OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]

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

So you're in favor of forcing Person A, at the point of a gun, to give his hard-earned dollars to Person B? Because at the basics, that's what it is.

Interesting.

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.

Perhaps you don't understand the relevant population dynamics, discussed earlier in this thread by someone. And I see you would prefer to take even more of my earnings at gunpoint in order to give to someone else.

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

There is a huge flaw in the "Federal" government doing things that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution. That, according to the Constitution, is illegal. (Not that the lawmakers and judges seem to care much....)

There is no problem with Social Security that cannot be easily fixed with a change of administration and Congressional leadership.

Oh, that is just funny. ROTFL.

Hate the Republicans all you want (and with good reason, I'd add), but don't believe the Dems would be any better. My own personal idea is that anyone who can get elected to an office of significant position must be able to "play the game", and is therefore, by definition, unsuitable to be in office. It's a catch-22. The best office-holders would be, I believe, those who don't want the office.

I would suggest you stop putting your faith in a particular political party, and stop putting your faith in "Daddy Government". Government should be limited, pretty much to the idea of ensuring that citizens "play nice with each other" while maximizing individual freedoms, and to protect the nation as a whole from outside interference. Redistribution of wealth is not a Constitutional (or wise) activity for the federal government.

I suspect you're not well-versed in the historical background of America's founding. I daresay that the founding fathers would find your views appalling.


--
Kent


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: oil profits
    ... I was focusing on government as % of GDP. ... higher taxes to fund even more programs and with them, ... The USSR did have a modest tax to try to take account ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: OT: oil profits
    ... I was focusing on government as % of GDP. ... higher taxes to fund even more programs and with them, ... The USSR did have a modest tax to try to take account ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: Evangelical professor tackles religious right
    ... And the notion that the GOVERNMENT will take this money and spend it ... The same fucking institutions as OWES on them. ... NOT collecting taxes is a loss of revenue, ... Spuds; ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Serious, moderate discussion about Wesley Snipes.
    ... build and maintain roads without taxes. ... How can property rights exist WITH a government if government requires ... Who are the people who signed the Declaration of Independence? ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: Obamas Remarks on Retirement Security
    ... pensions, health care, greedy CEO's, and all the rest? ... the government or some general thing about we care for them. ... Who is going to pay ... Taxes on ALL income. ...
    (soc.retirement)