|
|
|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
03-21-2016, 11:04 AM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nailer
No I'm not, nor will I be unless Congress makes my pension part of SS.
What's the point of your second sentence? It has nothing to do with my pointing our what the New Deal was.
|
As I said before, it was revolutionary. Part of your problem seems to be a failure to view the New Deal in context. Nothing like it had ever been done before or even tried and the results were spectacularly successful.
__________________
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
|
03-21-2016, 11:21 AM
|
 |
Rational Anarchist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
As I said before, it was revolutionary. Part of your problem seems to be a failure to view the New Deal in context. Nothing like it had ever been done before or even tried and the results were spectacularly successful.
|
The deals being made in parts of Europe were revolutionary.
Now we're looking at paying the price of the New Deal not being a good deal unless something revolutionary occurs soon.
__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Last edited by nailer; 03-21-2016 at 11:27 AM.
|
03-21-2016, 11:39 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nailer
The deals being made in parts of Europe were revolutionary.
|
I guess you're talking about the rise of fascism or perhaps the consolidation of power by the Soviets. These are false equivalencies at best and completely irrelevant at worst. But then that's your stock in trade here.
Quote:
|
Now we're looking at paying the price of the New Deal not being a good deal unless something revolutionary occurs soon.
|
Evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's need for periodic updating or tweaking is no reason to denigrate Social Security. No program can be expected to exist in its original form over a long period of time. Social Security is over 80 years old.
__________________
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
|
03-21-2016, 02:25 PM
|
|
Rational Anarchist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
I guess you're talking about the rise of fascism or perhaps the consolidation of power by the Soviets. These are false equivalencies at best and completely irrelevant at worst. But then that's your stock in trade here.
Evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's need for periodic updating or tweaking is no reason to denigrate Social Security. No program can be expected to exist in its original form over a long period of time. Social Security is over 80 years old.
|
Not talking about fascism. Talking about the social contract between the rulers and the ruled.
Where have I denigrated SS?
__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
|
03-21-2016, 03:01 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nailer
Not talking about fascism. Talking about the social contract between the rulers and the ruled.
|
Far from revolutionary and neither specific nor codified and which no government is obliged to implement and honor. Magna Carta was a great deal more "revolutionary".
Quote:
|
Where have I denigrated SS?
|
Yes, why would anyone suspect you were denigrating Social Security when, in a thread titled Social Security, you claim that FDR was "not a friend of the common man", that the New Deal, of which SS is a central component, "wasn't a good deal" and that it was a "minimalist appeasement" of the "mob"? A person would have to be crazy to think you were denigrating Social Security.
__________________
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Last edited by Boreas; 03-21-2016 at 03:39 PM.
|
03-21-2016, 03:37 PM
|
|
Rational Anarchist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
Yes, why would anyone suspect you were denigrating Social Security when, in a thread titled Social Security, you claim that FCR was "not a friend of the common man", that the New Deal, of which SS is a central component, "wasn't a good deal" and that it was a "minimalist appeasement" of the 'mob"? A person would have to be crazy to think you were denigrating Social Security.
|
Indeed they would. 
__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
|
03-21-2016, 05:43 PM
|
 |
Jigsawed
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,580
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nailer
Indeed they would. |
Now I see why you ride pithy statements.
|
03-22-2016, 03:26 PM
|
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
Evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's need for periodic updating or tweaking is no reason to denigrate Social Security. No program can be expected to exist in its original form over a long period of time. Social Security is over 80 years old.
|
Social Security is not broken, it was victimized. In spite of that, it's easily fixed. Simply remove the cap on what is taxable and add a means test. No retirement age change is needed. Yes, it's this simple.
|
03-22-2016, 03:29 PM
|
 |
Ready
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,175
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
Social Security is not broken, it was victimized. In spite of that, it's easily fixed. Simply remove the cap on what is taxable and add a means test. No retirement age change is needed. Yes, it's this simple.
|
Cap all the way off and you don't need the means test.
__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
|
03-22-2016, 04:11 PM
|
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99
Cap all the way off and you don't need the means test.
|
I am well aware but in principle we need a means test.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 PM.
|
Hybrid Mode