Social Security Crisis: Who's Responsible

Legislation they knew would send the case to a court packed to the gills with Clinton appointees. You don't think they had a look at who was seating on the bench in those Federal Districts? How stupid do you think they are?

I notice the Atlanta Federal Courts have decided to look at the whole case and not just at procedural matters. Could it be the whole mess has gotten too hot for the politicians? Too many are asking hard questions and seeing false claims of innocence and helplessness from powerful pols?

And not enough morally bankrupt who only concern themselves with pocketbook issues such as payroll deductions.

They could scrap all of Social Security tomorrow it would still be less important than a government sanctioned murder of an innocent handicapped woman. But you can't be bothered, sorry I am boring you. You can go back to your shallow existence just as soon as the courts are tamed.

Shallow existence, morally bankrupt, boring me. Are you done insulting me yet? Perhaps your myopic view makes you unable to see that other issues are going on right now. While you deem Terri to be at the top of the list, why do you insist that everyone else make that same determination? Did you stop to think that the current Social Security situation may be causing more harm than allowing a feeding tube to be removed from someone in a persistent vegatative state? Something, by the way, that occurs on a daily basis. Where are the protests over that? Prosperity and financial security due to the economic growth of this country has saved more lives through the development of medicines and technologies than anyone could count. Stifling that prosperity with a program like Social Security, therefore, may be causing more harm to a large, unnamed number of people. So, don't go around accusing people of thinking only with their wallet, if you don't know that to be the case.

The selfish liberal baby boomers are responsible. These people were part of a baby boom then decided to kill off their offspring which would support them when they were old

Uh why should one need others to support them? Only in a pyramid or Ponzi scheme does one need more participants. Having less offspring means more wealth to distribute to each offspring, and a nation that uses less natural resources. Doesn't sound selfish to me but conservative and thoughtful.

A properly set up program would be self sufficient without an increase in participants. (who eventually would be recipients)Where do you stop the pyramid? More participants only delays the inevitable day of reckoning...its like doubling up your bets, eventually you go broke.

Enjoy your ride to Aulschvitz.

Ah, the last bastion of illogic. Accuse your enemies of being Nazis. Nice. The PVS dianosis was that of her doctors. Excluding the pundits on TV who watched 10 minutes of video to make their informed decision, show me where someone has said differently. If that isn't the case, then I will be more than happy to acknowledge that fact and reconsider my position, accordingly.

What makes you think you have a clue about my value system? I hate the situation that everyone involved in the matter is in. That includes the judges and doctors forced to make legal and factual determinations that directly influence the life of someone. However, I don't see my input into the matter as necessary. I would not want strangers influencing my decision to remain on life support or feeding tubes. I am simply extending the same respect. That's what this boils down to: the self-superiority of some people who think they know better than everyone else what to do and want their values imposed on others.

I noticed you excerpted part of my previous post without including the details that back up the statement. Sort of like showing 1 minute of a 4 hour video over and over again.

Re: "Accuse your enemies of being Nazis. Nice"

If the Jackboots fit?

Re: "The PVS diagnosis was that of her doctors. Excluding the pundits on TV who watched 10 minutes of video to make their informed decision, show me where someone has said differently. If that isn't the case, then I will be more than happy to acknowledge that fact and reconsider my position, accordingly."

I worked in Medicine for 20 years, how many years experience do you have? One thing I can tell you is a PVS can be arrived at with out the test I mentioned, but so can a great many injuries and illnesses, however without them the odds of a misdiagnosis is greatly increased. I know my father had cancer because of a little lump above the clavicle but the doctor (two of them) told my father it was nothing to worry about since they caused him no pain. I had to insist on a consultation to a surgeon/oncologist. The fact there was no pain was one of the signs that made me think cancer. The surgeon and the oncologist assumed the same thing i did and the test proved it. Would you want a surgeon cutting you without such verification, but killing an innocent woman is okay. For the love of Pete I can see I have no common ground with you.

Re: "What makes you think you have a clue about my value system?"

Everything you have said gives me some insight. I never noticed you holding back when it came to the Values of "Christian Fanatics". Were these not your words? Now you wish to claim a secular moral high ground (as if there is such a thing)

Re: "I hate the situation that everyone involved in the matter is in. That includes the judges and doctors forced to make legal and factual determinations that directly influence the life of someone."

They have been forced into no such thing. The Judge is doing what he wants to do, and there are other places for the doctors to work. It was not so long ago the doctors would have none of this, but the community has been influenced by the same sort of thing that influences you. Indifference and selfishness, these are the things that put the feeding tube in the first place. A demanding husband, lazy nursing staff and doctors who know they were dealing with someone who turned to the courts once before. Once again we are back to the courts. A culture that finds sympathy for killers but not the victim. We all are to be held accountable for that, we all let it happen. The difference is some want to do something about it and others just wish the "Christians" would shut up about it. That isn't going to happen.

Re: "That's what this boils down to: the self-superiority of some people who think they know better than everyone else what to do and want their values imposed on others."

We are not the ones killing an innocent handicapped woman, if that makes us guilty of self-superiority then so be it but I think it is more likely those who come to such conclusions are self centered, indifferent and hostile to anyone who pricks their conscious. Rather than turn on the evil-doers in life they turn on those who call for action and reform. The prostitute, the shoplifter, the child molester, the poisoner trouble such people none the least as long as it is someone else but the pastor who makes you squirm in your pew, that you will get hot about, that you will do something about. Until the prostitute gives you AIDS, the pocket picked is your own, the Child raped is your boy or the poison is being pored down your throat. Even so such as this keep the pastor at bay, because they would rather their own son be raped than they be made to feel they should do better. All lives are expendable as long as you get to feel good about yourself, no matter how much you bring on yourself.

Since you wanted me to comment further on this post of yours I will.

Re: "Did you stop to think that the current Social Security situation may be causing more harm than allowing a feeding tube to be removed from someone in a persistent vegatative state? Something, by the way, that occurs on a daily basis. Where are the protests over that? Prosperity and financial security due to the economic growth of this country has saved more lives through the development of medicines and technologies than anyone could count. Stifling that prosperity with a program like Social Security, therefore, may be causing more harm to a large, unnamed number of people. So, don't go around accusing people of thinking only with their wallet, if you don't know that to be the case."

You make a weak case for the notion SS is killing more than the judge in FL. It is a stretch since the SS has yet to cause the financial hardship you claim. I do not dismiss the notion it may be on the horizon but it is ludicrous to suggest it has killed anyone to date. The counter to the can be made by any fan of the system by pointing out hard luck cases who died in the past and even today because SS did not exist or was not enough. I have no opinion as yet what we should do about SS though I agree we need to do something (in other words I can be persuaded). From this neutral ground I can see your claims of death and destruction are "yet to be proven prophecy" while your opponent stands and firmer ground. You loose the argument while the liberal wins it. I instinctively recoil from agreeing with a liberal which is the only reason I will stay with you on the fix it side. But that does not really help you win over others if you rely on such weak claims.

The link you wish to make that it is a bigger problem than Terri looses me entirely. If that is your position I will stand with the liberal against you even if I have to hold my nose. You can forget cooperation on SS as long as I see the Shiavo Solution as part of the plan.

I worked in Medicine for 20 years, how many years experience do you have?

None. That was precisely why I invited you to show me why my use of the phrase PVS was wrong. You answered that quite well and reasonably.

but killing an innocent woman is okay.

When did I say this? We may differ on whose decision it is, but did I ever say that I personally believe whether or not it is okay?

For the love of Pete I can see I have no common ground with you.

Even if that is so, and I don’t think it is, so what? This exchange actually began simply as my complaint about interjecting the Schiavo debate into every thread. I know that it is important to you. I have voluntarily stayed out of the debate, until today, precisely because I know that my stance is not the popular one on this forum. I don’t think that means you and I, or anyone else who feels passionately about the situation and I have no common ground. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t both be posting on this website.

"Christian Fanatics". Were these not your words?

No. You must be confusing me with someone else, here. I have never used that phrase, nor do I intend to because it does not reflect my thoughts on the situation. I even went back through this thread to make sure I had not said that. If I had, it would have been only in the context of someone else’s description of the protesters.

and others just wish the "Christians" would shut up about it.

Once again, you must have me confused with someone who has a grudge against Christians. That isn’t the case. I'm sure it would surprise you at this point to learn that I am a Christian, since you have already decided you know exactly who and what I am. And have no problems justifying my position biblically. As far as shutting up about it, talk all you want. Granted my issue was over the thread in which you were making the comments, but I think you were referring to the protests, phone calls, etc. More power to you on that front. As long as the calls aren’t the death threats to Judge Greer that he has received. I am not necessarily against saving the life of Terri. I am simply for doing so through established legal means. I can’t justify ignoring the rule of law simply because I don’t agree with it. Want to change it? Great. Let’s do it through the established channels. What I see, however, is a group of people wanting to impose their values through some super-legal means. That, to me, has shades of a theocracy. My agreement or disagreement with the imposed values is unimportant. The fact that they are imposed without a personal decision to espouse those values is what I have a problem with.

You may be full of contempt for me at this point, at that is fine. This is precisely why I didn’t want to comment on the Schiavo case. I just wanted to read about the blind golfer hitting the hole-in-one and realize that I just needed to sell my clubs and learn to needlepoint.

P.S. I hope everything turned out well with your father.

The link you wish to make that it is a bigger problem than Terri looses me entirely. If that is your position I will stand with the liberal against you even if I have to hold my nose. You can forget cooperation on SS as long as I see the Shiavo Solution as part of the plan.

Yes, my argument about SS killing people is weak. And you are right that if it's true, it would be more prevalent in the future than anything that has happened so far. And, no, that is not why I push for SS reform, however, I have written letters, emails, phone calls to newspaper editors and congressmen, read books to familiarize myself with the situation and had strong opinions on this matter for years. I simply wanted you to see that there were more benefits than simple selfish financial gain at stake, and that this is why it may be important to people. As bad as SS, in its current form, would be for me, it will be even worse for my son. I don't wish for him to deal with that. It bothers me that people work, and then the government confiscates 12-15 percent of their work, money, life for some contrived Ponzi scheme forced retirement plan. This issue may be of high importance to people, and simply because they would like to address it, doens't mean that it is more important than other issues. Nor does it mean that they don't care about other issues, just that this is the one they are addressing at this particular moment.

There wasn't really a trust fund at all until he came along. Or only a negligible one.

I don't think he changed the control of the trust fund, but I will agree that he goofed by signing legislation increasing the SS taxes. Not only did he goof, but the very next year, the voters took revenge by ousting the Republican majority in the Senate and putting Mitchell in charge, who promptly raided the SS trust fund that was supposed to be saved for my retirement. Then Bush was elected, and Mitchell and Bush got together and increased taxes again. Then the voters took revenge against Bush, and Clinton was elected. Then Mitchell helped Clinton increase taxes yet again.

Egads. When someone tells you that the way to fix SS is to increase taxes, ask them if it worked the last time we tried it. And when they say "yes," ask them why we are still talking about it going bankrupt then. The more we increase taxes, the more we have at risk of losing when it goes belly up, which it inevitably will.

You are right you did not use the Christian Fanatic reference, I am debating two people at once on different threads, similar topic similar positions. Excuse me for making the error.

The SS debate and the Shiavo case are related, just as it is related to abortion. It is also related to rule of law and a whole host of Constitutional issues. This notion that the courts have acted in good faith or the State house or Congress or the White House is wishful thinking. The evidence I cite is an unwillingness to hold the judge in Contempt of Congress, refusal to hold hearings on judicial abuses or any number of mild responses from the other two branches of government. They have time for baseball but no hearings on Judaical tyranny looses me when people claim there is nothing they can do. Hogwash. You don't want armed marshals raiding the Hospice in a Elian style midnight raid, fine but no hearings? You loose me right there. No Contempt charges, lost again.

Do you realize the only court required by the Constitution is the SCOTUS. All others are subject to the creative power of Congress. They have the power to create new Federal districts and the power to eliminate old ones, thereby handing some judges a pink slip. 51% of the Congress is all they need. The same goes for staffing and their budget. All needing only 51% of the vote. Similar rules apply to the State Courts and the peoples elected representatives in Tallahassee. The Congress deal every year with issues such as I suggest but they never use their power to send a message while the courts use theirs will little restraint. I no longer believe the courts are out of control but work in concert with the Congress and the White House. The biggest evidence is the lack of Congressional Hearings. We get a regular diet of show trials in the form of hearings every year. Why is the court out of bounds? Collusion is the only reason I can figure.

Thanks for asking about Dad but a painless lump in the lymph nodes above the clavicle is not a promising sign. It is usually a sign it has spread throughout the body. He pasted away about a year after his surgery. He had a living will but it did not permit pulling a feeding tube. It did forbid extensive machines or CPR all of which was perfectly correct according to Catholic doctrine. He wasn't even Catholic or even Christian as far as I could tell just followed what he thought was correct.

It isn't that I hold you in contempt but the values you profess does not suit you. There is more than a superimposed value system or a Christian morality involved. It is a political system that has no respect for the Law and use the courts for cover at best and for murder at worse. Too much of this is looking like a shake down of the American public. The GOP shakes down the prolifers, saying the democrats are coming and the DNC shakes down the old folks or tree huggers telling them the the mean old Republicans want to take their SS or poison the air.

How can I get worked up about SS when the cards are stacked against you and your desire for reform. There will be no reform because there is too much money to be plucked from you pocket making it a wedge issue.

It isn't that I hold you in contempt but the values you profess does not suit you.

Please explain this. I am not sure I am following you. I did a little looking since we have been conversing. I admit I am not fully up to speed on this issue. The order that congress passed in their special session told the courts to review the case, from the beginning, not just review the decisions, but look at the evidence again and basically start from scratch, right? This is the order that the court in Florida ignored. I agree that the justices in Florida should obey that order. Isn’t that what the appeals court in Atlanta is doing?

The other thing that I fear is that because of the Schiavo situation, laws are going to be passed that interfere with my right to choose what life-saving methods are used on me. I can see a situation where my wife, who knows my wishes, although I have not written them down in the form of a living will, and my parents are in disagreement, and, because of laws written directly as a result of this case, my wishes are not carried out. With activist courts, it may not matter if you have a living will. I can see where someone will claim that since I wasn’t in the situation when I signed the living will, I wasn’t given the chance to change my mind. One could not have written a worse case than what we have going on in Florida right now. With all the questions, accusations, assumptions being made, with both sides representatives being extremists, any law that comes from this, in my opinion, will have consequences beyond that which it was ever designed.

What happens if an appeal is granted, feeding tube reinserted, case heard, and the court still determines that there is not ample evidence to remove Michael as legal guardian of Terri? I don’t think it will make any difference to the people getting arrested trying to take her water, or the people on this site throwing around the evil, death-cult, Nazi labels.

I am sorry about your father. I couldn’t tell from the post if it was a recent development or something that had happened in the past. Not that time matters. As far as confusing me with the other person, no harm, no foul. On one of my posts to you, I referred to the blind guy getting the hole-in-one and then realized that was another thread that someone else said something about starving the blind guy.

Re: Values that suit you.

I would prefer to see people as having values that I respect. I am a fairly tolerant guy to people who disagree with me but there are just a few issues that cut across so many things that effect so much that is basic I am unable to respect the notion they profess. Abortion and mercy killings are just two such issues. I can respect the idea someone does not believe in God. Even though I can not imagine there is no God, I accept that God is not so obvious that all can see it. He keeps Himself hidden just enough for His own purposes. But abortion is so clear to me, the same with this case. Debate about her state is understandable but when an innocent person becomes expendable because she is a burden I can not fathom such a view, because we will all be there one day. I worked in medicine most everyone wants to live except the mentally ill. Even in pain and suffering we all want to live. Regardless what we have all said in the past. All but a few change their minds when the time comes. The law has a responsibility to respect that but some how they have reversed the order of things. A living will was meant for the few who wanted to pull the plug not to let the majority live.

Re: "Isn’t that what the appeals court in Atlanta is doing?"

Perhaps? I don't know, but I suspect the hostility this case has generated for Gov Bush and falling polls for GW, I suspect a a few phone calls were made. Yet one more reason I no longer believe the courts act with the independence the media and the politicians claim. I think they are frightened. I think both parties are frightened. They should be, all murderers should be frightened.

Re: "The other thing that I fear is that because of the Schiavo situation, laws are going to be passed that interfere with my right to choose what life-saving methods are used on me. I can see a situation where my wife, who knows my wishes, although I have not written them down in the form of a living will,..."

You see this is what I am talking about. The living will was meant for people like you not for people like me. The Ann Quinlin case the courts and the the medical community fought the family who wanted to pull the plug. Opponents to living wills said it was a slippery slop and they were right. Now people who want to live have to make the living will. That is 180 degrees backassward. The presumption of the law is life but now the presumption is death. It is foolish to assume it stops there, it will be applied elsewhere and in ways you may not like or approve. Make your living will but do not take my life if I fail to do so. That has always been murder until now, it still it despite the cloudy smoke screen the media throws in our faces.

Re: "What happens if an appeal is granted, feeding tube reinserted, case heard, and the court still determines that there is not ample evidence to remove Michael as legal guardian of Terri? I don’t think it will make any difference to the people getting arrested trying to take her water, or the people on this site throwing around the evil, death-cult, Nazi labels."

You are right about that because the issue is still the same. Can I murder you, and claim you said it was okay. At the risk of being redundant the living will was for those who wanted the plug pulled not for the uncertain or the unknown. The Law has to assume an innocent woman wishes life. Besides the case for rehabilitation is (or should I say was) pretty good. Lord knows what this latest assault has done to her chances.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.