Sunday, February 27


Ex-House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) is advocating phasing out Social Security rather than saving it. And he sounds like a lying idiot while doing it.

"If it is such a great deal, why does the government have to make it mandatory," he said.

Well, once again a prominent Republican is defining Social Security as a means to personal savings, which it is not. Social Security is a tax, the revenues of which are dedicated to providing retirement and disability security for all Americans. As a tax it is of course mandatory. "Social Security is not a savings plan in which everyone gets back exactly what he or she paid in.  Since its creation during the Great Depression, Social Security has been a crucial safety net for senior citizens who have outlived their savings."

He added there will never be a class of destitute Americans who neglected to do their own investing.

Where did he get his crystal ball? How can he dare to make such a ridiculous statement? What planet, with what history, does he live on?

"That argument might make sense in terms of a Social Security that gave a good return," he said, adding the government takes 15 percent of Americans' income in the Social Security tax. "And then they have the audacity to complain that we working men and women don't save enough."

WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT? Only 6.2% of any American's wages are withheld for Social Security (employers pay the other 6.2%). The amount of 15% is ONLY for the self-employed, on up to $90,000 income. He's either a freaking liar or an uninformed idiot (I suggest both). And he's a former HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER!

Armey called Social Security the foundation stone of Democrats' New Deal and Great Society philosophies.

And this, of course, is the crux of the Republican motivation to destroy Social Security, the desire to remove the most successful and popular government program in American history from the Democratic resume.

A voice from America's youth makes some telling points about the attitudes of our young people, whom Bush is targeting with his "privatization" message:

Free-market policies and anti-government rhetoric have bred a New Economy that we know full well -- and firsthand -- means less security and more risk, whether you like it or not. Less than half of my generation has health benefits at work, and those lucky enough to get retirement benefits contribute to 401(k)s that, unlike defined-benefit plans, make no guarantees in return. We're right to be doubtful about the future of a social insurance program in the go-it-alone America we've inherited.
Of course, the reality of the Bush administration's privatization proposal is much less comforting, and if the whole truth were told, our support would undoubtedly dry up. When the reality of private accounts was explained to young adults in a new Rock the Vote/AARP poll, young respondents rejected them outright. We didn't want the guaranteed benefit to be cut for anyone -- as it would be, by as much as 40 percent for the average earner, under the administration plan, according to the Center for Economic Policy Research.

Those young survey respondents' reluctance to actually deliver the death knell to Social Security is a telling reflection of our generation's moral values (and, yes, we have them, too). The children of the New Economy have responded to the economic disparity and social insecurities in our schools, neighborhoods and workplaces with a backlash against government-bashing.

According to a 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, to a greater degree than any other age group, most Americans 18 to 29 years old -- 69 percent of us -- want bigger government with more services, and 63 percent believe that government ought to do everything possible to improve the standard of living for all Americans.


Blogger HL said...

Change the names and dates and you have the 4th century. These fools are still afraid of women.

11:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home