mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (07/25/84)
In a posting last week, I wrote: >But if you ask >specific questions -- "Do you support cuts in social security? Do you >favor the right to choose an abortion? Do you support a nuclear freeze?" -- >you get what would be called liberal responses (yes, by a majority, in the >case of the questions mentioned here, for example.) In my eagerness to turn a nice phrase, I overlooked that the answer was NOT yes to all three questions. Obviously, no liberal supports CUTS in Social Security. Sorry, and thanks for your responses. Mike Kelly
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/26/84)
[The exception that proves the rule...]
Hey, wait a minute! I'm a liberal and I support cuts in Social
Security!
We simply can't afford to continue the Social Security pyramid game,
as there will not be enough workers to support retirees in the future.
The question is not whether there are going to be any cuts in the next
decade or two, but what kind of cuts. Do we wish those cuts to equally
effect all receipients, or do we wish to institute some sort of means
test, or do wish to dramatically overhaul the whole system? Those who
maintain thier fidelity to the system as it stands now for too long
are only going to lose some leverage when the choice is made.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidwetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/26/84)
As an aside to all of those Liberals who wonder where the cash went in the Social Security blanket, "Thank you John Kennedy, who in your infinite wisdom got the Democratically controled House and Senate to move the Social Security Trust Fund into the General Revenues, thus creating a pool of money from which the greedy dipped." Look it up, he did it to us. T C. Wheeler
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/27/84)
WRONG! The Social Security Trust Fund is NOT, nor has it ever BEEN,
part of General Revenues. Thus, TC Wheeler's suggestion that Social
Security is going broke because it is being looted for other projects
is in error.
Social Security is going broke because of the changing age
distribution of the US poplulation. When Social Security was first
started, there were 11 workers to support each retiree, so a modest
tax could provide for the receipients. By 2000, there will be only 3
workers for each retiree, so either support will be cut or taxes will
become confiscatory.
It is NOT that Social Security Funds are being diverted elsewhere (by
law, they can't), but that we're all living to ripe old ages, and
collecting!
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
Note: Last year, a proposal to essentially combine the Medicare and
Social Security Trust Funds was roundly trounced; if that much cannot
be done, there is certainly no danger of Social Security being
integrated with the general budget anytime in the near future,
either.wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/27/84)
The Social Security Trust Fund was MOST CERTAINLY looted by the Kennedy administration. It WAS put into the General Revenues. There was No hue and cry at the time because the Democrats were too embarassed to admit that they had done such a deed. The event was reported in the New York Times and could be found on the back pages. The liberal greed for money to fund expansive federal giveaways was at its peak. The fund is now out of the General Revenues, however, the damage had been done and no amount of statistics or population figures can change the fact that we were all goosed by the fickle finger of a Democratic Congress and Administration. The Fund was self sufficient and growing at a rate that promised a return for everyone through the year 2000. Even with your statistics, etc.. This is just one example of how the Democratically controlled congress has been screwing us for years. Then they have the unmitigated gall to tell everyone they are for the little guy. Horsefeathers. There aren't five honest men/women in the lot. T. C. (I'm Madder'n Hell and ...) Wheeler
mark@teltone.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (08/01/84)
<> I find "liberal" vs. "conservative" labelling a waste of time. Ask me about my positions on specific issues, don't just stick a label on me. Social Security SHOULD be cut, and liberals should be out front in advocating cuts. Not for poor elderly folks; for RICH elderly folks. Like zillionaire Malcolm Forbes, whose SS you and I are paying right now. How ridiculous. -- ....tektronix!uw-beaver!teltone!mark