republican social security
- Thread starter dherd
- Start date
because republicans do not believe in social security. republicans fought the enactment of
social security in 1933. republicans want to privatize social security now. republicans do not
believe in ANY govt program.
google what republicans had to say about social security in the 1930's and compare it
to republican rhetoric today. it is identical.
here is a quick sample. i know as a conservative you all are to lazy and stubborn to actually learn anything, so i'll have to spoon feed you.
Indeed, these same arguments we hear today against health reform were used even earlier, to attack President Franklin Roosevelt’s call for Social Security. It was denounced as a socialist program that would compete with private insurers and add to Americans’ tax burden so as to kill jobs.
Daniel Reed, a Republican representative from New York, predicted that with Social Security, Americans would come to feel “the lash of the dictator.” Senator Daniel Hastings, a Delaware Republican, declared that Social Security would “end the progress of a great country.”
John Taber, a Republican representative from New York, went further and said of Social Security: “Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers.”
social security in 1933. republicans want to privatize social security now. republicans do not
believe in ANY govt program.
google what republicans had to say about social security in the 1930's and compare it
to republican rhetoric today. it is identical.
here is a quick sample. i know as a conservative you all are to lazy and stubborn to actually learn anything, so i'll have to spoon feed you.
Indeed, these same arguments we hear today against health reform were used even earlier, to attack President Franklin Roosevelt’s call for Social Security. It was denounced as a socialist program that would compete with private insurers and add to Americans’ tax burden so as to kill jobs.
Daniel Reed, a Republican representative from New York, predicted that with Social Security, Americans would come to feel “the lash of the dictator.” Senator Daniel Hastings, a Delaware Republican, declared that Social Security would “end the progress of a great country.”
John Taber, a Republican representative from New York, went further and said of Social Security: “Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers.”
dtard please explain the similarities and differences in social security now and social security in the 30s.
I'd much rather have had mine and my employers contribution going into a market type account over the 35 years of working than I would have going into social security. I carried personal life insurance and disability insurance to cover those situations. I'd have been MUCH better off without it. But because people lack discipline and personal responsibility I have the poor investment we call social security.
This quote seems to support the picture Dtard provided. Have to admire anyone willing to work at 103.
To even suggest SS is an "investment" is laughable. Govt sponsored Ponzi scheme dependent on new taxpayers coming into the workforce and more buyers of US Treasuries to fund the benefit payouts is more like it.
See...you can only think in the narrow parameters of ideology. You're thinking, since my post appears anti social security to you, that I'm espousing some kind of conservative ideology. I can understand how someone who can only view the world through the prism of politics might think that way. You know...that guy said something remotely conservative so therefore I'm obligated to reply with some kind of witty retort where you believe (in your mind) that you somehow trapped me in some kind of hypocrisy with the Ayn Rand comments.
But where you're wrong...and it's difficult to see when your whole world is democrat-good and republican-bad..is I couldn't care less if Ayn Rand is perceived as being hypocritical for accepting social security after her bout with cancer later in her life. If she is hypocritical, so be it. I'm not vested in any kind of win or lose politics where you have to stretch the borders of a point of view to score victory for your ideological team.
That said, I might argue that the Ayn Rand disagreement was with welfare and those who didn't pay there own way. Perceiving hypocrisy, as though she accepted some kind of hand out, because she accepted the support of a system she paid into her whole life, isn't exactly free loading. It's like paying for medical insurance and being criticized for using it. The gripe lies with the able-bodied people (note I said able-bodied) who don't work , thus never paying in, yet still reaps the benefits. Now THAT was the Ayn Rand gripe.
But either way, whether Rand was hypocritical or not, if you look outside the blinders of politics for a second you can see that the truth of Ayn Rand doesn't change the fact that I'd be much better off if mine and my employers contributions went into a market fund. MUCH better off.
Sorry, after going back and re-reading your former post, I can now see you are a strong proponent of the social security program. My bad.
That's better. I'll take sarcasm over ideological allegiance any time.
My post contained no more ideological allegiance than yours did. You will deny that, no doubt, When you mention the "discipline" and "personal responsibility" as the cause of the need for SS, well, that's pure conservatism. It is altogether ideological, with no basis in reality. There are millions of people in this nation who work hard, are disciplined, and have personal responsibility who would have nothing to retire on if not for SS.
And look who shows up. The very guy who would have starved to death had it not been for the social security being discussed. Ironic.
How many years did your mother sacrifice before she started drawing social security?
One's definition of "disciplined" and "personal responsibility" are always the variable in this discussion. Someone who has no other savings, retirement/investment plan in place during their working years is most certainly NOT disciplined or responsible. That shouldn't be a conservative or liberal view. Its common sense.
In the case of SS......believing that SS is the only "savings acct" for one's retirement and doing "nothing" else so that one can retire is IRRESPONSIBLE. SS was intended as a "safety net" or a "supplement" to actually taking disciplined responsible action beyond what another tax payer will cover for you. Most, including myself, don't have a major problem with the concept of a "safety net". Unfortunately, its become a govt boondoggle of waste and corruption, encouraging more irresponsibility and dependency.
When Ayn Rand passed on, her estate was still worth about $1.2 million. What a hypocrite that she decided to get on the government teet not for being destitute. Rose Lane and Isabel Patterson both refused to accept any such benefits, and Ayn certainly could have done the same. So much for Ayn's belief that getting that gubment check in and of itself is degrading to one's worth.
We are told that SS is a retirement plan by those that blindly support it. Should SS not be given to people that have paid into it as a supplement to what they have saved? Or are you suggesting that SS is essentially a welfare program designed for only the irresponsible that haven't saved/invested for anything else?
I see the 3 liberal stooges have found their way back to the board. Welcome back F.A.G., Dtard, and Extragreed.
It absolutely is a retirement program that is one leg of that three legged stool (with savings and a pension as the other two). The problem is, Ayn Rand wasn't taking the money she paid into SS ... she was taking the money that workers were contributing to SS at that time. So not only did she somehow believe that she was above the adverse psychological effects of drawing a check from the government, but the money she used to maintain her seven figure estate came directly from other people's money and not her own. Great way to make a moral stand with other people's money.
SS is designed for those elderly (responsible and irresponsible) to be able to subsist in old age. The alternative would be great social unrest and greater costs to society than the SS Old Age Retirement Program itself.
SS is designed for those elderly (responsible and irresponsible) to be able to subsist in old age. The alternative would be great social unrest and greater costs to society than the SS Old Age Retirement Program itself.
Which is exactly the same as it is today. This hasn't changed for anyone that "accepts the check" even today. Your contributions (if you are still working) are being "paid out" immediately to those who failed to plan effectively years ago. There is no "plan" or "account" with your name on it that has accumulated over the years for you to cash out later no matter what the annual SSA statement says. It is always "someone else's money" (mainly the Chi-coms and other US Treasury note buyers).
And people wonder what happened to America's greatness. To go through life, willingly placing a dependence on some future taxpayer funding your bingo nights. Sad really.
