Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Social Security - Inventing A Crisis
By Paul Krugman

New York Times Op-Ed Columnist - December 7, 2004

Privatizing Social Security - replacing the current
system, in whole or in part, with personal investment
accounts - won't do anything to strengthen the system's
finances. If anything, it will make things worse.
Nonetheless, the politics of privatization depend
crucially on convincing the public that the system is
in imminent danger of collapse, that we must destroy
Social Security in order to save it.

I'll have a lot to say about all this when I return to
my regular schedule in January. But right now it seems
important to take a break from my break, and debunk the
hype about a Social Security crisis.

There's nothing strange or mysterious about how Social
Security works: it's just a government program
supported by a dedicated tax on payroll earnings, just
as highway maintenance is supported by a dedicated tax
on gasoline.

Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the
amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the
result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none
other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His
justification at the time for raising a tax that falls
mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even
though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall
mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue
was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be
drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to
retire.

The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security
crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big
enough. Projections in a recent report by the
Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more
realistic than the very cautious projections of the
Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund
will run out in 2052. The system won't become
"bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is
gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of
the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run
financing problem.

But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds
that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd
century, with no change in benefits, would require
additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of
G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending -
less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's
only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year
because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to
the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with
incomes over $500,000 a year.

Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up
with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement
program, with no major changes, for generations to
come.

It's true that the federal government as a whole faces
a very large financial shortfall. That shortfall,
however, has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that
Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than
it does with Social Security.

But since the politics of privatization depend on
convincing the public that there is a Social Security
crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent
one.

My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic
goes like this: first, they insist that the Social
Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it
has been accumulating with that surplus are
meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an
independent entity - it's just part of the federal
government.

If the trust fund is meaningless, by the way, that
Greenspan-sponsored tax increase in the 1980's was
nothing but an exercise in class warfare: taxes on
working-class Americans went up, taxes on the affluent
went down, and the workers have nothing to show for
their sacrifice.

But never mind: the same people who claim that Social
Security isn't an independent entity when it runs
surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the
benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax
receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see,
Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and
therefore must stand on its own.

There's no honest way anyone can hold both these
positions, but very little about the privatizers'
position is honest. They come to bury Social Security,
not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about
the possibility that the system will someday fail;
they're disturbed by the system's historic success.

For Social Security is a government program that works,
a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and
spending can make people's lives better and more
secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Thanks for another demonstration of a liberal columnist's view of
America's failures.
There are millions of wrong decisions, but only one right decision!
Now you understand why the media focuses on faults - They are easy to
write but difficult to defend.

Common-cents says "Freedom without Responsibility
is an illusion".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>From: common-cents@webtv.net

> Thanks for another demonstration of a liberal columnist's view of
>America's failures.

Interesting, but the column pointed out how Bush and Company are creating a
crisis by saying America failed with Social Security. I wouldn't call Bush a
Liberal. The Liberal Columnist points out that America has not failed with
Social Security.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Once again your liberal, anti Bush face is showing. You and the media
fail to relate the true history of Social Security. You only look upon
Social Security as a topic to promote your politics of Socialism(
government control).
Free citizens have a choice(vote) to express their opinion of the
state of the Nation, and they have.
So kick back. while Bush serves his term in office. It's time to
support your parties search for a positive candidate who represents
your ideals. It might be Hillary Obama or a dark horse like Edwards.

Common-cents says "Freedom without Responsibility
is an illusion".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>From: common-cents@webtv.net

> Once again your liberal, anti Bush face is showing. You and the media
>fail to relate the true history of Social Security. You only look upon
>Social Security as a topic to promote your politics of Socialism(
>government control).

The original editorial pointed out that Social Security isn't broken. It is an
American success story. It's you that fails to see the American lives,
Republican, Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, that have been saved by Social
Security.
If you feel that the country will be better off adding trillions more to the
national debt to finance privatizing social security, why don't you just come
out and say so.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Social Security will be able to pay 100% benefits untill 2055 and then
it will be able to pay 80% for the rest of the century. When I am 105
I may bitch about the cut in my check but untill then it's a pretty
good program. Those who are behind the destruction of SS are the
business men who have to pay matching amounts. They will save
Billions and the Mutual fund companies will make billions more butthe
common working man will get screwed. How do you strengthen a program
by taking money away from it???Like the way they improved the schools
by funneling money to "charter schools". When the Republican try to
help the "working man" it's time to cover your ass.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Social Security will be able to pay 100% benefits untill 2055 and then
it will be able to pay 80% for the rest of the century. When I am 105
I may bitch about the cut in my check but untill then it's a pretty
good program. Those who are behind the destruction of SS are the
business men who have to pay matching amounts. They will save
Billions and the Mutual fund companies will make billions more butthe
common working man will get screwed. How do you strengthen a program
by taking money away from it???Like the way they improved the schools
by funneling money to "charter schools". When the Republican try to
help the "working man" it's time to cover your ass.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

tmurph2@peoplepc.com wrote:

> Social Security will be able to pay 100% benefits untill 2055 and then
> it will be able to pay 80% for the rest of the century. When I am 105
> I may bitch about the cut in my check but untill then it's a pretty
> good program. Those who are behind the destruction of SS are the
> business men who have to pay matching amounts. They will save
> Billions and the Mutual fund companies will make billions more butthe
> common working man will get screwed. How do you strengthen a program
> by taking money away from it???Like the way they improved the schools
> by funneling money to "charter schools". When the Republican try to
> help the "working man" it's time to cover your ass.
>
Oye Vey. Anti-semitic hate propaganda directed at all of those saintly
holocaust survivor kikes on Wall Street...))))))))))))

http://www.resist.com/CARTOON%20GAL...ews_image46.jpg

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

No reply to the facts of my post only more sick and twisted hate mail.
Social security is ment to be a Govt backed supplement to a persons
pension and savings. It should not be tied to some mutual fund that we
all know can disapear at any time. My Roth IRA is a good example of
how a hot fund can come crashing down. Fortunately I have two pensions
and a large annuity and my other savings to live on when I rertire. My
Roth IRA was extra money but if all I had was my SS I would be in a
world of DoDo. Todays trend away from union pensions only makes SS
more important than ever.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

The Social Security Solution. Really

Instead of taking 6% out like Bush wants to do, add 2% on. That 2%
will go into a private savings account (like an IRA) and that would be
the private investment component.

Social security will be left intact and untouched. It will be there
for the Baby Boomers, widows/orphans, and even for the young workers
of today when they get to retire. Only with this solution they will
also have the private investment account as a supplement.
Best of all, no adding to the deficit.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

So since it's working okay...for now...it's a great program? Are you
suggesting we delay a fix, that we let another generation worry about it? Do
we make the employers pay more than a matching amount? Or how about
this...people should learn to save and invest their own fucking money and
quit expecting the government to force them to give up a percentage of their
paycheck to a Ponzi scheme, rather than treat us like a bunch of
irresponsible children?? Max out an IRA, people! Contribute to your 401K if
your employer offers one, open up CD's, stick it under your goddamn pillow.
Why must a dumbass and his choices be subsidized by the rest of us??

<tmurph2@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1102899176.480648.202140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Social Security will be able to pay 100% benefits untill 2055 and then
> it will be able to pay 80% for the rest of the century. When I am 105
> I may bitch about the cut in my check but untill then it's a pretty
> good program. Those who are behind the destruction of SS are the
> business men who have to pay matching amounts. They will save
> Billions and the Mutual fund companies will make billions more butthe
> common working man will get screwed. How do you strengthen a program
> by taking money away from it???Like the way they improved the schools
> by funneling money to "charter schools". When the Republican try to
> help the "working man" it's time to cover your ass.
>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Frank" <dontspamme@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:8QHxd.4245$9j5.771@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> So since it's working okay...for now...it's a great program? Are you
> suggesting we delay a fix, that we let another generation worry about it? Do
> we make the employers pay more than a matching amount? Or how about
> this...people should learn to save and invest their own fucking money and
> quit expecting the government to force them to give up a percentage of their
> paycheck to a Ponzi scheme, rather than treat us like a bunch of
> irresponsible children?? Max out an IRA, people! Contribute to your 401K if
> your employer offers one, open up CD's, stick it under your goddamn pillow.
> Why must a dumbass and his choices be subsidized by the rest of us??

And so you are capable of euthanizing those who make poor choices? What do
you propose a civilized society do with those who did not or could not save
for their elder years ... just leave them to roam the streets until they
starve or freeze to death? Obviously society has to make choices and I am
certainly glad you aren't making any of the decisions. Talk about Scrooge!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> And so you are capable of euthanizing those who make poor choices?

Please quote where I said it was okay to kill anyone, genius.


>What do you propose a civilized society do with those who did not or could
>not save for their elder years ... just leave them to roam the streets
>until they starve or freeze to death?

Let private sector charity organization deal with these losers, they do a
better job than the government ever has anyhow. Remember, the worst words
ever uttered are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

> Obviously society has to make choices and I am certainly glad you aren't
> making any of the decisions. Talk about Scrooge!

Let's choose to promote indivual responsibility, how about them apples?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> >What do you propose a civilized society do with those who did not or
could
> >not save for their elder years ... just leave them to roam the streets
> >until they starve or freeze to death?

If it got to the above scenario and it could with the assistance
of the Franks of the world, I would be looking to organising
this group of fellow citizens into a fighting unit and take what
was required, preferably from the afore mentioned Franks.

I would rather go down fighting on my feet than beg on my
knees. I am sure quite a few other citizens would feel the
same way. Make no mistake, when enough citizens are
faced with nothing left to lose Frank, a second American
revolution will be on the cards.

> Let's choose to promote indivual responsibility, how about them apples?

So how about that Frankie darling, individuals with responsibilities,
joining
together IN UNION and competing assertively, for their/our place in the
global
scheme of things?

pjl

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Frank" <dontspamme@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:MQQzd.10146$RH4.9093@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> And so you are capable of euthanizing those who make poor choices?
>
> Please quote where I said it was okay to kill anyone, genius.

It was a rhetorical question. And you knew it was. And you don't have an
answer for it. The question stands ... What do you propose to do with the
homeless and abject poverty? What answer do you have besides name calling?

>
>
>>What do you propose a civilized society do with those who did not or could
>>not save for their elder years ... just leave them to roam the streets until
>>they starve or freeze to death?
>
> Let private sector charity organization deal with these losers, they do a
> better job than the government ever has anyhow. Remember, the worst words
> ever uttered are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

And just what the hell is "the private sector"? Is it your thinking there are
all these different kinds of people in America and only the "private sector"
is responsible for the wellbeing of the country? Why isn't the "corporate
sector" just as responsible for these decisions?


>
>> Obviously society has to make choices and I am certainly glad you aren't
>> making any of the decisions. Talk about Scrooge!
>
> Let's choose to promote indivual responsibility, how about them apples?

I'm not fond of apples thank you. Yes, let's choose to promote individual
responsibility and let's start from the top down for a change. Let's imprison
any politician who knowingly lies or takes a bribe. Let's also remove all
business license from any business that takes advantage of American
infrastructure and security and yet employs less than 50% of American labor or
materials. If Wal-Mart is so fond of China ... let them set up their
executive offices there and let their rich owners live there. That won't be
happening anytime soon will it? Because they want to leech off of Americans
and call themselves Americans when they have no concern at all for America.
But for once you and I do agree, let's talk about the personal
responsibilities of the Gates, the Waltons, and the Cheney's of this country.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> But for once you and I do agree, let's talk about the personal
> responsibilities of the Gates, the Waltons, and the Cheney's of this
> country.
They took the reigns of their own destinies and did much better than you or
I ever will, and that is their American right. Who are we to say, "You are
TOO good at what you do. You make TOO much money, smart guy, now hand it
over". This will kill future innovation and the advancement of society just
as surely as the 95% tax killed British economy in the 60's. You put the
brakes on capitalism, you put the brakes on progress. Risks are taken for
the possibility of great rewards. When you know that there is a point when
the goernment will step in and stop you in your tracks, why take risks? Just
become a zombie in a decaying civilization. If I want that, I will move to
Cuba. Thankfully, the socialist points of view taken up by the regulars on
this group in no way reflect the views of a majority of Americans. BTW, what
about individual pursuits, like writers? Should they only be allowed to make
a certain amount of money on books, and the rest will be redistributed to
the needy? J.K. Rowling and Stephen King will tell you to fuck right off.
Farmers? If they have an excellent year, take half of their crop proceeds
away? How about Teresa Heinz, should we step in, tell her that her fortune
was the result of making too much money selling ketchup, and redistribute
her wealth? Should John Kerry have to give up a few of his mansions? Should
George Soros be forced to concede his billions? Should the folks who make a
ton of money collecting on their inventions be stripped, thus insuring that
inventors will no longer bother to invent? I could go on all day long. Or
should we ONLY cap the salaires of those who are rich but have employees? I
would really like to see someone address each of these points.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Frank" <dontspamme@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:9mZzd.10820$RH4.10273@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> But for once you and I do agree, let's talk about the personal
>> responsibilities of the Gates, the Waltons, and the Cheney's of this
>> country.
> They took the reigns of their own destinies and did much better than you or
> I ever will, and that is their American right. Who are we to say, "You are
> TOO good at what you do. You make TOO much money, smart guy, now hand it
> over". This will kill future innovation and the advancement of society just
> as surely as the 95% tax killed British economy in the 60's. You put the
> brakes on capitalism, you put the brakes on progress.

I have no qualms with rewarding innovation and progress. I just do not call
turning our social security system over to Wall Street a progressive action.
It is not cost effective nor secure. You seem to live in a world of
outrageous extremes where everything is completely black or white. Reality is
in technicolor by comparison. Too much of anything can be a bad thing and we
already see that too much capitalism is eroding the moral stability of our
values.


Risks are taken for
> the possibility of great rewards. When you know that there is a point when
> the goernment will step in and stop you in your tracks, why take risks? Just
> become a zombie in a decaying civilization. If I want that, I will move to
> Cuba. Thankfully, the socialist points of view taken up by the regulars on
> this group in no way reflect the views of a majority of Americans.

You are the only person to bring up anything about socialism. I was talking
about the democratic republic I live in here in the US ... so please leave
Cuba, socialism and all your other rants that are out of context. Although
"decaying civilization" does have a ring to it, it is not the impoverished who
create this decay but those who impoverished them.


BTW, what
> about individual pursuits, like writers? Should they only be allowed to make
> a certain amount of money on books, and the rest will be redistributed to
> the needy? J.K. Rowling and Stephen King will tell you to fuck right off.
> Farmers? If they have an excellent year, take half of their crop proceeds
> away? How about Teresa Heinz, should we step in, tell her that her fortune
> was the result of making too much money selling ketchup, and redistribute
> her wealth? Should John Kerry have to give up a few of his mansions? Should
> George Soros be forced to concede his billions? Should the folks who make a
> ton of money collecting on their inventions be stripped, thus insuring that
> inventors will no longer bother to invent? I could go on all day long. Or
> should we ONLY cap the salaires of those who are rich but have employees? I
> would really like to see someone address each of these points.

For one thing nobody has to address any of your points so quit with the
theatrics already. Your "points" are ridiculous. Again you are the only
person talking about taking things and stripping anyone of their rights,
property or cash. I simply suggest that our elected representatives could do
a better job of looking after the concerns of EVERYBODY rather than the
minority who can afford to buy better laws.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

I just want to point out that my stocks are down 26.34 % since Bush took office
in 2000. Imagine if this was my Social Security Retirement Income.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Wdivekw" <wdivekw@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041227151022.08318.00002753@mb-m04.aol.com...
>I just want to point out that my stocks are down 26.34 % since Bush took
>office
> in 2000. Imagine if this was my Social Security Retirement Income.

Interesting, because while my investments took a huge hit from 2000 to 2002
they have recovered quite nicely and are now posting low to moderate gains.
Maybe you should fire your stock broker. You may also remember that saving
is for the long term, you know, Economics 101??

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>
> For one thing nobody has to address any of your points so quit with the
> theatrics already. Your "points" are ridiculous. Again you are the only
> person talking about taking things and stripping anyone of their rights,
> property or cash. I simply suggest that our elected representatives could
> do a better job of looking after the concerns of EVERYBODY rather than the
> minority who can afford to buy better laws.
>

Here you COMPLETELY ignored my argument. Salary caps on company executives
has been suggested. Well, then, to be fair, shouldn't individual pursuits
also be kept in check? Shall we live in a society where inventors, authors,
artists, sculptors, and others who do not have employees can become filthy
rich beyond their wildest dreams...while at the same time those who employ
workers must have a limit to their profits? I would REALLY like you take on
this. Someone??

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> And just what the hell is "the private sector"? Is it your thinking there
> are all these different kinds of people in America and only the "private
> sector" is responsible for the wellbeing of the country? Why isn't the
> "corporate sector" just as responsible for these decisions?

Charitable organizations of every stripe, whether faith-based or secular,
have a much better track record of truly helping the poor than the
government ever has. They do it better, they do it cheaper, they do it
faster, they do it without raiding our tax dollars. They do it from the
heart, a voluntary action. You would see great things happen if you allowed
the citenzenry to take over, and shut down the government giveaways.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Frank" <dontspamme@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:BM_zd.10866$RH4.5264@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>
>> For one thing nobody has to address any of your points so quit with the
>> theatrics already. Your "points" are ridiculous. Again you are the only
>> person talking about taking things and stripping anyone of their rights,
>> property or cash. I simply suggest that our elected representatives could
>> do a better job of looking after the concerns of EVERYBODY rather than the
>> minority who can afford to buy better laws.
>>
>
> Here you COMPLETELY ignored my argument. Salary caps on company executives
> has been suggested. Well, then, to be fair, shouldn't individual pursuits
> also be kept in check? Shall we live in a society where inventors, authors,
> artists, sculptors, and others who do not have employees can become filthy
> rich beyond their wildest dreams...while at the same time those who employ
> workers must have a limit to their profits? I would REALLY like you take on
> this. Someone??

Sure no problem. You must be rather secluded if you don't realize that all of
that is already regulated, limited, permitted, restricted, censored and
controlled already. We ALL have limits to our profits. We don't live in
anarchy. Bank robbing is illegal for most of us and severely limits the
profits of would-be robbers. On the flip side the stock market is legal and
investors are fleeced regularly without recourse. Robbing S&L's is only
allowed if you are Neal Bush. (sorry, low blow, couldn't resist). There are
thousands of laws about copyrights, patents, decency and indecency which
restrict, encourage, define, re-define, protect and obstruct all manner of
invention and artistic pursuit. Bill Gates comes to mind. If he didn't have
more money then the entire Justice Dept. he would probably be in jail with
Martha. (bad mental picture there, sorry again). Our nation is currently
dealing with the extortion of medical insurance providers and oil refineries.
If the average American were being represented there would be punishment for
people like Ken Lay who knowingly allowed energy to be turned off from those
who needed it and the blackouts and brownouts Enron engineered to force the
prices up. Or HMOs who refuse to insure people with "pre-existing"
conditions. I could go on forever. We already have laws for all these things
Frank ... but we simply don't enforce them fairly or equally.

We all have employees Frank. NO MAN IS AN ISLAND. Ever hear of that? You
seem to take everything I say as some literal close-minded statement. Use
your head man. I am simply advocating that our laws, the rules by which we
interact in this society, be balanced for EVERYBODY. Not just the rich. Not
just the poor. Not just you or me. All too often the rich and famous
literally get away with murder while a poor shoplifter gets years in prison.
(NO I do NOT advocate shoplifting, but the analogy is about fairness).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Frank" <dontspamme@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:KW_zd.10869$RH4.7196@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>> And just what the hell is "the private sector"? Is it your thinking there
>> are all these different kinds of people in America and only the "private
>> sector" is responsible for the wellbeing of the country? Why isn't the
>> "corporate sector" just as responsible for these decisions?
>
> Charitable organizations of every stripe, whether faith-based or secular,
> have a much better track record of truly helping the poor than the
> government ever has. They do it better, they do it cheaper, they do it
> faster, they do it without raiding our tax dollars. They do it from the
> heart, a voluntary action. You would see great things happen if you allowed
> the citenzenry to take over, and shut down the government giveaways.

You would see literally thousands more people homeless and hungry in the
streets. Do you have any understanding of the depth of poverty in this
nation? Sounds to me like you think our society should abdicate its'
responsibilities to all of the citizens and hope somebody else will pick up
the slack. Suppose nobody wants to help the one-legged, left-handed lepers?
Or some other "segment". Just let them rot? (Bad pun!) I'm sorry Frank, it
simply hard to take you seriously. Let's turn this around a little ... just
what DO you think our government should be responsible for?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> You would see literally thousands more people homeless and hungry in the
> streets. Do you have any understanding of the depth of poverty in this
> nation?
Horseshit. This is the same argument that was made about welfare queens
right before Welfare Reform happened in 1996. The sky did not fall.

> Sounds to me like you think our society should abdicate its'
> responsibilities to all of the citizens and hope somebody else will pick
> up the slack.

You are confusing society with government...you keep doing that.

>Suppose nobody wants to help the one-legged, left-handed lepers?

Somebody always does...it the one-legged, left-handed lepers that so often
refuse to help themselves.


> what DO you think our government should be responsible for?

The same things it was responsible for during this countries TRUE time as a
free republic many generations ago, look it up. It has ballooned into an
ugly monstrosity of unimaginable proportions, thanks to people...like you.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> > what DO you think our government should be responsible for?

>It has ballooned into an ugly monstrosity of unimaginable proportions,
thanks to people...like you.

An ugly monstrosity all right and very expensive. However, it does
absolutely
nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans, instead hands out welfare
to the real criminals in society, the corporations.

>Charitable organizations of every stripe, whether faith-based or secular,
>have a much better track record of truly helping the poor than the
>government ever has. They do it better, they do it cheaper, they do it
>faster, they do it without raiding our tax dollars

Privatised social security, you got to be kidding!

>They do it from the heart, a voluntary action

This may have once been the case but not any more.
"Charitable organizations " are now mainly big business.

>"I have family in Europe, in a country where a one month
>vacation a year is mandated by law, where an employee can basically come
and
>go as he pleases"

Disgusting thing, democracy Frank, how dare the peasants come and go as they
please!

Not only one months vacation Frank, workers in Europe are allowed to fall
ill
without losing their homes, yep, unbelievable, if you get sick in Europe,
you get to go to a doctor, a hospital etc regardless of one's financial
situation.
Isn't that terrible Frank?

The problem with people like you Frank is that you have no
imagination whatsoever, you can only spit out statements that
the state has programmed you to do.

Imagine, a nation, whose government, manages the nation
on behalf of all citizens, on behalf of all citizens, ensures
that every one of them, has the right to life, the right
to essential services, housing, education, healthcare etc.

This would cost less than the existing "ugly monstrosity"
system of a government that you speak of.

The basic rule in business Frank.
What is your goal, where do you want to be (in this case, what kind of
society.)
Where are we today
What needs to be done to arrive at where we want to be.

In my opinion, looking into the old crystal ball, the path
that we are on at present can only lead to a Mad Max
kind of environment, it is unsustainable. It needs to change,
the civilised nations of Europe are right in social policy,
WE are wrong.

pjl

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged