The forum says "show the Democrats how to do it"... [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : The forum says "show the Democrats how to do it"...

Pages : [1] 2

Chuck Guiteau

04-08-2011, 07:30 PM

Crazy Guggenheim

04-08-2011, 08:06 PM

You forgot that all pregnant women must have an abortion.

webhead

04-08-2011, 08:50 PM

... so this looks like the place to post a few suggestions I've read on other sites. Here it goes!

My initial response to the language of the suggestions from the other forums that you have posted is that whoever has written what you have posted is treating most of us here at DW, and progressive Democrats throughout America, as if we are less intelligent or knowledgeable than they. I, for one, am very confident that I can show the opposite is true, that I am able to express my views more intelligently than they can shit on our views.

Are you asking us to provide you with serious responses? If so, I would be happy to respond to you with sensible reasons why my ideology is vastly different than those at the other forums .

old mark

04-09-2011, 07:55 AM

Charles Guiteau? The famous "disapointed office seeker"...
and assassin of President Garfield...
This is a joke, right?
I sometimes don't get rightwing "humor"...
I think you actually require a brain to be funny.

mark

Chuck Guiteau

04-09-2011, 02:37 PM

My initial response to the language of the suggestions from the other forums that you have posted is that whoever has written what you have posted is treating most of us here at DW, and progressive Democrats throughout America, as if we are less intelligent or knowledgeable than they. I, for one, am very confident that I can show the opposite is true, that I am able to express my views more intelligently than they can shit on our views.

Are you asking us to provide you with serious responses? If so, I would be happy to respond to you with sensible reasons why my ideology is vastly different than those at the other forums

I’m not sure what you mean by “the language” of the suggestions. If you are referring to the substitution of “fat cats” for conservatives/ Republicans, I should point out that the common descriptive on this forum for those groups are “Repigs” and “neo-cons “, terms hardly the hallmark of the political cognoscenti.

If, by your post, you are objecting to the text of the OP, it also bears mentioning that every suggestion has been mirrored on this site as well, differing only in scope, not sentiment, when it differs at all.

In addition, several of the suggestions have already been proposed by the current administration.

Inasmuch as sounding out the members of this board is explicit in the OP, I would be most appreciative if you would care to elaborate in detail how your personal views diverge from these positions.

Chuck Guiteau

04-09-2011, 02:38 PM

I sometimes don't get rightwing "humor"...
I think you actually require a brain to be funny.

mark
That explains the lack of humor in your posts.

webhead

04-10-2011, 01:07 AM

Inasmuch as sounding out the members of this board is explicit in the OP, I would be most appreciative if you would care to elaborate in detail how your personal views diverge from these positions.
The Preamble of The Constitution of the United States is an introduction to the Constitution in which the Framers of the Constitution state what the purposes of the Constitution are, and to whom the Constitution was written to benefit.

Preamble:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Although the Preamble does not include any provision that is enforceable in Court, it does serve as a prime source from which I developed my political ideology. The Preamble specifies people, not corporations, created our form of government. Moreover, I interpret the phrase “promote the general welfare” to be one of the prime directives of the Constitution’s Framers, and I believe the inference to be “promote the general welfare of the people’.

Since I believe the federal government should be promoting the general welfare of the people, I believe only the Democratic Party strives to improve the lives of America’s people. And it has become very clear to me that the members of the Republican Party serves only the wealthy and corporations. It is as if the Republicans care only about the profits of corporations, and reducing the taxes paid by the wealthy, such as the Koch Brothers, who are big donors to Republicans. I see the Democrats being for the people, which is consistent with the Preamble, and I see the Republicans being for the wealthy and corporations, which is inconsistent with the Preamble.

A perfect example of this are the views held by each party towards Social Security. Democrats are for it, and Republicans are against it. What has reinforced my view that Social Security is good for Americans? What the Presidents of the United States have said about Social Security serves as the foundation of my belief that Social Security “promotes the general welfare” of the people of America. Here is what former Presidents have said, along with a brief history of Social Security:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"This law represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means completed--a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions, to act as a protection to future administrations of the Government against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy--a law to flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation--in other words, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness." -August 14, 1935

Harry S. Truman
"It has long been recognized as an inescapable obligation of a democratic society to provide for every individual some measure of basic protection from hardship and want caused by factors beyond his control. In our own country, the obligation of the Federal Government in this respect has been recognized by the establishment of our Social Security system. . . . The passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 marked a great advance in our concept of the means by which our citizens, through their Government, can provide against common economic risks. . ." -May 24, 1948
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dwight David Eisenhower
"The system is not intended as a substitute for private savings, pension plans, and insurance protection. It is, rather, intended as the foundation upon which these other forms of protection can be soundly built. Thus, the individual's own work, his planning and his thrift will bring him a higher standard of living upon his retirement, or his family a higher standard of living in the event of his death, than would otherwise be the case. Hence the system both encourages thrift and self-reliance, and helps to prevent destitution in our national life." -January 14, 1954

John Fitzgerald Kennedy
"It is with great satisfaction that I have signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1961. They represent an additional step toward eliminating many of the hardships resulting from old-age, disability, or the death of the family wage earner. . . . A Nation's strength lies in the well being of its people. The social security program plays an important part in providing for families, children, and older persons in time of stress, but it cannot remain static. Changes in our population, in our working habits, and in our standard of living require constant revision." -June 30, 1961

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lyndon Baines Johnson
"Thirty years ago, the American people made a basic decision that the later years of life should not be years of despondency and drift. The result was enactment of our Social Security program. . . . Since World War II, there has been increasing awareness of the fact that the full value of Social Security would not be realized unless provision were made to deal with the problem of costs of illnesses among our older citizens. . . . Compassion and reason dictate that this logical extension of our proven Social Security system will supply the prudent, feasible, and dignified way to free the aged from the fear of financial hardship in the event of illness."
-January 7, 1965

Richard Milhous Nixon
"This Nation must not break faith with those Americans who have a right to expect that Social Security payments will protect them and their families. . . . In the 34 years since the Social Security program was first established, it has become a central part of life for a growing number of Americans. . . . Almost all Americans have a stake in the soundness of the Social Security system." -September 25, 1969

Gerald Rudolph Ford
"The fortieth anniversary of the Social Security Act celebrates an important milestone in responsible public service. I continue to be impressed by the steady responsiveness of the Social Security program to the changing needs of our people. . . . I warmly commend the employees of the Social Security Administration whose efforts are such a positive influence on the lives of countless fellow citizens." -August 9, 1975

Jimmy Carter
"The Social Security program is a pact between workers and their employers that they will contribute to a common fund to ensure that those who are no longer part of the work force will have a basic income on which to live. It represents our commitment as a society to the belief that workers should not live in dread that a disability, death, or old age could leave them or their families destitute." - December 20, 1977

Ronald Wilson Reagan
"The changes in this legislation will allow Social Security to age as gracefully as all of us hope to do ourselves, without becoming an overwhelming burden on generations still to come. . . . Our elderly need no longer fear that the checks they depend on will be stopped or reduced. These amendments protect them. Americans of middle age need no longer worry whether their career-long investment will pay off. These amendments guarantee it. And younger people can feel confident that Social Security will still be around when they need it to cushion their retirement." - April 20, 1982

George Herbert Walker Bush
"And there's one thing I hope we will all be able to agree on. It's about our commitments. I'm talking about Social Security. To every American out there on Social Security, to every American supporting that system today, and to everyone counting on it when they retire, we made a promise to you, and we are going to keep it." - January 31, 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 1993 Brian T. Jones, a supervisor at SSA's M-Street District Office in Washington, D.C., went to the Oval Office where he took an application for Social Security and Medicare from President Bush. Brian said of the experience, "It was the chance of a lifetime, and the height of my career as a Social Security employee." [Only registered and activated users can see links]

William Jefferson Clinton
"Today, I want to talk about Social Security and how all of us can ensure that one of the greatest achievements of this century continues to serve our people well into the next. . . . For 60 years, Social Security has meant more than an ID number on a tax form; more than a monthly check in the mail. It reflects our deepest values -- our respect for our parents and our belief that all Americans deserve to retire with dignity." -- March 21, 1998

1700s

1789 The Federal Government accepted the responsibility of providing pensions to disabled veterans of the Revolutionary War.

1795 Thomas Paine published his pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, in which he proposed a social insurance program for the young nation.

1800s

1862 Civil War pensions were first paid to disabled veterans.

1875 The first private pension plan in American industry was adopted by American Express. It provided benefits for employees 60 years of age or over who had 20 years service with the company and were incapacitated for further performance of duty.

1881 German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck put forward his Prussian Plan for social insurance for German workers.

1889 The Prussian Plan was adopted, making Germany the first nation to adopt a modern social insurance program.

1900s

1906 Civil War Pensions were extended to elderly veterans.

1908 A workmen's compensation system was established for civilian employees of the Federal Government.

1908 Non-contributory pensions were instituted in Great Britain by the Old-Age Pensions Act.

1909 The first Federal old-age pension bill was introduced in Congress.

1910s

1911 The first workmen's compensation law to be held constitutional was enacted in Wisconsin.

1911 The first contributory system of pensions covering all State employees was established in Massachusetts.

1912 The Progressive Party platform called for the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old-age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use. Former President Theodore Roosevelt was the party's nominee.

June, 1913 The American Association for Labor Legislation sponsored the First National Conference on Social Insurance in Chicago, Illinois.

1915 The first old-age pension legislation not challenged on the grounds of constitutionality was enacted in the Territory of Alaska.

1920s

1920 A Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund was established for Federal employees.

1923 On March 5, 1923, Montana's Old-Age Pension Law was enacted. It was the first such State law to withstand the test of constitutionality.

1930s

6/8/34 Federal legislation to promote economic security was recommended in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Message to Congress.

6/29/34 President Roosevelt created the Committee on Economic Security to study the problems related to economic security and to make recommendations for a program of legislation.

1/17/35 The Committee on Economic Security's recommendations were introduced in the 74th Congress.

4/19/35 The Social Security Act was passed in the House of Representatives, 372 to 33.

6/19/35 The Social Security Act was passed in the Senate by a vote of 77 to 6.

8/14/35 The Social Security Act became law with President Roosevelt's signature.

8/23/35 The Senate confirmed the President's nomination of the original members of the Social Security Board, John G. Winant, Chairman; Arthur J. Altmeyer, and Vincent M. Miles.

10/14/36 The first Social Security field office was opened in Austin, Texas.

11/9/36 The Baltimore office for record-keeping operations opened in the Candler Building.

11/24/36 Applications for Social Security account numbers were distributed by the Post Office.

1/1/37 Workers began to acquire credits toward old-age insurance benefits.

1/37 First applications for benefits filed. Ernest Ackerman, a retired Cleveland motorman, was among the first to apply.

2/19/37 President Roosevelt accepted the resignation of John G. Winant from the Social Security Board and appointed Arthur J. Altmeyer as the new Chairman.

3/11/37 First Social Security benefits paid (one-time payment only).

7/1/39 Under the Federal Reorganization Act of 1939, the Social Security Board was made part of the newly established Federal Security Agency.

8/3/39 Arthur J. Altmeyer was reappointed for a 6-year term as the Chairman of the Social Security Board.

8/10/39 The Social Security Amendments of 1939 broadened the program to include dependents' and survivors' benefits.

1940s

1/1/40 Monthly benefits first became payable under old-age and survivors insurance to aged retired workers and their dependents and to survivors of deceased insured workers.

1/31/40 Ida May Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security Law.

11/19/45 In a special message to Congress, President Harry S. Truman proposed a comprehensive, prepaid medical insurance plan for all people through the Social Security system.

7/16/46 Under the President's Reorganization Plan of 1946, the Social Security Board was abolished and replaced with the Social Security Administration; Arthur J. Altmeyer became first Commissioner of Social Security.

1950s

8/28/50 Social Security Act Amendments established a program of aid to the needy who are permanently and totally disabled.

4/10/53 William L. Mitchell became Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

4/11/53 The Federal Security Agency was abolished and its functions transferred to the newly formed Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

11/24/53 John W. Tramburg became Commissioner of Social Security.

8/26/54 Charles I. Schottland became Commissioner of Social Security.

9/1/54 The Social Security Amendments established a disability "freeze" to help prevent the erosion of a disabled worker's benefits.

8/1/56 The Social Security Act was amended to provide monthly benefits to permanently and totally disabled workers aged 50-64 and for adult children of deceased or retired workers, if disabled before age 18.

2/4/59 William L. Mitchell became Commissioner of Social Security.

1960s

7/1/60 Dedication ceremony for the Social Security Administration's Woodlawn headquarters.

6/30/61 The Social Security Amendments of 1961 were signed by President John Kennedy, permitting all workers to elect reduced retirement at age 62.

4/17/62 Robert M. Ball became Commissioner of Social Security.

7/30/65 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare Bill in the presence of former President Truman who proposed this legislation in his message to Congress in 1945.

1970s

10/30/72 Social Security Amendments of 1972 signed into law by President Nixon.

3/27/73 Arthur E. Hess became Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

10/1/73 James B. Cardwell became Commissioner of Social Security.

1/1/74 Supplemental Security Income went into operation as a result of the Social Security Amendments of 1972.

3/9/77 HEW reorganization was announced in the Federal Register, transferring Medicare to the new Health Care Financing Administration.

12/12/77 Don I. Wortman became Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

10/5/78 Stanford G. Ross became Commissioner of Social Security.

1980s

1/1/80 Herbert R. Doggette, Jr. became Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

1/3/80 William J. Driver became Commissioner of Social Security.

5/4/80 DHEW became the Department of Health and Human Services.

6/9/80 President Carter signed the Social Security Amendments of 1980. Major provisions involved greater work incentives for disabled Social Security and SSI beneficiaries.

10/80 Public Law 96-473 terminated benefits to prisoners.

1/20/81 Herbert R. Doggette, Jr. became Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

5/6/81 John A. Svahn became Commissioner of Social Security.

8/13/81 The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 made major changes in Social Security, SSI and AFDC. These included: a phasing out of student's benefits; stopping young parents benefits; stopping young parents benefits when a child reached 16; limiting the lump-sum death payment and changes in the minimum benefit.

1/20/83 The National Commission on Social Security Reform sent its recommendations for resolving the Social Security program's financial problems to the President and Congress.

4/20/83 President Reagan signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1983.

9/14/83 Martha A. McSteen became Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

10/9/84 Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984 signed.

8/14/85 Social Security celebrates its 50th Anniversary.

6/26/86 Dorcas R. Hardy became Commissioner of Social Security.

10/1/88 Nationwide 800 number service implemented.

8/1/89 Gwendolyn S. King became Commissioner of Social Security.

1990s

10/1/92 Louis D. Enoff became Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

7/18/93 Lawrence H. Thompson became Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

10/8/93 Shirley S. Chater became Commissioner of Social Security.

8/5/94 Independent Agency legislation passed unanimously in the Senate.

8/11/94 Independent Agency legislation passed unanimously in the House.

8/15/94 President Bill Clinton signed legislation to make SSA an independent agency.

10/31/94 The bipartisan commission on the "notch" issued its report. "The central finding of the Commission is that benefits paid to those in the 'Notch' years are equitable, and no remedial legislation is in order."

3/31/95 SSA became an independent agency.

3/29/96 President Clinton signed the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-121) which ends eligibility to disability benefits for drug addicts and alcoholics.

4/15/96 The Social Security Advisory Council held its final public meeting in Washington, D.C.

8/22/96 President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This "welfare reform" legislation, terminated SSI eligibility for most non-citizens and make it more difficult for children to qualify as disabled for SSI purposes. It also ended the federal entitlement to Aid to Families with Dependent Children, that was part of the original 1935 Social Security Act.

1/6/97 The 1994-1996 Social Security Advisory Council released its report. Unable to achieve consensus, the Council offered three options: a Maintain Benefits plan; an Individual Accounts plan; and a Personal Savings Account plan.

5/1/97 The cycling of Social Security benefit payments began.

5/23/97 President Clinton nominated Kenneth S. Apfel to serve as the 13th Commissioner of Social Security.

8/5/97 President Clinton signed H.R. 2015, The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, into law. This law restores SSI eligibility to certain cohorts of non- citizens whose eligibility otherwise would be terminated under the "welfare reform" of 1996.

1/27/98 In his State of the Union address President Clinton emphasized the central task of addressing the solvency of the Social Security program. He stated his view that any budget surplus should not be used in any way until we "Save Social Security First."

12/8-9/98 The first-ever White House Conference on Social Security was held in Washington, D.C.

3/30/99 The Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds released their 1999 Annual Report. The Report shows continued improvement in the Social Security Trust Funds, with the date of exhaustion lengthening from 2032 to 2034.

7/19/99 SSA completed Phase I of its Intelligent Workstation/Local Area Network (IWS/LAN) computer modernization effort. This project, one of the largest information technology projects ever undertaken by the federal government, placed more than 75,000 workstations and 1,742 LANs in SSA and State DDS facilities around the country.

10/1/99 SSA began mailing the first batch of what will be 125 million redesigned Social Security Statements. This is thought to be the largest mass-mailing ever undertaken by the federal government. SSA is required by law to mail an annual statement to all workers age 25 and older. The Statements (formally known as PEBES) first became available on a by-request basis in 1988 and 37 million statements were issued on that basis and another 70 million were sent by SSA to workers age 40 and older.

11/22/99 William A. Halter was formally sworn-in as Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, and James G. Huse, Jr., was sworn-in as Inspector General of Social Security.

12/17/99 President Clinton signed the "Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999"--one of the most significant changes in disability policy in the last 20 years.

2/15/00 SSA launched its Electronic Newsletter (e-News) through which visitors are able to subscribe to Social Security e-news, a monthly electronic newsletter providing brief items on the latest Social Security information of public interest.

3/30/00 The Board of Trustees reported that the Social Security trust funds will remain solvent until 2037 (a gain of three years from last year).

4/7/00 President Clinton signed into law a bill eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test (RET) for those beneficiaries at or above Normal Retirement Age.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Quotations

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Thomas Paine
". . .were a workman to receive an increase in wages daily he would not save it against old age. . .Make, then society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund." -- 1795

------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Quincy Adams
"The great object of the institution of Civil Government, is the improvement of the condition of those who are parties to the social compact. And no government, in whatever form constituted, can accomplish the lawful ends of its institution, but in proportion as it improves the condition of those over whom it is established . . . But moral, political, intellectual improvement, are duties assigned, by the Author of our existence, to social, no less than to individual man. For the fulfilment of those duties, governments are invested with power; and, to the attainment of the end, the progressive improvement of the condition of the governed . . ."
First Annual Message to Congress, December, 1825.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abraham Lincoln
"(The purpose of government is) to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot do so well for themselves in their separate and individual capacities."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henry Seager
"The proper method of safeguarding old age is clearly through some plan of insurance. . . for every wage earner to attempt to save enough by himself to provide for his old age is needlessly costly. The intelligent course is for him to combine with other wage earners to accumulate a common fund out of which old-age annuities may be paid to those who live long enough to need it." -- 1910

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theodore Roosevelt
"We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in state and nation for:. . .The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment, and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use." -- 1912

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harry Hopkins
"There is always the danger that in our dread of making people dependent we shall cease doing good for fear of doing harm." – 1914

------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Franklin Roosevelt
"These three great objectives--the security of the home, the security of livelihood, and the security of social insurance--are, it seems to me, a minimum of the promise that we can offer to the American people. They constitute a right which belongs to every individual and every family willing to work. . ." -- Message to Congress, June 1934

"Security was attained in the earlier days through the interdependence of members of families upon each other and of the families within a small community upon each other. The complexities of great communities and of organized industry make less real these simple means of security. Therefore, we are compelled to employ the active interest of the Nation as a whole through government in order to encourage a greater security for each individual who composes it . . . This seeking for a greater measure of welfare and happiness does not indicate a change in values. It is rather a return to values lost in the course of our economic development and expansion." -- Message to Congress, June 1934

". . . I am looking for a sound means which I can recommend to provide at once security against several of the great disturbing factors in life--especially those which relate to unemployment and old age. . . I believe the funds necessary to provide this insurance should be raised by contribution rather than by an increase in general taxation. Above all, I am convinced that social insurance should be national in scope. . . leaving the Federal Government the responsibility of investing, maintaining and safeguarding the funds constituting the necessary insurance reserves." -- Message to Congress, June 1934

"You want to make it simple--very simple. So simple that everybody will understand it. And what's more, there is no reason why everybody in the United States should not be covered. I see no reason why every child, from the day he is born, shouldn't be a member of the social security system. When he begins to grow up, he should know he will have old-age benefits direct from the insurance system to which he will belong all his life. If he is out of work, he gets a benefit. If he is sick or crippled, he gets a benefit.

The system ought to be operated through the post offices. Just simple and natural-- nothing elaborate or alarming about it. The rural free delivery carrier ought to bring papers to the door and pick them up after they are filled out. The rural free delivery carrier ought to give each child his social insurance number and his policy or whatever takes the place of a policy. The rural free delivery carrier ought to be the one who picks up the claim of the man who is unemployed, or of the old lady who wants old-age insurance benefits.

And there is no reason why just the industrial workers should get the benefit of this. Everybody ought to be in on it-- the farmer and his wife and his family.

I don't see why not. Cradle to the grave--from the cradle to the grave they ought to be in a social insurance system." -- President Franklin Roosevelt, circa 1934, as quoted by Frances Perkins.

"We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which gives some measure of protection to the average citizen and his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age." -- President Franklin Roosevelt August 14, 1935, signing of the Social Security Act

"If the Senate and the House of Representatives in this long and arduous session had done nothing more than pass this Bill, the session would be regarded as historic for all time." -- President Franklin Roosevelt August 14, 1935, signing of the Social Security Act

"Long before the economic blight of the depression descended on the Nation, millions of our people were living in wastelands of want and fear. Men and women too old and infirm to work either depended on those who had but little to share, or spent their remaining years within the walls of a poorhouse. Fatherless children early learned the meaning of being a burden to relatives or to the community. Men and women, still strong, still young, but discarded as gainful workers, were drained of self-confidence and self-respect.

Because it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to build their own security single-handed, Government must now step in and help them lay the foundation stones, just as Government in the past has helped lay the foundation of business and industry. . .

The Social Security Act offers to all our citizens a workable and working method of meeting urgent present needs and of forestalling future need. It utilizes the familiar machinery of our Federal-State government to promote the common welfare and the economic stability of the Nation.

The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or collectively, an easy life--nor was it ever intended so to do. None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or in insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessity to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want. . .

One word of warning, however. In our efforts to provide security for all of the American people, let us not allow ourselves to be misled by those who advocate short cuts to Utopia or fantastic financial schemes.

We have come a long way. But we still have a long way to go. There is still today a frontier that remains unconquered--an America unclaimed. This is the great, the nationwide frontier of insecurity, of human want and fear. This is the frontier--the America--we have set ourselves to reclaim." -- President Franklin Roosevelt August 14, 1938, Radio address on the third anniversay of the Social Security Act

"We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions . . . With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program." President Franklin Roosevelt, as quoted by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressman William Sirovich (D-NY)
"In this so-called 'twentieth century of civilization,' in this, the richest country in the world, we find men and women past the age of 65 compelled to surrender their self-respect and become dependent as charitable wards, either on the community or on relatives or friends who in many instances are as badly off as those who depend upon them. Old age dependency is definitely and positively one of the great tragedies of modern economic progress. . . the only way they can subsist and save themselves from penury, hunger, and want, is for them to join the great caravan that finally wends its way over the hill to the poorhouse." -- 4/16/35, House speech on behalf of the Social Security Act of 1935

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Pat Harrison (D-MS)
" (old age insurance) comports better than any substitute we have discovered with the American concept that free men want to earn their security and not ask for doles--that what is due as a matter of earned right is far better than a gratuity . . . Social Security is not a handout; it is not charity; it is not relief." -- May 1935, Senate remarks on behalf of the Social Security Act of 1935

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo (the Supreme Court case deciding the constitutionality of Social Security)
"The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near." (Helvering v. Davis, 301 u.s. 641). -- 1937

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arthur J. Altmeyer
"(Alexander Hamilton said) 'I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man. . .' The "imperfect thing" in behalf of which Alexander Hamilton wrote this vindication was the Constitution of the United States. Time has proved his wisdom--and will prove it again. The Social Security Act, like the Constitution, may be imperfect; yet it, and other efforts like it in the days to come, will contribute their full measure to the often halting but never ending struggle toward social progress." -- May 1937

". . . we approach a time when the American citizen will have a basic minimum of protection against the major hazards which beset him from infancy to old age. Absolute 'security' is, of course, neither possible nor desireable. Social security measures are intended not to abolish the need for individual initiative and personal effort toward a secure existence but rather to give each individual at least a chance to build that security for himself. We cannot achieve 'the abundant life' or anything like it through social security legislation. What we can do and are doing is to develop, through the Social Security Act and other measures, a system of interrelated safeguards against want and misfortune so that no individual in our society may fall below this basic American level of security." -- August 1938

"There are some who fear that social security will destroy individual initiative and thrift and enterprise. There are some who believe that providing a minimum basic security for the people of this country will merely encourage them to rely upon the Government instead of upon themselves. I submit that such fears arise out of a basic lack of confidence in democracy and the common man. I believe that assuring people a minimum of subsistence will encourage them to strive for something still better for themselves and their families. I do not believe that we can expect the helpless and the hopeless to practice the prized virtues of independence." -- 3/12/43

"Social security as a specific program is in essence simply a social budgeting of costs already being borne by the individual citizens of a nation. Whether they have a social security system or not, the citizens of every nation are confronted with the economic burdens of old age, premature death, physical and mental disability, sickness, and unemployment. These risks affect individual citizens unevenly and unpredictably. Apart from its preventive functions, a social security system spreads these costs more evenly among groups of people and over periods of time, thereby making bearable costs and losses which otherwise are unbearable and lead to destitution and want." -- June, 1943

"Social insurance is still so new in this country that many people are yet not sure exactly how it works. Actually it works on the same principle as private insurance. That is the principle of spreading the risk. As Winston Churchill has said, it brings the magic of averages to the rescue of the millions. Disaster, to which millions are subject, actually strikes only a few of us at any given time. If we collect a small premium from the many who are exposed to the risk, we can build a fund out of which we can pay benefits to those who at any given time are suffering from the impact of the risk." -- August 1944

"The advance fears came from our primitive distrust of anything different, anything new and hence strange. Such fears are not confined to social legislation. Locomotives, bathtubs, and even automobiles were held by some people to menace morality and civilization when they were first introduced. Because social legislation is designed to conserve and enhance human values, it bears on the relationships that people cherish most deeply--their relationship to their work, to members of their family, to the community. So anything that seems like a new element in such relationships is especially likely to be feared in advance.

As I see it, however, the world-wide concern for social security in recent decades and especially in these last 10 years is not an effort to inject something new in those basic relationships. Its purpose is to conserve what men and women have long cherished in the face of changes they themselves cannot control individually. " -- August 1945

"Our social security program reflects the kind of economic and political order we want. That, I take it, is a democracy which provides opportunity for and yet rewards individuals in accordance with their capacities and efforts. Thus our social insurance benefits, unlike those in some other countries, differ in amount according to the beneficiary's past earnings.

But enlightened self-interest, as well as common humanity, requires that we set a floor beneath which human beings in our civilization shall not sink. Only in that way can an industrialized society preserve political democracy and a competitive economy in accordance with our traditions. By setting and maintaining such a minimum, we help to ensure an effective labor force and the steady stream of widely diffused purchasing power needed to keep workers steadily and fully employed." -- August 1945

"Social Security will always be a goal, never a finished thing, because human aspirations are infinitely expandable, just as human nature is infinitely perfectible." --1945

"Social Security in the sense we use it should not mean that everyone shall be guaranteed all the good things of life without any effort on his part. It should not mean a redistribution of wealth, but a redistribution of welfare. What it should mean is genuinely equal opportunity in a free society. Therefore, liberty and security are synonymous, and we can not have one without the other. Perhaps what people are concerned about when they deplore the 'welfare state,' is a paternalistic welfare state rather than a cooperative state of welfare. In a free society our quest for social security must always be for a method whereby people can work together effectively through their government to achieve security in such a way as to promote, at one and the same time, individual incentive and mutual responsibility." -- 1958

"It seems to me that the people who are fearful that social insurance will affect the initiative and the freedom of human beings don't really comprehend the meaning of those terms, and the motivations that are involved. It seems to me that it isn't fear that presses people on to high endeavor, to do better and better, but hope; and I think social insurance replaces fear with hope." --1963

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report of the 1937-1938 Social Security Advisory Council
". . . the Council is convinced of the wisdom of Congress in establishing a contributory program of old-age insurance. The Council believes that such a method of encouragement of self-help and self-reliance in securing protection in old age is essentially in harmony with individual incentive within a democratic society. It is highly desirable in preserving American institutions to provide protection afforded as a matter of right, related to past participation in the productive processes of the country. It is only through the encouragement of individual incentive, through the principle of paying benefits in relation to past wages and employment, that a sound and lasting basis for security can be afforded." -- 12/38

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Atlantic Charter
"The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world. . . FIFTH, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic adjustment and social security. . ."

-- August 14, 1941 (subsequently endorsed by the 32 member nations of the United Nations)
Photo of FDR & Churchill at Atlantic Conference & Copy of Churchill's edited version of the Charter

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Winston Churchill
"You must rank me and all my colleagues as strong partisans of compulsory social insurance for all classes for all purposes from the cradle to the grave." -- Radio address, March 1943

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oswald Stein (of the International Labour Organization)
"Social assistance is a progression from poor relief in the direction of social insurance, while social insurance is a progression from private insurance in the direction of social assistance." -- 1944

------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Harry Truman
"The passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 marked a great advance in our concept of the means by which our citizens, through their Government, can provide against common economic risks. . ." -- 5/24/48

". . .the Social Security Act of 1935 . . .was an attempt to place an anchor to windward for old age and for periods of unemployment." --1955

(commenting on the passage of Medicare)
"This is an important hour for the Nation, for those of our citizens who have completed their tour of duty and have moved to the sidelines. These are the days that we are trying to celebrate for them. These people are our prideful responsibility and they are entitled, among other benefits, to the best medical protection available." -- 1965
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eleanor Roosevelt
". . . in the old days the individuals themselves would have been putting money away for their old age--and, as far as the present plan is concerned, that is actually what they are doing. The present plan is more secure because today the government receives the money and is back of it; and as long as the government is stable, they are sure of their old age insurance. They will not go through the tragedy of putting their money in a sock and then losing the sock or having it stolen, or of putting it in a bank run by individuals whose bad judgment sometimes made the bank fail.

I do not think we have really changed the basic obligations in this case. We have simply made it a responsibility of government and thereby a little more secure for the individual."
-- From her "My Day" newspaper column, 8/15/49

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report of the 1947-1948 Social Security Advisory Council
"Opportunity for the individual to secure protection for himself and his family against the economic hazards of old age and death is essential to the sustained welfare, freedom, and dignity of the American citizen. For some, such protection can be gained through individual savings and other private arrangements. For others, such arrangements are inadequate or too uncertain. Since the interest of the whole Nation is involved, the people, using the Government as the agency for their cooperation, should make sure that all members of the community have at least a basic measure of protection against the major hazards of old age and death." -- 1950

------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
"In response to the need for protection from the complexities of our modern society, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance system was developed. . .It should remain the cornerstone of the government's programs to promote the economic security of the individual." -- 1/14/54

------------------------------------------------------------------------

President John F. Kennedy
"The Social Security program plays an important part in providing for families, children, and older persons in time of stress. . ." -- 6/30/61

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frances Perkins
"When I saw this bill adopted by Congress with a large majority of votes of both parties, and when I later saw, after a few flurries of opposition in later years, both parties continue to improve it and to broaden its coverage and to make more generous its benefits, I have come to realize that not only was it the crowning act of my working life, but that it was perhaps one of the most useful blessings which time has brought to the American people." --1960

"(President Roosevelt) always regarded the Social Security Act as the cornerstone of his administration and, I think, took greater satisfaction from it than from anything else he achieved on the domestic front." --1962

"Thousands of new problems arose in the Administration which had not been foreseen by those who did the planning and the legal drafting. Of course, the Act had to be amended, and has been amended, and amended, and amended, and amended, until it has now grown into a large and important project, for which, by the way, I think the people of the United States are deeply thankful. One thing I know: Social Security is so firmly embedded in the American psychology today that no politician, no political party, no political group could possibly destroy this Act and still maintain our democratic system. It is safe. It is safe forever, and for the everlasting benefit of the people of the United States." -- 1962

"This (the Social Security Act) was a new type of legislation--nothing of the sort had ever come before the Congress of the United States."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Lyndon B. Johnson
"Thirty years ago, the American people made a basic decision that the later years of life should not be years of despondency and drift. The result was enactment of our Social Security program. . . ." -- 1/7/65

"Medical care will free millions from their miseries. It will signal a deep and lasting change in the American way of life. It will take its place beside Social Security and together they will form the twin pillars of protection upon which all our people can safely build their lives and their hope." -- June 1966 (on the eve of the implementation of Medicare)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Bigge (former Republican member of the Social Security Board)

"One of the arguments urged against the social security program, of course, in the early years and we sometimes hear it even now, is that it's socialistic. It makes the government responsible for the individual's welfare. That seems to me to misconceive the nature of social insurance. As a matter of fact, you probably recall that it was started in Germany in the late 19th century as an antidote for socialism by Bismarck. Under socialism there would be no need for social insurance. It's in a system of free enterprise, competitive private enterprise, production for a market that social insurance becomes necessary for the protection of the individual. In many addresses at the time both before and after the passage of the Social Security Act, I emphasized that point." -- 2/25/66

------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Richard Nixon
"This Nation must not break faith with those Americans who have a right to expect that Social Security payments will protect them and their families. . . ." -- 9/25/69

------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Gerald R. Ford
"The fortieth anniversary of the Social Security Act celebrates an important milestone in responsible public service. I continue to be impressed by the steady responsiveness of the Social Security program to the changing needs of our people. . . ." -- 8/9/75

------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Jimmy Carter
"The Social Security program . . . represents our commitment as a society to the belief that workers should not live in dread that a disability, death, or old age could leave them or their families destitute." -- 12/20/77

------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Ronald Reagan
"The changes in this legislation will allow Social Security to age as gracefully as all of us hope to do ourselves, without becoming an overwhelming burden on generations still to come. . . . And younger people can feel confident that Social Security will still be around when they need it to cushion their retirement." -- 4/20/82

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ)
"(The Social Security program is the) best expression of community that we have in this country today." -- 1983

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margaret M. Heckler (Secretary of HHS--Reagan Administration)
"When historians write a retrospective of the 20th century, Social Security--which is observing its 50th anniversary--will undoubtedly be identified as the most significant piece of domestic legislation enacted during that 100-year period. Born in adversity and tempered by crisis, Social Security--amended on numerous occasions over the years--has done more to lift and keep Americans out of poverty than any other governmental initiative." -- 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martha A. McSteen (Acting Commissioner of Social Security 1983-1986)
"The 19th century philosopher Hegel once wrote that "What experience and history teach is this--that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it." He obviously wrote before the advent of Social Security. When I look back over the 50 years of Social Security in the United States and review how our Nation took the lessons of the past and adapted them to the future, creating the most successful social programs in our Nation's history, I know that, at least in this instance, there was an exception to Hegel's philosophy.. The people, the principles, the wisdom and foresight of many in government that created Social Security and brought it from its infancy in 1935 to the mature and successful set of programs that is Social Security in 1985 used the lessons of history and experience wisely, with compassion and with imagination. " -- 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------------

John A. Svahn (Commissioner of Social Security 1981-1983--commenting on the 1983 Amendments)
"It was more than just a President's signature put down that day. It was a sure sign that Social Security will remain--as well it should--a program that will indeed keep its promises to generations to come." -- 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stanford G. Ross (Commissioner of Social Security 1978-1979)
"As we look back, we can see that enactment of this law was perhaps the most fundamental domestic social action in the history of the United States. With enactment of Social Security, the Federal Government took primary responsibility for the income security needs of the Nation. " -- 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alvin M. David (a 36-year SSA employee who played a major role in shaping Social Security policy)
"The program we have today did not have to be the great program that it is. It was no acorn that was programmed to become an oak. It might not have happened at all. It might have happened and later been replaced by something else. It might at any number of points have taken the wrong road and become a puny, skinny runt instead of what it is. The American people are lucky that it exists. It is to be more valued and more appreciated and less to be taken for granted than would be the case if it had been a sure thing. And when the times come that new roads are to be taken or not taken, it will need to be guided and directed in ways worthy of the care, devotion, intelligence, vision, and high ideals that made it the marvel that it is--the marvel that has made all the difference in peoples' lives." -- 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ida C. Merriam (started work with Social Security in 1936 and directed its research efforts for many years)
"In the span of 50 years, Social Security has become one of the basic institutions of our society. It is no longer just another program; it is part of the supportive structure that makes a free and progressive society possible. . ." -- 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert J. Myers (Social Security's Chief Actuary for 23 years)
"In summary, the OASDI program is now not only alive and well, but also its prospects for the future are excellent. The Medicare program has some financing problems. . . but these can be solved . . . I have every reason to believe that both programs will be around 50 years hence in the same general form as they are today. They provide a suitable basic floor of economic protection and deserve to be maintained over the years." -- 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Bruce Cardwell (Commissioner of Social Security 1973-1977)
"Every worker, every citizen must be made to understand that Social Security is financially sound; that it can and will do what is expected when the time comes, whether that time be tomorrow or another 50 years from now." -- 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilbur J. Cohen (first professional employee of Social Security)
"In 5 short months in 1934 the basic framework of the Social Security Act was formulated. And in another 7 months in 1935 it was enacted into law! A monumental change in the relationships between individuals, the States, and the Federal Government had been instituted. Today, 50 years later, we can see the significance and magnitude of that historic legislation in protecting families, communities, and the Nation. -- 1985

". . . I think there is a moral justification for a safety net. There may also be a political one. . .an ideological one. . . and . . . a rational economic one. . . But I think that when reduced to its fundamentals, there is a consciousness of community . . . some kind of a sense of solidarity and community in the American system . . . there is a strong undercurrent in the Judeo-Christian philosophy of community, and family and social responsibility. That is what I think undergirds these programs. It may be inarticulate, it may be unspoken. It may be subject to controversy. We may have differences of how it ought to be financed or how far we ought to go. But fundamental to what we've been talking to today is a safety net that puts the human spirit ahead of everything else. And ladies and gentlemen I think that's what is great about the United States of America." -- March 1985, Speech at University of New Mexico Conference on 50th anniversary of Social Security

------------------------------------------------------------------------

John J. Corson (Director of the Bureau of Old-Age Insurance during the founding years)
"How did we do it? We had a team of workers who believed deeply that we were doing something desperately important. We didn't know that we couldn't do it. . . We believed in ourselves, and above all in the essentiality of Social Security." -- 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------------

President George Bush
"And there's one thing I hope we will all be able to agree on. It's about our commitments. I'm talking about Social Security. To every American out there on Social Security, to every American supporting that system today, and to everyone counting on it when they retire, we made a promise to you, and we are going to keep it." -- 1/31/90

------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bill Clinton
". . .we are reinventing our government to streamline our operations so that we can serve the American people better. . . It is proving that government can still work to improve people's lives. And now Social Security, we know, will work even better." -- 8/15/94

"I believe Social Security is an issue that should bind the American people not only across generational divides, but across party lines. It is an issue that offers a choice between moving forward and turning back. I think that is a very clear choice for the American people." -- 10/27/98

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Columnist, E. J. Dionne

"Social insurance was a wise admission on the part of supporters of competitive economies that citizens would take the risk such economies require only if they were provided with a degree of security, especially against old age, unemployment, the sudden death of a spouse, and the vicissitudes of health. . . Social insurance is the basic insurance policy Americans have for social stability, a modicum of social justice, and a society in which risks are taken freely and energetically because there is some protection against catastrophe and social breakdown. Few business people I know would cut their expenses by canceling their fire insurance. Social insurance is the cost of doing business for a society that seeks to remain dynamic and inventive as well as just and fair." -- 1998

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Former Commissioner Bob Ball
"This is not a program in which the Government or the well-to-do help people. On the contrary; it is primarily a program in which people help themselves, using Government as the instrument."

webhead

04-10-2011, 01:23 AM

The members of the Republican Party seek to privatize Social Security, placing the economic future of the elderly at risk while providing income to corporations who will sell investment products, products subject to the peaks and valleys of markets, to Americans. Stability is not promised, and Americans would be at the mercy of the markets rather than knowing the retirement benefits will be there for them through the current Social Security program.

This is a main reason why I believe Republicans of the last 30 years are bad for Americans to elect for office in any level of government.

old mark

04-10-2011, 09:59 AM

Republicans today are generally bad people, period.

mark

Chuck Guiteau

04-10-2011, 03:06 PM

While you are of course entitled to your opinion, on the Constitution or anything else, no mention of this document, or of the relative structure of Social security, was included in the OP. It dealt with eight topics (suggestions) and asked the members of this forum to comment on whether or not these suggestions met with approval or disapproval.
Your response inferred that you disagreed with these suggestions and you were more than intelligent enough to prove the case.

Attempting to side track the discussion with a debate over the Constitution hardly adds weight to your statement. Please try to remain on topic.

If you wish to debate the Constitution the appropriate venue would be a new thread, but I would caution you that your interpretation of the Preamble, and the its meaning within the context of the Constitution, is subject to rebuttal and you might find yourself at odds with the some of the very people you wish to defend.
That being said, just what part of the OP do you feel is lacking in intelligence to the point that the authors have, in effect, “shit” on your views?

1. Do you feel that an tax increase on the wealthy (a very general term, as it would apply as currently interpreted to many who do not fall into the category of the idle non-productive rich) is somehow inappropriate?

2. Do you believe that an increase in the inheritance tax would also be inappropriate? I’ll have to admit if this is the case then your beliefs are definitely in opposition to both the Democratic party in general and President Obama in particular.

3. Is it your opinion that the large insurance companies are not at fault for the current cost of healthcare and that a single payer system would not be preferrable to the current status quo?

4. Are you of the opinion that the mega banks, and the banking industry in general, should be controlled by the government in an effort to prevent another debacle like the one we are currently embroiled in regarding the housing industry?

5. Would you disagree that a restraint needs to be placed on right wing media outlets such as FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al?

6. Have you a disagreement with the presidents actions in bailing out the auto industry by allowing the government to become a “partner” in those industries until such time as they repay the bail out, or that a more permanent partnership could be beneficial in preventing a re-occurrence in the future?

7. Would you oppose a bill to collectivize the rights of teachers in our school system by creating a Federal Teachers Union?

8. You don’t need to comment here (unless you wish to elaborate on your previous comment), as you have stated explicitly that Republicans are bad for office at any level. Since, save the Republican Party, there is no other political party capable of providing an opposition to the Democrats, you obviously agree with this suggestion by default.

webhead

04-10-2011, 06:39 PM

Attempting to side track the discussion with a debate over the Constitution hardly adds weight to your statement. Please try to remain on topic".

Wrong! It is on topic! My first reply deals with item 1. "Increase the taxes on the fat cats who are already making too much money".

I seem to recall there was a payroll deduction to my paychecks that was titled "FICA". FICA, or Federal Insurance Contributions Act, is regularly called a tax by Republicans. The employee deduction in 2010 was 6.2%, which has been lowered to 4.2% for 2011 only in order to put a little more money into the hands of working Americans to stimulate the economy.

The rate of 6.2% in 2010 (4.2% in 2011) is applied up to a limit of $106,800 earned income. There is no FICA for earned income above $106,800, so the percentage of the FICA payroll tax is regressive because those earning above $106,800 end up paying a lower overall percentage than those earning up to $106,800.

I believe Warren Buffet has stated that his secretary pays a greater percentage of her earned income to FICA than he does, and he believes he should be paying the FICA tax on all of his earned income. I agree with Warren Buffett. I think A-Rod and all other high income earners should be paying the same FICA tax as Buffett's secretary.

If the cap of $106,800 is lifted, then there will be retirement funds for 100% distribution to retirees thru 2084.

Since I believe in Social Security, I believe the FICA withholding should be increased for those earning above $106,800.

Chuck Guiteau

04-10-2011, 08:09 PM

Then, if I understand you correctly, you agree with the premise that taxes should be increased on the very wealthy, even though your response would only increase thier tax liability by a small amount, relatively speaking.
That's two suggestions you agree with, then. By ignoring the rest, should I assume you do not agree with them, or would you care to elaborate on those as well?

webhead

04-11-2011, 06:19 PM

At the beginning of the Bush term in office, there was a balanced federal budget with projections of a $5 trillion surplus. Bush, Cheney and the Republicans in Congress turned this into annual deficits for 8 years, and a $12 trillion national debt. In fact, Cheney said “deficits don’t matter”.

Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Here is a graph that expresses the causes of the current deficit:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Bush, Cheney, and the Republicans in Congress proceeded to issue unfunded supplements for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time cutting taxes for the wealthy. The result of deficit spending and Bush’s economic policies created a 2008 recession. Bush approved a TARP of about $700 billion without Congressional oversight, which was consistent with the Congressional Republicans failure to provide oversight during the Bush term.

Then in 2009, Obama and the Democrats funded a $787 Billion stimulus plan, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. But this time there were provisions to recover some of the money.

Time: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

The massive U.S. stimulus package put millions of people to work and boosted national output by hundreds of billions of dollars in the second quarter, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday. CBO said President Barack Obama's stimulus boosted real GDP in the quarter by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent, adding at least $200 billion in economic activity. The massive package of tax cuts, construction spending and enhanced safety-net benefits was passed in February 2009 in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The Stimulus Plan: How to Spend $787 Billion
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Summary Billions $$$
Tax Cuts for individuals $232.160
Aid to states $182.064
Health $151.989
Education and Job Training; Aid to States $128.200
Unemployment $72.400
Energy $70.768
Aid to Individuals $60.544
Transportation $48.192
Tax Cuts for businesses $33.975
Infrastructure $32.109
Science & Research $21.430
Housing $20.460
Environment $15.600
Rural Assistance $5.400
Other $2.682

You’ll notice $232 billion in tax cuts for individuals and $60 billion in tax cuts for businesses were included in Obama’s stimulus plan. Your friends at the other forums complaining about the 37% amount for tax cuts? Or where they just ignorant of this fact?

Tax increases will have to be made if Republicans are being honest about reducing the Bush/Cheney/Republican debt and annual budget deficits. Or are they just seeing the deficit issue as a means to regain power in the Senate and the White House?

I happen to agree with one of the 18 members if the Obama Debt Commission who has introduced a bill in the House to increase taxes. Jan Schakowsky’s proposal for the new brackets is as follows:

$1-10 million: 45%
$10-20 million: 46%
$20-100 million: 47%
$100 million to $1 billion: 48%

$1 billion and over: 49%

If you think the 6.2% FICA increase for those earning over $106,800 is small, than so should these brackets.

Here is a graph showing that by the year 2040, almost all federal revenue will be required to pay interest on the debt:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

But if the Bush Tax Cuts are ended, here is the graph that shows a big difference:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

But deleting all other spending is not good enough. This is why the Republicans has said deficits don’t matter during the Bush term and why they want to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They want to turn Granny into a bag lady!

webhead

04-11-2011, 11:50 PM

webhead

04-11-2011, 11:55 PM

4. Do away with the big banks which are run by fat cats and are the reason we’re in a depression right now because they got so greedy. Let the government run the banking system.

We have seen in the last decade what big financial institutions will do without regulations. It was a mistake to de-regulate these businesses.

webhead

04-11-2011, 11:57 PM

5. Have the FCC increase regulation on propaganda machines like FoxNews and the talk radio shows.
Americans will decide whether or not Fox News and the talk radio shows represent news or propaganda, especially when the advertisers decide they do not want to advertise on these types of networks and radio shows. We have recently seen what the power of the advertiser has when Beck announced his show on Fox is ending.

webhead

04-11-2011, 11:59 PM

8. Finally, marginalize the Republicans until they no longer have any power in Congress, allowing the Democrats to effectively be the only real political party.

American voters will make the decision, assuming the elections are fair and honest, and all campaigners for office are campaigning on a level field.

webhead

04-12-2011, 12:01 AM

6. President Obama had the right idea with the big auto companies, but he didn’t go far enough. Instead of being a partner until the big corporations can pay back the money it took to bail them out, let the government be a controlling partner and appoint a commission to oversee them (and other big mega-corporations who are running the system for their own benefit, like ADM and others).

The money that was provided to the auto companies has been repaid. Without the federal involvement, it is likely there would be no General Motors. And the Bush recession would be mush worse than it was.

webhead

04-12-2011, 12:10 AM

3. Skip letting the big insurance companies get involved in healthcare, they won’t do anything but try to squeeze more money out of the little people. Go straight to a single payer system so that the Health department can make sure every ones gets care

One of the problems businesses in America has is paying for the costs of health care. If relieved of this burden, American businesses would lower costs and would be more competitive in the global marketplace. One way to eliminate health care costs business must now endure would be to create a single-payer, not-for-profit, universal health care system paid for by individual premiums. With all Americans in the pool, health care costs would be lower than the current system, and individuals in the pool would receive a greater return on investment with 95% of the premiums being spent on health care rather than being spent on overhead such as advertising, exorbitant executive salary, and retained earnings directed to paying dividends to stockholders. The single-payer would be responsible for accounts receivable and accounts payable, and would have no authority over medical decisions made by the patients and his or her physicians. Rather than health insurance companies determining health care options, doctors and patients would make the decision. There would be no death panels, rather life panels.

webhead

04-12-2011, 12:13 AM

2. Increase the inheritance tax like president Obama wants to do, so the fat cats can’t just give their ill gotten money to their spoiled rich kids. The government can then give that money to poor people who really need it.

Tax as earned income all earnings from the assets held in the estates passed on to the next generation. But, the assets that create the estate should be fairly and equitably taxed as the assets are earned.

webhead

04-12-2011, 01:37 AM

7. Completely unionize the public education system under a FederalTeachers Union. Then the crazy fundies and Fallwell freaks would be forced to stop interfering with our kids getting an education (one that doesn’t include anti-abortion messages and “creationist science”).

I believe changing NCLB is much more important than worrying about a federal teacher's union!

Here are some of my previous posts on NCLB:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Originally Posted by SubstituteTeacher
That is so true Webhead. In my town, one village is composed of college professors and their children are very successful academically. The village right next to it is a low income slum area where most are welfare recipents and the students do very poorly academically. The eduational level of the parents is one of the components of success or failure in school.

Yes, academic success or failure is a result of socio-economic position of the family and student as well as the level of parental involvement.

I maintain public school districts should receive local, state, and federal funds to pay for programs that teach parents of at risk children to act like parents of academically successful students. NCLB has a provision within the Corrective Action section for school districts to provide the parents of disadvantaged students with classes to teach English, Math and other subjects to the parents so that the parents can help with homework. This is for disadvantaged students only, but if it is deemed valuable for the success of disadvantaged students, it should be valuable for all students at risk.

I am right about this - I know I am right. If everybody wants K-12 students to achieve academic success, then the parents are an integral part of the process. Parents must teach children to put in the obligatory hard work at night to study, do homework, plan for the next day's class, and develop study skills such as note taking and time management skills.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Originally Posted by Crazy Guggenheim
BTW, with my parents, though they weren't poverty ridden, they just did not value success. They were the kind that wanted their children to work in menial - simplistic - jobs. The only problem I have is with the teachers is do they know which parents do not value success in their children? That would be the mark of a good teacher.

BTW, luckily I have drive and therefore wa able to graduate college, etc.

Obligatory hard work is required by the student, in most cases. If parents don't provide the direction but the student puts in the work, then that hard work benefits the student in the short and long terms.

Congrats!

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

About ten years ago, I was researching the benefits of technology for K-12 students. I was doing this because I was a member of the school district's technology committee. I was a parent participant, along with a few other parents, teachers, and school district administrators. My research led me to this (excerpts):

Family Capital

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
The Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology-1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documenting the Effects of Instructional Technology: A Fly-Over of Policy Questions
by Dale Mann, Professor Teachers College, Columbia University New York, New York 10027-6696 and Managing Director Interactive, Inc. Huntington, New York 11743-3360

Number One (interesting concept of “Family Capital” - Webhead) :

Since James S. Coleman's 1966 analysis, it has been generally acknowledged that about 30% of the variation in children's educational achievement comes from their experience in school and 70% comes from other experiences, especially their families, the culture they live in (the media, etc.) and their peers. Coleman's insight works both ways. Families that support learning, advance their children's educational achievement: those that do not or that hinder or disrupt learning, impede their children's educational achievement. In later writing, Coleman called the leverage that families apply to their children's learning, "family capital".

Coleman, James S.
born May 12, 1926, Bedford, Ind., U.S.
died March 25, 1995, Chicago, Ill.

1926-95, American sociologist, b. Bedford, Ind. A graduate of Columbia (Ph.D., 1955), where he was influenced by Paul Lazarsfeld , Coleman achieved recognition with two studies on problem solving: An Introduction to Mathematical Sociology (1964) and Mathematics of Collective Action (1973). After terms at Stanford Univ. and the Univ. of Chicago, Coleman taught at Johns Hopkins Univ. (1959-73). While there he chaired the commission that published Equality of Educational Opportunity (1966), which is known as the Coleman report. In 1973 he returned to Chicago, where he taught sociology and was a director of its National Opinion Research Center. His other major works include Youth: Transition to Adulthood (1973), High School Achievement (1982), and Individual Interests and Collective Action (1986).
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2004.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

U.S. sociologist, a pioneer in mathematical sociology whose studies strongly influenced education policy in the United States.
Coleman received his B.S. from Purdue University (1949) and his Ph.D. from Columbia University (1955), where he was a research associate in the Bureau of Applied Social Research (1953–55). [Only registered and activated users can see links]

webhead

04-12-2011, 01:42 AM

NCLB Parental Involvement:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

webhead

04-12-2011, 01:55 AM

Here is a brief summary of the conditions in the United States that prompted the Congress and the President to pass Social Security.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

President Franklin Roosevelt

Long before the economic blight of the depression descended on the Nation, millions of our people were living in wastelands of want and fear. Men and women too old and infirm to work either depended on those who had but little to share, or spent their remaining years within the walls of a poorhouse. Fatherless children early learned the meaning of being a burden to relatives or to the community. Men and women, still strong, still young, but discarded as gainful workers, were drained of self-confidence and self-respect.

Because it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to build their own security single-handed, Government must now step in and help them lay the foundation stones, just as Government in the past has helped lay the foundation of business and industry. . .

The Social Security Act offers to all our citizens a workable and working method of meeting urgent present needs and of forestalling future need. It utilizes the familiar machinery of our Federal-State government to promote the common welfare and the economic stability of the Nation.

The Act does not offer anyone, either individually or collectively, an easy life--nor was it ever intended so to do. None of the sums of money paid out to individuals in assistance or in insurance will spell anything approaching abundance. But they will furnish that minimum necessity to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want. . .

One word of warning, however. In our efforts to provide security for all of the American people, let us not allow ourselves to be misled by those who advocate short cuts to Utopia or fantastic financial schemes.

Republicans are interested in eliminating child labor laws, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Republicans want children to work instead of being children, and Republicans want to turn Granny into a bag lady.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

N.U.

04-12-2011, 10:53 AM

Wow. I go onto vacation just in time to miss this? Curse my infernal timing.

webhead

04-12-2011, 11:03 AM

Wow. I go onto vacation just in time to miss this? Curse my infernal timing.
:dog:

So, where did you go?

webhead

04-12-2011, 11:16 AM

4. Do away with the big banks which are run by fat cats and are the reason we’re in a depression right now because they got so greedy. Let the government run the banking system.
Greed as in bundling together bits and pieces of mortgages and selling them for profit, with the buyer not having the mortgage documents! Greed and fraud!

Here are some excerpts reporting on the robo-signings by lenders in which the banks hires employees to robo-sign affidavits that the banks have the original mortgage documents even though the banks do not have the mortgage documents. This is fraud, and it appears bank employees will be prosecuted.

There is also talk that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will be disbanded.

From these excerpts, there needs to be further regulation by the federal government.

Note: Go to the Diane Rehm Show webpage and download the first hour of her 4/12/11 show "Update on U.S. Economy and Housing Market":

Update on U.S. Economy and Housing Market
10 A.M. (ET) ON AIR NOW
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 10:06 a.m.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Concerns about the U.S. housing market persist despite some positive signs of economic recovery. Millions of homeowners lost their homes since the financial crisis hit and millions more are expected to face foreclosure in the next four years. For those seeking to buy a home, securing a mortgage remains a challenge. An update on the housing market and health of the economy.

Guests

Michael Greenberger professor, University of Maryland Law School; director, Center for Health and Homeland Security; and former senior regulator, Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

Dina ElBoghdady real estate reporter for The Washington Post.

Vincent Reinhart is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; former director of the Federal Reserve Board's Division of Monetary Affairs.

Banks Lose Pivotal Mortgage Case
DENISE LAVOIE AND MICHELLE CONLIN | 01/ 7/11 10:18 PM |AP

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The highest court in Massachusetts ruled against U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. Friday in a pivotal mortgage foreclosure case that could spark more turmoil and uncertainty in a housing market already mired in depression.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a lower court judge's ruling invalidating two mortgage foreclosure sales because the banks, in their capacity as trustees for mortgage securities, did not prove that they actually owned the mortgages at the time of foreclosure.

The decision, which highlights the failure of financial firms to adhere to the rules that govern mortgage-backed securities, is likely to lead more borrowers to sue bank servicers and trustees for wrongful foreclosures. It's unclear what the ruling means for people who were forced from their homes after defaulting on their loans or for those who purchased houses in foreclosure sales.

Where Things Stand: Foreclosure Paperwork Scandal
by Marian Wang  ProPublica, Dec. 27, 2010, 10:11 a.m

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

One by one, they resumed some or all foreclosures and are re-filing the questionable documents, but attorneys for homeowners have said that the fixes have been inadequate and the result has been "more of the same." Last week, the Daily Business Review reported that new rules in Florida to remedy the problem of robo-signers -- bank employees who had signed foreclosure documents without verifying their accuracy -- had given rise to "robo-verifiers" who simply go through the motions of double-checking the documents.

Iowa's Attorney General Tom Miller, the point man on a 50-state joint investigation of the foreclosure scandal and mortgage servicing industry, has said that a quick settlement with banks and loan servicers is unlikely and that settlements would be worked out "one bank at a time." He's also said that criminal charges are a possibility. "We will put people in jail," Miller told homeowners and advocates in Des Moines earlier this month. The states' joint investigation remains ongoing, and some states have separately sued banks for deceiving homeowners fighting foreclosure.

On the federal level, the status of the investigation by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other banking regulators is less clear. The OCC, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC are currently divided over new rules proposed by the FDIC that would rein in the bank abuses that may be causing improper foreclosures, according to the Huffington Post.

Last week, a group of more than 50 economists, analysts and academics wrote a letter to these federal regulators, urging them to establish national standards for servicing. In the letter, they said that servicing fraud presents problems for investors, homeowners and the U.S. economy. They also urged regulators to compel servicers to grant loan modifications and principal reductions -- or reducing the amount owed by homeowners -- when economically possible.

N.U.

04-12-2011, 02:11 PM

:dog:

So, where did you go?

Nowhere. Just on vacation and didn't check anything online for a week. Ended up having lots of friends over to drink really good, inexpensive (My requirement was nothing over $10) french red wine. You would be shocked just how much of it there is.

webhead

04-12-2011, 02:51 PM

Nowhere. Just on vacation and didn't check anything online for a week. Ended up having lots of friends over to drink really good, inexpensive (My requirement was nothing over $10) french red wine. You would be shocked just how much of it there is.

One of the best stay-at-home vacations!

webhead

04-12-2011, 02:59 PM

4. Do away with the big banks which are run by fat cats and are the reason we’re in a depression right now because they got so greedy. Let the government run the banking system.
Then there is the issue of military families being separated because one of the spouses/parents is on a tour of duty in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any military facility abroad and find the banks are foreclosing, or will not work with the families to reduce monthly mortgages payments because the value of the home is less than the outstanding mortgage balance.

There is an absence of American patriotism being shown by the banks to the military boots on the ground.

Bank Overcharged Military Families On Mortgages
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Chase Overcharged Over 4,000 Military Families On Mortgages, Improperly Foreclosed On 14
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Overcharges on soldiers' mortgages investigated
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

webhead

04-13-2011, 02:20 AM

4. Do away with the big banks which are run by fat cats and are the reason we’re in a depression right now because they got so greedy. Let the government run the banking system.
The financial institutions are driving UP the price of gas at the pump! The increase is not caused by supply and demand. It is being caused by speculators trying to make money, and the affect is that Americans, Republicans and Democrats and Independents and Tea Partiers and all others are paying prices for gas higher than we should. Congress and the President should be implementing price controls or new regulations as the price of gas is going to dramatically hurt our economy, more so than $38 billion spending cuts included in the budget bill for the rest of FY 2011!

For a great explanation of what is occurring:

Dan Dicker, commodity trading expert, talks about the rising prices on gas at the pump in America and what to do about it:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

<-------- When do you think we will be paying LOL 9/10 ($5) per gallon?

Chuck Guiteau

04-13-2011, 03:02 AM

Not to sound picky, but the customary form for a debate is to succinctly state ones position in regards to the premise then provide evidence to buttress said position, not the other way around.
I don’t say this to appear condescending, but because I am still unsure exactly where you stand on at least some of the eight points contained in the OP.
Please correct me if I am wrong:
1. You agree with the suggestion to increase taxes on the wealthy.
2. You disagree with the concept of inheritance tax as it is currently levied. (I’m not sure here, as you statement could be interpreted to mean just the opposite depending on what you meant by “as they are earned”.)
3. You are in favor of a government controlled single payer healthcare system.
4. You are in favor of government control of the banking system.
5. You are not in favor of additional government regulation of conservative news media.
6. You are in favor of government control ( or at least controlling participation) in the automotive industry.
7.You are not in favor of unionizing, other than strictly as a matter of individual choice. (Again, I’m not sure if this was your meaning here, as that would place you in direct opposition to most unions and the Presidents own general track record toward them).
8. You are in favor of marginalizing the Republican Party ( through the ballot box), which would have the proximate effect of giving us a one party system.
Have I misinterpreted your meaning, or does this correctly summarize your position regarding the OP?

webhead

04-13-2011, 08:23 AM

I've given you my answers.

N.U.

04-13-2011, 09:42 AM

webhead

04-13-2011, 01:07 PM

In as much as you wish to dictate the method of debate and then change it when presented with precisely what you requested in the first place, no, your summation is inaccurate. The truth doesn't fit into neat 3-5 second sound bytes. Try reading the entirety of webhead's answers; they are as concise as they can be. To shorten them further actually diminishes the accuracy of, not clarifies, the answers.
Thanks! Your points are exactly correct, including my desire to prevent "sound bites" from reaching the other forums and being used against Democrats. I did not want "sound bites" to obfuscate facts.

Chuck Guiteau

04-13-2011, 01:10 PM

To N.U.,
In re-reading my OP, I see you are correct. I merely asked for comments, which allows for as much equivocation as the respondent desires, and even the introduction of material not related to the OP itself.
The fault is mine for framing the OP in an imprecise manner. I invited a "John Kerry" response and I got what I asked for. Mea culpa.
Would anyone care to respond to the eight points raised by declaring a position either in agreement or disagreement with those points, indvidually or as a whole? I certainly have no objection to elaboration on any given position, as long as the position is declared initially.

webhead

04-13-2011, 01:34 PM

Chuck Guiteau

04-13-2011, 01:58 PM

That sounds reasonable.
I oppose them en bloc.

N.U.

04-13-2011, 02:23 PM

That sounds reasonable.
I oppose them en bloc.

Chuck, I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I would find it helpful if you were to expound upon your pithy response. Maybe we, as a group (and you are included in the group) can figure out what we agree upon and where our differences lie. I'd we willing to bet that our collective views aren't that much different.

Chuck Guiteau

04-13-2011, 02:49 PM

Chuck, I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I would find it helpful if you were to expound upon your pithy response. Maybe we, as a group (and you are included in the group) can figure out what we agree upon and where our differences lie. I'd we willing to bet that our collective views aren't that much different.

My response was not intended to be snarky, it was intended to be brief and unequivocal in accordance with the standard form of debate ( prermise, position, proof). I'm more than prepared to expand upon my position as soon as you (and anyone else who wishes to respond) are willing to do the same. Fair is fair.
I agree with you that there are probably areas where our positions coincide, but one of them is not a Kerry-esque "I was for it until I was against it".

N.U.

04-13-2011, 03:15 PM

N.U.

04-13-2011, 04:29 PM

... so this looks like the place to post a few suggestions I've read on other sites. Here it goes!
1. Increase the taxes on the fat cats who are already making too much money.

2. Increase the inheritance tax like president Obama wants to do, so the fat cats can’t just give their ill gotten money to their spoiled rich kids. The government can then give that money to poor people who really need it.

3. Skip letting the big insurance companies get involved in healthcare, they won’t do anything but try to squeeze more money out of the little people. Go straight to a single payer system so that the Health department can make sure every ones gets care.

4. Do away with the big banks which are run by fat cats and are the reason we’re in a depression right now because they got so greedy. Let the government run the banking system.

5. Have the FCC increase regulation on propaganda machines like FoxNews and the talk radio shows.

6. President Obama had the right idea with the big auto companies, but he didn’t go far enough. Instead of being a partner until the big corporations can pay back the money it took to bail them out, let the government be a controlling partner and appoint a commission to oversee them (and other big mega-corporations who are running the system for their own benefit, like ADM and others).

7. Completely unionize the public education system under a FederalTeachers Union. Then the crazy fundies and Fallwell freaks would be forced to stop interfering with our kids getting an education (one that doesn’t include anti-abortion messages and “creationist science”).

8. Finally, marginalize the Republicans until they no longer have any power in Congress, allowing the Democrats to effectively be the only real political party.

How do these suggestions sound to everyone else? Please post your comments here!

I has occurred to me that it would be rude to ask off-topic questions of the OP without at least stating my positions, as well.

1. Too cut and dry. "Fat Cat" is not defined. I will say no so this can be expanded upon later with more accurate qualifiers

2. This should be expanded as it doesn't take into account that the first million or so isn't even taxed, with notable exceptions (401k, 403b, etc.). Having been through this process, I'm quite familiar with inheritance taxes. As it is presented in the OP, No, I'm against it. Too simplified. "Fat cats" needs better defining.

3. I'm all for healthcare insurers being involved in healthcare. What I object to is their anti-trust exemption. The exemption needs to be pulled.

4. Government run bank system? God no. I would like to discuss this further, though, as I do believe government oversight/regulation is in order.

5. 1st Amendment. Therefore. No disagree vehemently with this, but I'm one of those wierdos who flips between Fox and MSNBC.

6. Obama did what both parties felt was necessary re: the auto makers. I thought some large companies failing would put the rest on alert to fix their business practices. I was in the minority who wanted no part of TARP. I do have to give credit where credit is due. It did accomplish what the government was looking to accomplish.

7. This. No. Too simplified. Must discuss further.

8. Absolutely not. Our government is a representative republic. If a republican best represents a given district, an election will bear that out. What is needed, IMO, is a large viable third party to force the both major parties to sit down and coalition build. As a former registered Republican I do hold out hope that the Religious aspects of the Republican platform eventually get squeezed out.

webhead

04-13-2011, 08:10 PM

That sounds reasonable.
I oppose them en bloc.
There but for the grace of God go I.

Chuck Guiteau

04-13-2011, 11:40 PM

Can I ask you a question, Chuck? It's sort of off topic, but related. Do you know when changing one's opinion based upon new information suddenly became this terrible thing that no politician wants to be guilty of? What should be viewed as a sign of intelligence now gets dismissed as "flip-flopping." When did that happen? I've run for office and changed a rather large position (local police force versus out-sourced police) once I started to dig into the dollars and cents of the thing ( I wanted my city to have it's own police force until I saw the budget differences between an outsourced police model and a local police model). Would that be flip-flopping or making a decision taking into account new information?

It is perfectly acceptable (and often prudent) to change ones opinion or position when in possession of new, relevant material that has substantive impact on the original position. John Kerry (I assume it was my comment regarding “Kerry-esque” equivocations that prompted your question) however, has a long track record of such reversals of conscience. In view of the fact that they often seem to occur when he feels it will favor his own personal agenda, and equally often have derogatory consequences for those he has sworn to serve, lead, or protect, leads me to believe his motives were less than noble.

Chuck Guiteau

04-14-2011, 12:09 AM

I has occurred to me that it would be rude to ask off-topic questions of the OP without at least stating my positions, as well.

1. Too cut and dry. "Fat Cat" is not defined. I will say no so this can be expanded upon later with more accurate qualifiers

2. This should be expanded as it doesn't take into account that the first million or so isn't even taxed, with notable exceptions (401k, 403b, etc.). Having been through this process, I'm quite familiar with inheritance taxes. As it is presented in the OP, No, I'm against it. Too simplified. "Fat cats" needs better defining.

3. I'm all for healthcare insurers being involved in healthcare. What I object to is their anti-trust exemption. The exemption needs to be pulled.

4. Government run bank system? God no. I would like to discuss this further, though, as I do believe government oversight/regulation is in order.

5. 1st Amendment. Therefore. No disagree vehemently with this, but I'm one of those wierdos who flips between Fox and MSNBC.

6. Obama did what both parties felt was necessary re: the auto makers. I thought some large companies failing would put the rest on alert to fix their business practices. I was in the minority who wanted no part of TARP. I do have to give credit where credit is due. It did accomplish what the government was looking to accomplish.

7. This. No. Too simplified. Must discuss further.

8. Absolutely not. Our government is a representative republic. If a republican best represents a given district, an election will bear that out. What is needed, IMO, is a large viable third party to force the both major parties to sit down and coalition build. As a former registered Republican I do hold out hope that the Religious aspects of the Republican platform eventually get squeezed out.

1.I oppose this as the solutions (at least those expounded by the current administration) apply to all families who make over $250,000. This includes many small business owners (specifically “S” corp. owners ) who make this much on paper ( and are taxed at higher rates) but whose net incomes are considerably lower, leaving them little room for re-investment or expansion. The majority of new jobs ( 64% if I remember correctly) come from small businesses.
A much more reasonable alternative to a tax system that is already so complicated it requires a regiment of experts just to comprehend it is both available, fair, and cost efficient: The Fair Tax Initiative which does away with the concept of “income tax” and replaces it with a spending tax is such a suggestion.
I agree with you, both in principle (when you say “no“ to the original suggestion) and in fact when you point out that “fat cats” is far too nebulous a term. So is “Repig”, “neocon, and even “that wealthy 2% whose incomes exceed $250,000”, our current President used tonight. Such generalizations are valuable only as tools to create antipathy in the minds of target audiences for the purpose of propagandization.

2. I oppose the concept of inheritance tax, which often translates to a triple tax on many families. A tax when the capitol is acquired initially, a tax upon the death of the person acquiring it, and yet another tax to the recipient.
One of the groups most heavily burdened by this system are family businesses and farmers whose assets are subject to taxation upon the death of the head of household. On paper they often exceed the $5M exemption currently in place, but in reality much of this is chattel property and land that is vital to the continued existence of the enterprise, especially with farmers. The levy of an inheritance tax can result in the loss of the business.

3. The US currently has the best healthcare system in the world, which is why so many people from other countries with socialized healthcare systems (at least those who can afford it) come here when they need treatment rather than avail themselves of the healthcare system in own countries. The problem is not the system, it is the cost (which, apparently, even webhead agrees with).
There are alternatives that deal with the root cause which do not have the substantial impact (and almost certain reduction in the quality of care) that would result from nationalization.
30% of the premium you pay for healthcare goes to cover the cost of defensive medicine. If you ever have to go to an emergency room you will probably experience it yourself; I did five years ago when a $900 bill grew to a $5900 bill due to a procedure that was totally unnecessary save to insure that the hospital could use it to defend themselves against a possible civil suit in the event that I watched the ads during “Judge Judy“ while I was recuperating.
Reducing the premium cost by almost 1/3 would put us well in line with inferior systems at no reduction in quality. This can be accomplished at the stroke of a pen.
Inasmuch as we are saddled with a system that is under Federal oversight, an anti-trust exemption is unwise. However, despite webheads opinions to the contrary, there still remains the issue of whether or not the Federal government has the right to oversee the system to begin with, or whether that power rightfully belongs to the States. Local (State) control, where the citizens vote actually has much greater power would serve as a better method for preventing such abuse.

4. I also agree with you on this point. There are far too many historical models to lend weight to this position for one to ignore.
The government already has considerable oversight/ regulation of this industry. Part (not all, but part) of our current problem stemmed from government policies that allowed (and in some cases pressured) banks into making sub-prime loans that had no business ever being approved.

5. Agreed. The purpose of the 1st Amendment is not to protect your right to hear the things you agree with, it is to protect the other guys right to say things you don’t.
I also try and read (or watch) all sides of the issues, believing neither until I have verified the facts (at least as best I can). Huxley warned us in the 1950’s about the dangers of just listening to what you wanted to hear. “BNW Revisited” could be a playbook for the current media outlets.

6. I personally believe that if a business can’t stand on its on feet it needs to lie down and take a dirt nap, but I can understand that TARP was in response to extreme circumstances and will also concede that there was at least some positive benefit to President Obama’s decision to bail them out.
Nonetheless, as a general rule I oppose excessive government interference in business, and vehemently oppose nationalization of industry, which P6 promoted. This puts me at odds with many members of the left (and puts you at odds with them too, I suppose) including some who have commented on this board.

7. I oppose unionization of the public school system and am no fan of unionization in general. It is not that I am opposed to workers being paid a fair wage, it is that the collectivization process is prone to abuse and corruption. For every gain to the workers that unionization has produced, a step back has been taken to the economy at large. In states that allow it (such as California) if you wish to work in certain fields, you must bend a knee to the union or seek another form of employment. This has resulted in large portions of those industries leaving that state and taking the jobs with them, often to overseas markets.
The public school system has been intentionally flawed since its inception and a Federal Teachers Union promises little to improve the quality of education but much to further insinuate the federal government into out everyday lives.

8. I wholeheartedly concur with your assessment. Our founding fathers worked very hard to create a system that balanced itself. A minimum of two parties is necessary to effect this aim. There are more than few who do not share that viewpoint on this board, however. To them, the Republican party is the sum of all evil.

I also concur with your statement regarding the need for a viable third party. The center position, which the framers of the Constitution envisioned as the lynchpin of our system appears to be disappearing and we are in need of a focal point for its return.
I have no use for the Falwellian Religious Right, either. I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and consider them as fifth columnists within the party .

N.U.

04-14-2011, 09:48 AM

We disagree on the inheritance tax. I view the tax as being quite simple. People get taxed on money they earn, whether it be by lottery winnings or employment ("under the table" being the only exception). Why shouldn't they be taxed on money they inherit as well? They didn't earn it initially, which makes me view any inheritance money they have earned in much the same way gambling winnings are earned.

So, by my way of looking at things, taxing money "earned" by way of inheritance is no different than money "earned" by lottery, gambling, employment, dividends. Besides, all one need do is establish a iving trust and no inheritance taxes will ever be paid by those who "inherit" the trust. Yes, even us Democrats know of well-established tax-code loopholes, LOL.

As for anti-trust exemptions, the only two industries who enjoy this exemption are Major League Baseball and Health Care Insurers. So long as companies can operate in a collusive fashion (which they admittedly do), we will never know what a premium ever actually costs.

As for School systems. The issue at hand is schools now feel the need to merely "teach to the test" and nothing more. I give Delaware a lot of credit. Their teacher's union was top-heavy, so they offered early retirement at 25 years instead of making these folks wait until 30 years. Cleared out a lot of room for a new generations of teachers (while saving the state an a$$ton in pay/pension). They also test each grade based upon "what X class should be teaching" but without clearly defined areas of questioning. This has allowed teachers to not feel like they must teach to the test. They simply teach.

And we do agree that America has become almost too polarized for civil debate. We have lost our balance point. It has moved further and further to the right. How else can you explain a man whose policies are most decidedly centrist ("shotgun" centrist, but still centrist) being viewed by a significant portion of the voting public as a "commie pinko muslin leftist"?

Chuck Guiteau

04-14-2011, 01:09 PM

There but for the grace of God go I.

It is interesting that you chose to use this particular oath for your jibe, as it puts you at odds with the true author of the suggestions you seem to generally agree with.
That author was Karl Marx and all the suggestions outlined in the OP are taken directly from the Communist Manifesto, in particular section II, entitled Proletarians and Communists, an outline for a precursor to a socialist state. All I did was update the language so that it conformed to the colloquial used on this forum (and others like it).
Your response to the OP precisely points out what I meant in an earlier thread about how there has been a paradigm shift to the far left away from classical liberalism within the Democratic Party.

As to your comment that the Preamble to the Constitution was the basis for the Federal governments imposition of Social Security, how so?
The preamble is just that, a preamble, setting the stage for the text of the Bill of Rights (and presumably the later Amendments). It is the table, not the feast.
Unfortunately in the last 150 years or so the Federal Government has used the phrase “promote the general welfare” as carte blanche to usurp the powers of the State and the Individual almost at will. Even the most casual reading of Jefferson and the other framers of the Constitution show that this was never their intent.
Under the Constitution, the Federal government’s authority to promote the general welfare only applies to areas where the individual States lack the power or authority to provide a given service. Examples would be raising an Army (although that, technically, is a separate grant), or maintaining an interstate road system (which the individual states obviously could not do), etc. Those powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are granted to the States or the individual citizens per the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution is not a declaration of rights granted to the individual (and the States), those rights are held to be inherent. It is a proscription to prevent the Federal government from interfering with those inherent rights. Even President Obama agrees with this.

Considering that in the past thirty years or so the Federal government has used Social Security much in the same way an avaricious attorney uses an invalid clients trust account to fund his own lifestyle, there are any number of alternatives that would give the citizenry the same retirement backstop with less risk in the long run. I will also say here that probably the only thing I ever agreed with Al Gore on was the implementation of a “lockbox” for Social Security, but that idea would have prevented both sides from dipping into the fund any time they were in power, so it died before it ever took a breath.
All this considered, a State controlled retirement plan would both more precisely conform to the strictures of the Constitution and, by its nature, be less subject to abuse by the governing authority. Your vote counts 50 times more in the State government than it does in the Federal, and you at least know your local representatives. With the exception of Senator Isaakson who I see on a semi-regular basis, I only get to meet my Congressional representatives maybe once a year (if that), I live near my State legislators and see them regularly.
I can see no reason why, assuming that the government needs to be involved in an individuals plans for retirement to begin with, that the States could not provide as good, and probably a better, conservatorship for the retirement trust.

N.U.

04-14-2011, 01:55 PM

Chuck Guiteau

04-14-2011, 09:30 PM

Chuck, I think you might be confusing the Preamble being wielded like a a club with the Commerce clause, which most definitely has been wielded like a club by the federal government when it comes to States rights.

However, yes, "..promote the general welfare..." absolutely has been used as reasoning supporting Social Security, Medicare, Welfare/Unemployment, OSHA.

However, even you must acknowledge that Thomas Jefferson or, in the case of the Constitution, James Madison, could not have accounted for the future.

In his day, infantry were not equipped with superior equipment to the citizen farmer. Case in point, the Brown Bess (the British soldier's rifle) vs. the Kentucky long rifle (most common weapon used by the colonials during the Revolutionary War). The weapon used by the civilian was more accurate, and a higher muzzle velocity and longer range than the Brown Bess. One could not make this same argument today.

They couldn't account for abortion, a standing army, or many of our other truly modern issues. The Constitution, while written on vellum, has been treated like it is mad of wax, and our legislators have been stretching it further and further to try to account for issues the Constitution couldn't account for at all.

Thomas Jefferson wanted the Constitution rewritten every 19 years. Based upon actuarial tables at the time, that was the changing of the guard from one generation to the next. Nowadays, it might be every 30 years. The point being, Jefferson understood he lived in a 3mph world and couldn't fathom the speed which we move today.

I might recommend a decent podcast for you, since you keep referring to Jefferson. It's called The Thomas Jefferson hour. Think of Face the Nation, only it's Thomas Jefferson in the hotseat.

No, I meant the Preamble, specifically how the term “general welfare” is currently applied to cover the Federal Governments insinuation into areas such as those you have enumerated. I will agree, however, that the Commerce clause has also been abused even more callously.

I referred to Jefferson merely because he is better known and generally associated as a framer of the Constitution. Historically, James Madison contributed much more than Jefferson to the version finally ratified, and Hamilton’s influence is also worth mentioning although it was indirect.

None of these men attempted to read the future, but all were determined to create a government that was truly unique in its day and therefore chose the specific language of the Constitution with great care and deliberation. What is amazing is how well that wording has withstood the test of time. There is nothing I am aware of that would be archaic by today’s standards or even inappropriate. As witness we have had 16 additional amendments that will testify to its elasticity.

Technological advances to not necessarily equate to sociological advances and I fail to see any societal advances that antiquate the Constitution.
A standing army was organized within the first few years of its ratification, abortion was well known as early as the Roman Empire in the West, and though the framers couldn’t know what part these might play in the distant (to them) future, they purposely left the Constitution open ended to account for such contingency.

BTW, the rifle did not play as great a part in the Revolutionary War as popular myth would have it. The Continental Army was armed predominantly with musket, either Brown Bess Land Models captured from British Forces or French Charvilles later imported. While the rifle was employed by irregular forces who used whatever was available (and were usually routed after firing the first volley), and by certain special units, the musket was the better weapon (for the type of warfare being conducted) simply by it’s superior rate of fire. The musket could deliver three to four charges of buck and ball for every volley of rifle fire, and at ranges most engagements took place in, firepower domination was a much more important factor than accuracy.
The Americans won by utilizing novel tactics, and more than a little luck, with a huge assist by choosing an extremely opportune time to commence the fray.

Just as an aside, it is ironic how modern warfare came full circle after WWII with the advent of the assault rife and intermediate battle cartridge, where firepower dominance at relatively close ranges once again reigned as the determinant factor.

webhead

04-14-2011, 11:51 PM

It is interesting that you chose to use this particular oath for your jibe, as it puts you at odds with the true author of the suggestions you seem to generally agree with.
That author was Karl Marx and all the suggestions outlined in the OP are taken directly from the Communist Manifesto, in particular section II, entitled Proletarians and Communists, an outline for a precursor to a socialist state. All I did was update the language so that it conformed to the colloquial used on this forum (and others like it).
Your response to the OP precisely points out what I meant in an earlier thread about how there has been a paradigm shift to the far left away from classical liberalism within the Democratic Party.

As to your comment that the Preamble to the Constitution was the basis for the Federal governments imposition of Social Security, how so?
The preamble is just that, a preamble, setting the stage for the text of the Bill of Rights (and presumably the later Amendments). It is the table, not the feast.
Unfortunately in the last 150 years or so the Federal Government has used the phrase “promote the general welfare” as carte blanche to usurp the powers of the State and the Individual almost at will. Even the most casual reading of Jefferson and the other framers of the Constitution show that this was never their intent.
Under the Constitution, the Federal government’s authority to promote the general welfare only applies to areas where the individual States lack the power or authority to provide a given service. Examples would be raising an Army (although that, technically, is a separate grant), or maintaining an interstate road system (which the individual states obviously could not do), etc. Those powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are granted to the States or the individual citizens per the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution is not a declaration of rights granted to the individual (and the States), those rights are held to be inherent. It is a proscription to prevent the Federal government from interfering with those inherent rights. Even President Obama agrees with this.

Considering that in the past thirty years or so the Federal government has used Social Security much in the same way an avaricious attorney uses an invalid clients trust account to fund his own lifestyle, there are any number of alternatives that would give the citizenry the same retirement backstop with less risk in the long run. I will also say here that probably the only thing I ever agreed with Al Gore on was the implementation of a “lockbox” for Social Security, but that idea would have prevented both sides from dipping into the fund any time they were in power, so it died before it ever took a breath.
All this considered, a State controlled retirement plan would both more precisely conform to the strictures of the Constitution and, by its nature, be less subject to abuse by the governing authority. Your vote counts 50 times more in the State government than it does in the Federal, and you at least know your local representatives. With the exception of Senator Isaakson who I see on a semi-regular basis, I only get to meet my Congressional representatives maybe once a year (if that), I live near my State legislators and see them regularly.
I can see no reason why, assuming that the government needs to be involved in an individuals plans for retirement to begin with, that the States could not provide as good, and probably a better, conservatorship for the retirement trust.

Originally Posted by webhead
There but for the grace of God go I.

It is interesting that you chose to use this particular oath for your jibe, as it puts you at odds with the true author of the suggestions you seem to generally agree with.
That author was Karl Marx and all the suggestions outlined in the OP are taken directly from the Communist Manifesto, in particular section II, entitled Proletarians and Communists, an outline for a precursor to a socialist state. All I did was update the language so that it conformed to the colloquial used on this forum (and others like it).
Your response to the OP precisely points out what I meant in an earlier thread about how there has been a paradigm shift to the far left away from classical liberalism within the Democratic Party.

It would appear this reference to Karl Marx is wrong! It appears a guy by the name of John Bradford said in the 16th century, “There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford.” Subsequently the usage of the quote turned into “There, but for the grace of God, go I”. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Nice try, suggesting I agree with Karl Marx. Be certain – I have never read Karl Marx! But I have read information about Social Security, and I, for one, accept Social Security as one of the best federal programs ever enacted. If you don’t like Social Security, then don’t apply for it. Curiously, are you now receiving Social Security benefits?

As to your comment that the Preamble to the Constitution was the basis for the Federal governments imposition of Social Security, how so?

I will repeat what I wrote:

The Preamble of The Constitution of the United States is an introduction to the Constitution in which the Framers of the Constitution state what the purposes of the Constitution are, and to whom the Constitution was written to benefit.

Preamble:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Although the Preamble does not include any provision that is enforceable in Court, it does serve as a prime source from which I developed my political ideology. The Preamble specifies people, not corporations, created our form of government. Moreover, I interpret the phrase “promote the general welfare” to be one of the prime directives of the Constitution’s Framers, and I believe the inference to be “promote the general welfare of the people’.

Since I believe the federal government should be promoting the general welfare of the people, I believe only the Democratic Party strives to improve the lives of America’s people. And it has become very clear to me that the members of the Republican Party serves only the wealthy and corporations. It is as if the Republicans care only about the profits of corporations, and reducing the taxes paid by the wealthy, such as the Koch Brothers, who are big donors to Republicans. I see the Democrats being for the people, which is consistent with the Preamble, and I see the Republicans being for the wealthy and corporations, which is inconsistent with the Preamble.

A perfect example of this are the views held by each party towards Social Security. Democrats are for it, and Republicans are against it. What has reinforced my view that Social Security is good for Americans? What the Presidents of the United States have said about Social Security serves as the foundation of my belief that Social Security “promotes the general welfare” of the people of America. Here is what former Presidents have said, along with a brief history of Social Security:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The preamble is just that, a preamble, setting the stage for the text of the Bill of Rights (and presumably the later Amendments). It is the table, not the feast.
Unfortunately in the last 150 years or so the Federal Government has used the phrase “promote the general welfare” as carte blanche to usurp the powers of the State and the Individual almost at will. Even the most casual reading of Jefferson and the other framers of the Constitution show that this was never their intent.

I think you believe activist Judges and Justices and their decisions helped to promote what I believe is contained in the Preamble!

Under the Constitution, the Federal government’s authority to promote the general welfare only applies to areas where the individual States lack the power or authority to provide a given service. Examples would be raising an Army (although that, technically, is a separate grant), or maintaining an interstate road system (which the individual states obviously could not do), etc. Those powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are granted to the States or the individual citizens per the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution is not a declaration of rights granted to the individual (and the States), those rights are held to be inherent. It is a proscription to prevent the Federal government from interfering with those inherent rights. Even President Obama agrees with this.

The federal Courts and SCOTUS have ruled with decisions that include the Judges and Justices interpretation of what they deem to be the meaning of the content of the Constitution. I’m certain you know that decisions of SCOTUS become the “law of the land”.

Considering that in the past thirty years or so the Federal government has used Social Security much in the same way an avaricious attorney uses an invalid clients trust account to fund his own lifestyle, there are any number of alternatives that would give the citizenry the same retirement backstop with less risk in the long run. I will also say here that probably the only thing I ever agreed with Al Gore on was the implementation of a “lockbox” for Social Security, but that idea would have prevented both sides from dipping into the fund any time they were in power, so it died before it ever took a breath.
All this considered, a State controlled retirement plan would both more precisely conform to the strictures of the Constitution and, by its nature, be less subject to abuse by the governing authority. Your vote counts 50 times more in the State government than it does in the Federal, and you at least know your local representatives. With the exception of Senator Isaakson who I see on a semi-regular basis, I only get to meet my Congressional representatives maybe once a year (if that), I live near my State legislators and see them regularly.

Georgia, eh? Eureka!

I can see no reason why, assuming that the government needs to be involved in an individuals plans for retirement to begin with, that the States could not provide as good, and probably a better, conservatorship for the retirement trust.

I see differently! Repeating what I included in my post, including the remarks by three (3) Republican Presidents and one (1) SCOTUS Justice:

1930s

6/8/34 Federal legislation to promote economic security was recommended in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Message to Congress.

6/29/34 President Roosevelt created the Committee on Economic Security to study the problems related to economic security and to make recommendations for a program of legislation.

1/17/35 The Committee on Economic Security's recommendations were introduced in the 74th Congress.

4/19/35 The Social Security Act was passed in the House of Representatives, 372 to 33.

6/19/35 The Social Security Act was passed in the Senate by a vote of 77 to 6.

Abraham Lincoln
"(The purpose of government is) to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot do so well for themselves in their separate and individual capacities."

Theodore Roosevelt
"We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in state and nation for:. . .The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment, and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use." -- 1912

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
"In response to the need for protection from the complexities of our modern society, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance system was developed. . .It should remain the cornerstone of the government's programs to promote the economic security of the individual." -- 1/14/54

Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo (the Supreme Court case deciding the constitutionality of Social Security)
"The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near." (Helvering v. Davis, 301 u.s. 641). – 1937

Arthur J. Altmeyer
"Social security as a specific program is in essence simply a social budgeting of costs already being borne by the individual citizens of a nation. Whether they have a social security system or not, the citizens of every nation are confronted with the economic burdens of old age, premature death, physical and mental disability, sickness, and unemployment. These risks affect individual citizens unevenly and unpredictably. Apart from its preventive functions, a social security system spreads these costs more evenly among groups of people and over periods of time, thereby making bearable costs and losses which otherwise are unbearable and lead to destitution and want." -- June, 1943

President Harry Truman
"The passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 marked a great advance in our concept of the means by which our citizens, through their Government, can provide against common economic risks. . ." -- 5/24/48

Chuck Guiteau

04-15-2011, 04:07 AM

To webhead,

For a person who made the rather pretentious claim of intellectual superiority you seem to have a problem comprehending simple sentences.
I did not state that your quotation originated with Marx. Please re-read the passage. I claimed that your oath put you at odds with him. Marx was an atheist, your oath is an invocation to God’s grace. The suggestions in the OP were all taken from Marx’s Communist Manifesto and you appear to have agreed with most of them in your responses.
I tried to elicit definitive answers from you but your only response to a direct question was somewhat evasive, and although I can only speculate as to your reasons for doing so, N.U. seemed to have had no problem in giving forthright responses, so whatever your motives you obviously felt afraid to make an open declaration.
The responses you did give led me to post a query as to whether or not I understood your position and asked for clarification if I did not. You refused, stating only that you had “given them already“. A person who has been misunderstood and wishes to stand by his position would not have hesitated to make such misunderstandings known. I certainly didn’t when N.U. quite correctly pointed out that my wording in the OP to open a dialogue was imprecise. Instead of leaving it hanging and hoping to use it as an “out” further down the road, I apologized for my error and restated the question with what appears to be more clarity. Your answer, had this been a statement during an investigative interview or a case in open court would have been construed as an evasion. In an open debate in front of an audience the interpretation would be the same.
This leaves me to believe that I was correct in my assertion that you agree with most of the “suggestions” in the OP. If not, you’ve had ample opportunity to clarify any misconceptions in that regard by this late date.

And those “suggestions” most definitely are the works of Marx, irrespective of whether or not you are ignorant of the source.

Here is a link to the manifesto itself. Contained within this work (it’s not very long ,BTW) is every “suggestion” contained in the OP save P8 which is inherent in a Communist government (and declared outright in several of his other works, as well as the historical record of all Communist countries).

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Marx rails against the bourgeoisie which he defines as the wealthy industrial class, owners of the means of social production and wage employers. In other words, the very people you rail against. He also speaks out against political parties and governments in thrall to the bourgeoisie, labeling them as corrupt. Beginning to sound familiar?

In the manifesto a single party, the Communist Party, controls all means of production, all capital. In short, he parallels your stated views in regards to the Republican Party.
And the Communist party is destined to evolve from unions (which he considers the embryonic stage) through progressive socialism (the intermediary stage), to true Communism on a gradual basis.
I quote:

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

The ultimate goal of this gradual process is stated in “The Principles of Communism”:

Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society. In this way, most important of all, the evil consequences which are now associated with the conduct of big industry will be abolished.

He also states :

In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat…

Let’s see, you believe the wealthy industrialists control the Republican party, who are hopelessly corrupt (correct me if I’m misunderstanding you on this issue), and there are only two viable parties in existence in our country ( I don’t count the Libertarians as viable until they can at least field a candidate who doesn’t believe in UFO’s, and the Democratic Socialists already align themselves with the DNC), so who does that leave?
I’ll go out on a limb here and guess it’s the party you voted for in the last election. The one whose candidate espoused the core Marxist philosophies of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” and “redistribution of the wealth”.

Please note that I am not calling our President a Communist, I am pointing out the synoptic values which would, according to Marx, provide a “common cause”.

I have no need to suggest you agree with Marx, your own words are adequate for that.

As to Social Security, I still fail to see where you have definitively established a basis for the Federal governments prerogative to administer it over that of the States. You make a claim for its need, but that has not been disputed. Merely clogging the thread with cut and paste statements that affirm the necessity does not automatically prove they have the priority position in the matter. The 10th Amendment definitively grants all powers not specifically enumerated to the Government to the States.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Please show me where in the Constitution it grants such authority to administer Social Security specifically to the Federal government.

“The federal Courts and SCOTUS have ruled with decisions that include the Judges and Justices interpretation of what they deem to be the meaning of the content of the Constitution. I’m certain you know that decisions of SCOTUS become the “law of the land”.”

They don’t rule on the Constitution, they rule whether or not a law conforms to the Constitution. You are putting the cart before the horse unless you aware of any Supreme Court ruling that gives the Federal Government the right to administer SS over the States. If so, please cite, I would be interested to read it. You might want to inform the state of Texas as well. Certain State employees do not pay into Social Security and have their own retirement systems (The Texas Teachers Retirement System). The Texans appear to be reasonably happy with it, perhaps because it is liquid and not filled with IOU’s from the government. I think if there was a Supreme Court ruling or any legal basis for Federal preeminence they would like to be made aware of it.

In closing I’m not sure what you meant by “Georgia, eh? Eureka!”, although since you are apparently a product of the California public school system I suppose it entirely possible that it took you this long to find Georgia, even though we haven’t moved lately.
　
　

　