|
Author
|
Topic: Damn Hilary was suppose to
|
handycat
Player
Member # 2323
|
posted 06-02-2020 08:04 PM
Ok, I give up.You win.
Posts: 5399 | From: decatur ill. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ukcatfannfl
Player
Member # 1425
|
posted 06-02-2020 09:09 PM
Sorry u didn't like my response handy
--------------------
ukcatfannfl
Posts: 8771 | From: Inverness, FL | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MountainMafia
Player
Member # 2066
|
posted 06-02-2020 09:27 PM
Bait!
--------------------
"It's amazing what you can accomplish when nobody cares who gets the credit"....Tubby Smith after winning 1998 National Title.
Posts: 4694 | From: Alabama | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiptree
Administrator
Member # 844
|
posted 06-02-2020 09:29 PM
Spousal benefits have been part of Social Security since 1938.
I agree with Handy. Social Security is not a conservative concept, it is (as the name itself suggests) a socialist concept, introduced by America's first great Socialist president, FDR. As much as I am looking forward to taking my share of the dole, it is not really even constitutional.
If we ARE to have such a national retirement program, it should be at least be a lock-box program, and it should allow self-directed investment choices. In other words, make it a universal, mandatory 401K program.
But, politically, NOBODY is going to suggest significant changes to the program, so spousal benefits will continue forever.
Social Security was the first foot in the door towards socializing this republic. Medicare was the second. And the progressives have been itching to expand both since their inception.
--------------------
Tiptree
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 13621 | From: Terre Haute, IN | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MountainMafia
Player
Member # 2066
|
posted 06-02-2020 09:48 PM
The lock-box concept is fine, but I believe it should be an option, not mandatory.
I should not be required to gamble on my future financial survival. If you are a savvy investor you will do well, if not, you won't. But even good investors lose it all sometimes, everybody has a different risk level.
Some folks are comfortable with a savings account, some want more...I want the choice.
[ 06-02-2020, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: MountainMafia ]
--------------------
"It's amazing what you can accomplish when nobody cares who gets the credit"....Tubby Smith after winning 1998 National Title.
Posts: 4694 | From: Alabama | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MEL
Player
Member # 141
|
posted 06-02-2020 11:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Tiptree:
Spousal benefits have been part of Social Security since 1938.
I agree with Handy. Social Security is not a conservative concept, it is (as the name itself suggests) a socialist concept, introduced by America's first great Socialist president, FDR. As much as I am looking forward to taking my share of the dole, it is not really even constitutional.
If we ARE to have such a national retirement program, it should be at least be a lock-box program, and it should allow self-directed investment choices. In other words, make it a universal, mandatory 401K program.
But, politically, NOBODY is going to suggest significant changes to the program, so spousal benefits will continue forever.
Social Security was the first foot in the door towards socializing this republic. Medicare was the second. And the progressives have been itching to expand both since their inception.
Tip wouldn't welfare count as the first foot in the door (1935) ??? Then in the 1960's the Great Society made it to where others besides the elderly and disabled could get welfare. Guess who the Presidents were during most of these years ??? Yep... Dems.
MEL
Posts: 2795 | From: Greeley, CO, USA | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiptree
Administrator
Member # 844
|
posted 06-03-2020 01:07 AM
Mel,
Except for the AFDC program (which morphed into what we know as welfare over time, most of the "welfare" programs in the 30s were "workfare". Plenty of pick-and-shovel work was created to build bridges and roads, and those who were out of work could earn some wages on the government payroll.
The main apparatus of the welfare state as we know it was fleshed out by the Great Society program under LBJ. The democrats controlled both houses of congress (and even had super-majorities in both houses in his 3rd and 4th year), so much like the dems did with Obamacare, they could ram through any programs that they wanted... including Medicare and Medicaid.
FDR started it all with Social Security and AFDC; LBJ expanded it with Medicare and Medicaid, and Obama added his own flourish with Obamacare, and came that close to a single-payer national health plan. Even George W Bush pitched in with his Medicare part D. Once a social benefit is established, it is political suicide to try to take it away. Thus, the ever-leftward lean of our republic.
--------------------
Tiptree
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 13621 | From: Terre Haute, IN | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MEL
Player
Member # 141
|
posted 06-03-2020 02:07 PM
Thanks Tip … I knew some of that but not all the details.
MEL
Posts: 2795 | From: Greeley, CO, USA | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic