Replies

You are totally off base. Civilized nations everywhere provide some kind of security for aged people. Don't throw either babies or the aged out with dirty bathwater.

There is a monetary price societies who value and respect life (and the quality of life) pays through taxation. This includes equal respect for ALL citizens, not just the young and healthy.

It's the profligate, criminal politicians that have abused our country's respect for human life by bankrupting and corrupting the SS system. Because of their class warfare (like Graham practices), many now HATE the aged and infirm, and if some are perceived by some commie as being "wealthy" they become hated by even some brainwashed conservatives...and they should be stripped of any security whatsoever.

Help for the aged through some sort of social security system here or in any civilized country does not necessarily make it "Marxist" as you imply.

For example, we also tax EVERYONE for public education because we value the lives of children. In other words, we want them to be schooled and successful as adults. Included in this education tax to help accomplish the universal education goal are millions of childless people who don't utilize the public school system at all. But forcing the taxation of the childless is "Marxist" in your view and we should get rid of the universal education program appelation and call it "welfare" for the children, which is what you want to call Social Security as you stated up-thread.

In the view of some of us, however, we EXPECT a nominal portion of our tax money to go to well-administered programs to further our respect for life and for the public welfare of the populace, young and old, as the Constitution commands.

The hang-up comes in how elected politicians administer the taxes we pay for these programs....wisely or corruptly.....and for decades now it has been corruptly and irresponsibly.

However, I think the country is waking up to the profligacy and the corruption. At least, I pray so. Also waking up to Libertarians who want no government social programs of any kind, whatever they are called.....and who flock to these threads like ants to a picnic table.

We started the job successfully in the November election by winnowing out a lot of crooks and socialists. We're also doing a damn good job right here on FR in exposing Graham and his ilk and spreading the words of truth.

Leni

"For example, we also tax EVERYONE for public education because we value the lives of children"

Reagan advocated for the elimination of the Dept of Education.

My point of view is centered in the 10th Amendment. I believe states, who must balance their budgets, should implement any program they choose as long as it's not in conflict with the Bill of Rights.

However, to place these programs at the Federal level and combine them with the ability to borrow endlessly and even to print money to cover them is, I believe, the certain end of the Republic.

I'll risk getting my head ripped off on this thread. We had this conversation when Reagan was president. I thought that the reason SS is in so much trouble is that the gov't borrowed from it to pay into the "general fund". Well, it seems the "general fund" should pay back SS forthwith plus interest. That might mean raising income taxes, cutting defense spending, which many here are against, like many here were so against "unplugging granny" just a few months ago. SS not constitutional? Well, standing armies are not constitutional (so as not to make the people destitute) either: technically we've had one spread out all over the world since WWII. Even (gulp) former Pres Clinton said when Bush proposed his tax cuts, that instead of tax cuts, the budget surplus should be used to "shore-up SS and reduce the national debt". That didn't happen. And really, if that's how Clinton felt, why didn't he do it when he was in the WH?

Now, here we are having this conversation again and it is more bitter (outright vicious imho) than ever before. Calling people stupid and socialist because they expect to collect or they want their money back. Really! These people advocate stealing and are no better than the whoring pols who mismanaged SS. Hypocrites!

I think the reason Graham said this is to split the forces and divide the electorate, and it looks like it's working. The question is why he's doing it?