Re: Social Contract
Steve Lamb wrote:
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.
Social Security is not highly suspect. It's not even suspect. It's
simply the most popular social program in U.S. history.
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.
How does protecting the poor and elderly destroy 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.
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.
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!" [...]
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").
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The purpose of Social Security is *not* high-income. It serves as a
safety-net for the lower middle-class and working poor. I understand
that you can't use the money that you contribute to Social Security
toward your maximal profit, but for other people, Social Security is
absolutely vital.
Don't compare Social Security to private retirement investment plans.
The Social Security Administration's objective is to ensure that *some*
money is available to people when they retire. It doesn't have to be a
large amount. The Social Security Administration makes the most
conservative investments possible, and, as we public-schooled adults
know, generally the more conservative investments yield less.
The Social Security Administration invests in the U.S. government, and
yeah, I think that's going to pay off :-)
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!
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.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa100600e.htm
Clinton's supposed privatization option... in 1998:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050129-095130-1559r.htm
Reply to: