AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)
...
[1.6 Expansion and evolution
1.6.1 1939 Amendments
1.6.2 Amendments of the 1950s
1.6.3 Amendments of the 1960s
1.6.4 Amendments of the 1970s
1.6.5 Amendments of the 1980s
1.6.6 The Supreme Court and the evolution of Social Security
1.6.7 Dates of coverage for various workers]
...
Medicare was added in 1965 by the Social Security Act of 1965, part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" program. Social Security was changed to withdraw funds from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund for additional congressional revenue.
...
The government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968. This change resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activity.[44] The surplus in Social Security trust funds offsets the total debt, making it appear much smaller than it otherwise would.
...
During the Carter administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil and energy crises, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1%, compared to 3.2% during the 1960s. There was also a growing federal budget deficit which increased to $66 billion. The 1970s are described as a period of stagflation, meaning economic stagnation coupled with price inflation, as well as higher interest rates. Price inflation (a rise in the general level of prices) creates uncertainty in budgeting and planning and makes labor strikes for pay raises more likely.

These underlying negative trends were exacerbated by a colossal mathematical error made in the 1972 amendments establishing the COLAs. The mathematical error which overcompensated for inflation was particularly detrimental given the double-digit inflation of this period, and the error led to benefit increases that were nowhere near financially sustainable.

The high inflation, double-indexing, and lower than expected wage growth was financial disaster for Social Security.

1977 Amendments
To combat the declining financial outlook, in 1977 Congress passed and Carter signed legislation fixing the double-indexing mistake. This amendment also altered the tax formulas to raise more money,[46] increasing withholding from 2% to 6.15%.[47] With these changes, President Carter remarked, "Now this legislation will guarantee that from 1980 to the year 2030, the Social Security funds will be sound."[48] This turned out not to be the case. The financial picture declined almost immediately and by the early 1980s, the system was again in crisis.

I've posted ideas and proposals from a number of sources and since you (and others) ignored or blew them off then, I won't waste my time doing that again.

And you object to labeling Obama's initiative "Obamacare?" Are you suggesting he isn't going on television in a couple of hours or so to promote just that? Why do you think calling it "Obamacare" is offensive? Give me a well reasoned, articulated reason for why it is offensive, and I'll apologize and cease and desist from using the term.

Are you sure he's wrong though? Are you really that secure that he is off base in his analysis of our current situation?

Foxfyre wrote:

I've posted ideas and proposals from a number of sources and since you (and others) ignored or blew them off then, I won't waste my time doing that again.

Have you posted a single idea for 'reform' that didn't revolve around cutting taxes?

I only ask, because nobody takes those ideas seriously, when it comes to actually reforming the system.

Quote:

And you object to labeling Obama's initiative "Obamacare?" Are you suggesting he isn't going on television in a couple of hours or so to promote just that? Why do you think calling it "Obamacare" is offensive? Give me a well reasoned, articulated reason for why it is offensive, and I'll apologize and cease and desist from using the term.

It's the same reason you bunch called the last attempt 'Hillarycare'; by putting the name of a polarizing figure on it, you create a boogeyman designed to scare people. It sounds much worse than 'Health Care Reform.' And please, don't act like an idiot, you know exactly what you are doing and why you are doing it.

Quote:

Are you sure he's wrong though? Are you really that secure that he is off base in his analysis of our current situation?

It's pure hyperbole. There is no base (or basis of fact) to be on or off.

So is it completely out of the question that those very social programs have created a dependency? A dependency on benefits that people are reluctant or afraid to give up for fear their life will be even worse if they do?

Well I may be an idiot,

but you don't have a clue what I intend by Obamacare or what I intended by Hillarycare.

But I can assure you that the majority of Americans did not want Hillarycare, but it did create enough concern that the GOP took control of the House and Senate in the next election for the first time in like forever. We can only hope that Obamacare, which most Americans also do not want, will create enough concern that we can replace a large number of irresponsible liberal Democrats and RINOs in the next election.

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre, quoting Mark Steyn in red, so you know it must be important, wrote:

If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority.

This is a major point, and so it's a good thing that Steyn provided several historical examples of permanent electoral majorities being formed in this manner. Well, he provided at least one example. Oh wait ... never mind.

Actually I believe he did provide some actual examples

I'm debating the issue of whether Steyn made a valid point about voters and government dependency now.

Foxfyre wrote:

I've posted ideas and proposals from a number of sources and since you (and others) ignored or blew them off then, I won't waste my time doing that again.

Have you posted a single idea for 'reform' that didn't revolve around cutting taxes? I only ask, because nobody takes those ideas seriously, when it comes to actually reforming the system.

Yes. As I have not proposed cutting taxes ever in reference to healthcare reform and not a single proposal I have posted related to healthcare reform has included cutting taxes.

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm debating the issue of whether Steyn made a valid point about voters and government dependency now.

debating "points", ah yes, in debate club, a point was always the same as a concept

Show me something (anything) in Steyn's piece that indicates he's "for health care reform" in any way. He states, "Once it’s in place, it will be “reformed”, endlessly, but it will never be undone. " Isn't that what you're proposing as a positive? Incremental, "endless" reforms?

="Foxfyre"]Ican, would you comment on this paragraph written by Mark Steyn?

The end-game is very obvious. If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority. By “dependent”, I don’t mean merely welfare, although that’s a good illustration of the general principle. In political terms, a welfare check is a twofer: you’re assuring the votes both of the welfare recipient and of the vast bureaucracy required to process his welfare. But extend that principle further, to the point where government intrudes into everything: a vast population is receiving more from government (in the form of health care or education subventions) than it thinks it contributes, while another vast population is managing the ever expanding regulatory regime (a federal energy-efficiency code, a government health bureaucracy) and another vast population remains, nominally, in the private sector but, de facto, dependent on government patronage of one form or another " say, the privately owned franchisee of a government automobile company, or the designated “community assistance” organization for helping poor families understand what programs they’re eligible for. Either way, what you get from government " whether in the form of a government paycheck, a government benefit or a government contract " is a central fact of your life.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage.

THE CHANGE THAT IS TRULY REQUIRED
Too many Americans have discovered how to vote themselves money from federal government tax revenues. They do this by electing candidates who ignore our Constitution and promise to vote and do vote these Americans money from federal government tax revenues. As a result we are losing our freedom and abundance to our envy and resentment, and ultimately to our dependency and bondage.

To stop and reverse this damnable trend, we must find and support candidates who shun the politics of envy and resentment for the politics of freedom; for the politics of securing our God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are secured when we support our Constitution. Who among the future candidates will shun the politics of envy and resentment for the politics of freedom and support of our Constitution? Indeed, who among all of us Americans will shun the politics of envy and resentment for the politics of freedom and support of our Constitution?

For us to be true Americans, we must root for everyone to become the best they can be, and we must stop seeking to suppress those who accomplish more than we do. We are all made better off when any among us lawfully make themselves better off. We are all made worse off when any among us unlawfully make others worse off.