[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Contract

Mumia W wrote:

Social Security is a government program. There's nothing wrong about
using taxes to support a government program.

There is something wrong with taking money away from
one person and giving it to another when the government
has no authority (see the Constitution) to do so.

And there is something wrong with saying that one is
using the Social Security Tax to support Social Security,
and then put the money into the pot with everything else.

The fundamental nature of social security was never illegal or unethical.

If you read the 10th Amendment carefully, you'll find that
it is illegal in the USA.

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.

Eh? People have been predicting the demise of SS for quite a few
decades, and every administration, bar none, has refused to take
effective action. Has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats,
or whatever political leaning.

There is no flaw in the logic of a government program being supported by

Of course not.

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.

This doesn't follow. The demise of SS is nothing new, and people have
been talking about it since the 1980s at least.

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.

Apparently no one has any vested interest in fixing it, either.

This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!

Reply to: