Quote:
Originally Posted by buggyone
SkyGuy writes: "It's all too obvious that you, Dale and other like minded people like to falsely spin things out of context to try and minimize and discredit positions expressed by those on the right. I and probably most views from the right do NOT advocate the elimination of Social Security and Medicare and your spinning will NOT mask the fact that we think that spending should be controlled and not subject to bastardization of the distributions of those supposedly dedicated funds to the non-contributors that were never intended to receive a free handout when those programs began."
In other words, I want my lifetime Social Security benefits (more than I ever paid into the program) and lifetime Medicare benefits (both started from Democrat Presidents) but do not give any government assistance to needy people. Let them live in a refrigerator carton under a bridge and eat from a dumpster.
|
In other words? No! Don't put words into my mouth. I'll gag on the intentional spin put into them.
Social Security was not intended to give assistance to people in the way you are misleading people to believe. IMO your words were solely designed to discredit me! SS was intended to provide assistance to the elderly, their spouses & children in the event of their early death and contributors that become disabled.
To fully understand the intent of SS you would have to learn the history and evolution of social insurance from the time America was English Colonies up to the present time, and you can do that at
Social Security Online if you really care to know the real truth.
I'm not going into a discussion on what's at that site partially because I couldn't possible do justice to the information it describes and because those on the left probably wouldn't believe me anyway no matter how true it is. But I will give you this excerpt from it that pretty much sums up the intention from when Roosevelt did sign it into law:
"Social insurance, as conceived by President Roosevelt, would address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed. Thus it was an alternative both to reliance on welfare and to radical changes in our capitalist system. In the context of its time, it can be seen as a moderately conservative, yet activist, response to the challenges of the Depression."
In the future I'm going to be more selective on what I reply to. I don't have the time or energy to deal with messages designed with a purpose like this one was! Why I'm even surprised that you didn't suggest that I wanted to bring back the hobos!