given the choice, I'd far rather my money going where I want. Social Security
is the worst performing program out there. I could do better putting a pick
of long-term stocks on a piece of paper, tacking it to a dart board and buying
in whatever my darts hit.
> There is no problem with Social Security that cannot be easily fixed
> with a change of administration and Congressional leadership. The
> Democrats have no vested interest in destroying the New Deal.
They don't? Then tell me exactly what Clinton did to fix Social Security
when he was in office? Remember, this problem existed prior to Bush II. It
was a debating point for Bush II/Gore!
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa100600e.htm
Clinton's supposed privatization option... in 1998:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050129-095130-1559r.htm
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature