Actually, I did say poor people should be able to collect from social security. This applies to the "newly poor" as well as the already poor. Therefore, you are wrong, my friend.

Could you please show me where you said that poor people should be able to get it in your original post?

Social Security was set up as a Insurance Policy for the people who would potentially become poor elderly. FDR was not a bad president, in fact he was one of the best, but regardless, SS has become a nightmare. The problem is people feel entitled to it. As one of the top 1% of america, wealthy people do NOT need this lowly 10,000 dollars, and further nor does the next 5% of the wealthiest elderly. Rich people shoudln't get social security, and if you can tax the heirs to fortunes for their wealth, even though the money has already been taxed, then you sure as hell should be able to tax SS income. Bush's plan is frankly, retarded, no offense to people who are actually mentally disabled, and I am loosly not including Bush in this category, though maybe after this program I should reconsider. It is a political gamble to a) destroy social security and win the young vote, forever republicanizing the country. It makes no sense to do what hes doing, bec ause the transition cost is trillions of dollars. We need a solution, not a bush induced sinking of a broken ship.

Rich people shoudln't get social security, and if you can tax the heirs to fortunes for their wealth, even though the money has already been taxed, then you sure as hell should be able to tax SS income.

And by saying rich people dont deserve it, who does that leave? The french? No... the poor. If you had a brain, you would realize that I explicitly implied poor people, not the rich, should get SS.

And by saying rich people dont deserve it, who does that leave? The french? No... the poor. If you had a brain, you would realize that I explicitly implied poor people, not the rich, should get SS.

That is quite *correct*. And by your *OWN* words, if the rich should *not get* SS then they should NOT be made to pay into it. Hoist by your own petard. Check and mate.

I do believe that ALL people should pay into the system, rich or poor, whether the richest would collect on it or not. It's about being able to help your fellow human being. It's about not being so totally selfish that you'd allow poor people to die homeless while you stuff your faces while watching HDTV. It's about being a caring human being. Besides, if only the poor paid into the system, then there wouldn't be any system because poor people cannot afford it by themselves. And, that's the whole point of SS. Having everyone pay into it.

And, like Sandy pointed out, sometimes people become poor later in life, after living comfortably through most of it, maybe because of one disaster or catastrophe or another, and would need the help. Would that person not be allowed to collect because s/he didn't pay into the system? I sure hope not. It's about all Americans shouldering some economic responsibility for the unfortunate poor. It's about keeping this country a safer place for everyone.

Yup, the insurance analogy worked. The fire department would not sit and watch your house burn, just because you didn't have insurance, or were too poor to pay for it, or didn't pay taxes (rich peoples'loopholes) to pay for the fire department. They'd put out the fire. Period. No questions asked. As it should be.

Hey, helping the poor is a Christian concept, isn't it? And, a Jewish one? Buddhist and Muslem? It's a humanitarian concept that is at the core of almost all religions. But, I guess some people aren't any of these things................. short-sighted and selfish.

Reply By: dabePosted: Monday, March 14, 2005I do believe that ALL people should pay into the system, rich or poor, whether the richest would collect on it or not. It's about being able to help your fellow human being. It's about not being so totally selfish that you'd allow poor people to die homeless while you stuff your faces while watching HDTV. It's about being a caring human being. Besides, if only the poor paid into the system, then there wouldn't be any system because poor people cannot afford it by themselves. And, that's the whole point of SS. Having everyone pay into it.

Dabe - please don't read any of the following as a personal attack on you. I normally do not try to engage in such attacks. As noted in another article, I did take offense at some inflammatory comments you used in response to another posting I had made, and may have let that impact some commentary elsewhere where you were mentioned. Please let that issue slide and perhaps let by-gones be by-gones.


Your comments directly above (in your reply) are most worthly of the "insightful" rating.

Your comments sort of remind me of Joe Pesci standing in front of Fred Gwynne in a bit in the movie "My Cousin Vinny" where the Judge (Gwynne) talks to lawyer with the thick "New Yawk" accent (Pesci) that the comment (objection). The dialog was thus:

Vinny: (states his objection)
Judge: “Mr. Gambini?”
Vinny: “Yes sir?”
Judge: “That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought out objection.”
Vinny: “Thank you, your Honor.”
Judge: “Overruled!”


Except in this case I'd have to say "Sustained" on your comments.

I use the "My Cousin Vinny" analogy to your comments because, based on much of the writing I've seen you do in the past, I'd expect we would have a hard time finding agreement in many areas.

original quote can be heard: here


Yet, your comments are exactly why I try very hard -- as noted in another thread -- to tread very carefully in the area of ever blacklisting anyone. You can learn a lot by giving people an opportunity to speak, and by actually listening to (or comprehending the reading of someone's blog entries and replies) what is being said.


I agree whole heartedly with your position on Social Security and why it must exist, and why everyone should pay into it.

I differ, apparently very significantly, in what I think needs to be done to "fix it" so that it -- in some form or another -- will be there for my future, and my children's (and eventually grandchildren) futures.

I still hold that for the most part this is a discussion where the AARP crowd does NOT need to involve itself. Unless things change drastically, any changes made to the system will not impact those people. Those people will be "grandfathered" in under existing rules, and nothing changes for them.

On the other hand, the under 55 crowd will be impacted, and they should be the people really driving this issue.

The AARP is clearly concerned with their own self interest. They see a potential loss of power if they aren't able to drive the issue, and they can't allow themselves to be seen as not looking out for their future members' interests. That's admirable on the one-hand, and despicable on the other.

Rather than being concerned about what truly would be the best solution, they are helping to participate in a civil war among young and old, and that sickens me.


In any case, I would, as noted earlier, be one of the first to take up arms if necessary to protect social security for those 55 and over, just as much as you and others see me fighting for fixing the system for younger persons. The promises that were made, and the expectations that those promises would be met , for people 55 and over, who are closing in on retirement age must be met. These older generations worked within the system, contributed to the Social Security system, and their money most certainly should be there.

Ignoring the fact that many people clean out all of the contributions they ever paid into the system within just a few years, (a design flaw in the original system, which counted on no-one living that long), these people deserve to get the benefits they were promised. I think it's been made clear that President Bush's plan does not change that one bit, nor will it be allowed to, given the political suicide that would happen if any current politician were to start making moves in that area.

That means we must address the problem for the younger generations among us, and for future generations, and that brings me back to the point of the original piece. Lets hear the voices of these people -- the ones that will be affected, and lets have them participating in the discussion without the "noise" of groups like the AARP interfering along the way.

Please let that issue slide and perhaps let by-gones be by-gones.

Terpfan, it would be my pleasure. I really do hate adversarial encounters. It's so counterproductive.

I agree whole heartedly with your position on Social Security and why it must exist, and why everyone should pay into it.

Thanks. Good to hear. I do agree that the system needs some fixing, but I am very skeptical about the bushies' claims of an impending castastrophe. Now that we agree that there's some fixin' to do, it's hopeful to me that "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" isn't on the agenda.

I disagree with your premise that the AARP is only advocating no changes because they are trying to protect their own best interests. But, even if that is true, why should they not get a chance to sit at the table, while the banking industries, insurance companies, and neocons, all who clearly have their own best financial interests at heart, get the opportunity to write the legislation? What's fair about that? Let's face it..... if we don't have all the stakeholders at the planning table, then someone's interests will not be heard, not represented fairly. As you see it, AARP shouldn't have their interests represented, and I do not think that's fair, never mind legal.

I would love to hear the voices of the younger generation. But, I do not want to dismiss the voices of the older generation in the process. We all have a stake in the future, every single one of us, either for ourselves, or our children, and all future generations. I am, after all, my childrens' number one biggest advocate.

Terp, thanks again for your message. You have given me hope and warmed my heart. Really.

You know Dabe, I really wouldn't mind at all if the AARP wanted to join the process, but like many of the Democrats, it smells an awful lot to me that the AARP doesn't want to join the process at all, but instead wants to stop it completely.

My simplistic comprehension of things:

Bush: I wanna do this.
AARP, Dems, others in that camp: BAD, BAD, BAD. Must not do that at all. (not offering an alternative, just basically saying can't do that, it would crash everything, etc.)

As soon as Bush says something, it's instantly declared bad, and can't be done.

If the AARP was seriously interested in working with Bush, that would be great. Much like many Democrats in Congress -- Kennedy and Byrd included even. If you really want to work on the problem, then speak up. But don't simply bash the message and then take delight in polls that claim to bolster your position that the public hates Bush's proposal.

And seriously, if we don't do something to break the dependence on using the current generations money to fund the past one's retirement, we're never gonna get ourselves into a good place. We should be using our own money, and should not have to raise retirement ages to 80 just so we can make sure that many more people are continuing to pay into the system. Hell, given the age discrimination that exists at many places (except for greeter jobs at Walmart, as if) working until age 67 is tough enough.

Cutting benefits is also not the answer.

Which circles back to getting more revenue into the system, and offering a carrot for doing so. To me the carrot is offering private accounts that are truly owned by the participants. It gets the money out of the hands of congress and into the hands of the tax payers. That is truly the best approach in my book.

I like how Bush heads continue to follow up on the administration's examples of how debate on topics should be lead.

1.) Smear opposition to discredit. (Daschle, new Minority Leader, Max Cleland)

2.) Declare all those opposed to current agenda irrelevant. (UN, France, Democrats, etc.)

3.) Attempt to gag opposition saying they have no place and no voice in debate (those 55 and older on social security, etc.)

Really, welcome to the openly fascist America, replete with overzealous followers marching their way in to ovens.