The American flag..

SS is valid , and responsible for millions of elderly and disabled persons having some modicum of quality life...Let's hope you never grow old, or disabled...it's bad enough not having even a vestige of a heart.

I was referring the enormous detriment it will become when it bankrupts this nation, and nobody has any measure of social welfare. Let's not be so quick to judge shall we?

Freeman if the social security funds had not been borrowed on over the decades and been left in safe investments like bonds. The SS fund would now be one of the richest on earth held privately or by governments and it would well be able to cover all its obligations . It was designed that way. Just because wicked men have robbed it does not mean they should not pay that money back. Which really means wicked men have robbed your generation , because now it falls to you to pay back what they stole.

That's my point. SS has failed because government is inherently corrupt, and our founders understood this principle (hence the fragmentation of what little power the federal government was actually granted). The premise was noble, the implementation failed, and my challenge was to name government action that has not hurt, or has benefitted Americans. SS has obviously failed as a concept due to inept government action. This is why I like it when Congress and the President do nothing (unless they're cutting spending and government departments), they can't do any harm if they just sit there.

I am more than willing to allow them to collect government salary in exchange for no legislation. It's cheaper than the garbage they'd otherwise pump out.

Well this is one way to look at it freeman.

But your way will not alleviate suffering and that is what I am concerned with.

Private Charity is more efficient, voluntary, and generally helps those who actually need it (as opposed to scammers claiming diability for 10 years at age 35). Lower taxes, and encourage private charity. When the government taxes some and gives to others, that is theft. Only I may give my money to another person.

I have been involved in private charities for at least 25 years. I have been on school boards and worked in my communities. I work in nursing homes , childrens homes and boys and girls clubs. I know private charities.

I can tell you without a doubt Freeman that if you ever find yourself in need do not count on private charity. They cannot even begin to cover 1/4 the need out there, nor do they want to. the desire to do so is a big problem.

You know for at least a 100 years well to do families cut all the buttons off their used clothes they gave to charity. Why you might ask? .... Button shortage ? would be a good guess. But that would be incorrect.

They cut the buttons off so that to wear the clothes people would have to sew back on mis mastched buttons and could be set apart as poor and lower class.

I think even you Freeman understand that if you depend on human nature to help the needy you are delusional.... Or at best naive!

But your way will not alleviate suffering and that is what I am concerned with.

And when have we gone to war under the right reasons? Heck WWII was a lie in the fact that Pearl Harbor never needed to happen. America, has lied to the people or allowed things to happen so the public buys the idea. And I can live with that. But today the lies have us in a head lock and the leader trying to beat both sides. The people and the terrorist. So I am not good with todays open lies! I liked it when they sugar coated the lies and got my nod. Like ask not what your country can do for you. But ask what you can do for the country. I loved the man who said these words. But it made the Gulf of Tonkin believable and got me into a government S.E. Asia vacation!
One reason I am trying to get AMERICAFIRST to see with both eyes open and a clear mind.
And I believe every Americasn should serve a stint in the Military, so they have some more respect for self and others! That they become better citizens from serving, for many reasons and all to make them better Americans.

Freeman is a very intelligent young man. One who has yet to learn that he is not a island. And one that needs to learn compassion for others.

I pray he learns that lesson easily and does not have to be brought to his knees to learn it. Because compassion for others is a lesson God insists we learn , no matter how hard the learning is.

Oh, I find that last paragraph interesting..."every American should serve a stint in the military"???? I'd say that should be true, provided, the military and the US government are "honest brokers"....and not set on embarking on imperialistic ventures, "ill-conceived", "poorly planned", and benefiting a select few (government contractors, corporations, the rich, and power brokers), with little regard for human life and suffering.
Vietnam was a reckless venture...I went 1-A, for a year, but my draft number wasn't called (it was in the 200's)...had I been called, I would have been a C.O., as I would not have engaged in combat....it would have been against my religious conviction. And I say that with certain pride.

I too agree but my main point is our youth need direction for the most part. And more importantly if each Senator/Congressman/President has a child in service just maybe what you pointed out will be true and they will use all means to settle what ever disput before going to shooting. do you agree?

I was referring the enormous detriment it will become when it bankrupts this nation, and nobody has any measure of social welfare. Let's not be so quick to judge shall we?

Excuse me....but I wish I had been "quicker"....
I have no regard for your position....your lack of compassion is glariingly apparent.

So a small bump in welfare for some people NOW, followed by a sharp decline in the welfare of ALL later. Your position is reactionary and fiscally flawed.

Private Charity is more efficient, voluntary, and generally helps those who actually need it (as opposed to scammers claiming diability for 10 years at age 35). Lower taxes, and encourage private charity. When the government taxes some and gives to others, that is theft. Only I may give my money to another person.

And you were Marie Antoinette, in another life. And I would be your Robespierre.

The execution of Louis XVI

In December 1792 personal disputes were overshadowed by the question of the king's trial. Here Robespierre took the position that the king must be executed. In his speech on December 3 he said:

"This is no trial; Louis is not a prisoner at the bar; you are not judges; you are — you cannot but be — statesmen, and the representatives of the nation. You have not to pass sentence for or against a single man, but you have to take a resolution on a question of the public safety, and to decide a question of national foresight. It is with regret that I pronounce, the fatal truth: Louis ought to perish rather than a hundred thousand virtuous citizens; Louis must die, so that the country may live."

Robespierre argued that the king, having betrayed the people when he tried to flee the country—and indeed, as Robespierre said, in having been a King in the first place—was a danger to the state as a unifying symbol for the enemies of the Republic.

Your positions are so predictable and typical...are you that boring in real life?

Quit winning we each pay our share. And I haven't seen one person on SS go without their check so how is it a loss? Sure some get by and get undeserved money. So stop spouting chap and go find and report them. And can you do something about the millions wasted each day to contractors and swindles pet projects to the home front etc., etc.

That is not to say the above shouldn't be done also.

My position is supported by the US Comptroller General. We simply cannot afford the social programs that currently comprise the largest portion of the federal budget (yes, including defense). Your reference to the French Revolution is completely irrelevant, because unlike the peasantry of France during the latter eighteenth century, only a minute portion of Americans live in poverty as a direct result of government action.

Social Security, along with all government-sponsored social welfare programs WILL bankrupt this country. They simply can't be afforded. France and Germany, who have nowhere near as ambitious a foreign policy as the US can't afford it, and consistently run a $2-3 billion deficit. It simply doesn't work.

I'm all for PRIVATE, VOLUNTARY CHARITY. The government's job is to protect your rights to life, liberty, and your justly acquired property from initiated force, period.

I'm actually quite interesting in real life. I ride my motorcycle all across Texas, meet interesting people everyday, have sex with my lady on a pretty regular basis, and read quite a bit of literature on foreign relations and international fiscal policy (a carry-over from my college days). Thanks for asking, it's always nice when somebody takes an interest. Are you interesting in real life? Do tell.

Edit:

Oh, and HERE is proof. You know, that which you never seem to provide.
U.S. Heading For Financial Trouble?, Comptroller Says Medicare Program Endangers Financial Stability - CBS News

Social Security, solvency and political spin - Eye on the Economy - MSNBC.com
Social Security, solvency and political spin
How credible are President Bush's dire predictions?

ANALYSIS
By Martin Wolk
Chief economics correspondent
MSNBC
Updated: 3:20 p.m. PT Jan 14, 2005

In its 70-year history, Social Security has faced dire predictions, including the threat of insolvency. In the mid-1970s and again in the 1980s, the program faced staggering projections of short-term and long-term deficits and came within months of depleting its reserve funds.

In 1977, changes were made that were supposed to keep the system solvent well into the 21st century. But after five tumultuous years Congress and President Reagan were forced to confront the issue again. This time a bipartisan group of lawmakers and business leaders, under the direction of Alan Greenspan, came up with a solution that put the system on a path that is projected to keep it solvent until 2042 or 2052, according to the most widely accepted estimates.

Nancy Altman, who was an aide to Greenspan on the Social Security commission, remembers ?exactly the same kind of hype? as we are seeing today. ?It was exactly the same ? the sky is falling,? said Altman.


The difference is that the problems facing the system in the 1980s were truly urgent. "It really was a crisis," said Mary Falvey, a member of the Greenspan commission. She remembers being told that Congress had to act by April 1983 to keep the Social Security checks from grinding to a halt two months later.

This time around, Social Security is years away from anything that honestly could be described as a financial crisis. But that has not stopped President Bush from trying to whip up enthusiasm for his proposed personal retirement accounts by warning of an imminent disaster.

?If you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now,? he said Tuesday at a forum on Social Security. The stark choice of words was hardly a slip of the tongue ? Bush used the word ?bankrupt? five times in the 45-minute session.

He also warned of a potentially ?bankrupt? system in a radio address last month, referring to demographic changes that signal a ?looming danger.?

?In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes,? Bush said.

That is just plain wrong. In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll, with the gap reaching $10 billion in 1983. So the projected ?crossover? point in 2018 is a relatively meaningless milestone, say opponents of Bush?s privatization plans, even as they acknowledge the system faces long-term problems.

Bush?s statements ?appear designed to further a widespread perception, especially among younger people, that Social Security will entirely collapse and that there will be nothing for them when they retire,? said Bob Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The White House press office did not return phone calls seeking an explanation.

Greenstein referred to a memo written this month by Peter Wehner, Bush?s director of strategic initiatives, who told conservative supporters that the White House is aiming to convince the public that ?the current system is heading for an iceberg.?

?That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform,? according to the leaked memo, whose authenticity was confirmed by the White House.

The emphasis on 2018 by Bush and other officials relies on ?either an implication or very often an explicit statement? that the Social Security trust funds have no real assets, Greenstein said. Try telling that to the Social Security trustees, including Treasury Secretary John Snow, who offer a detailed list of government securities they hold, paying up to 9.25 percent interest and totaling more than $1.6 trillion.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal published this week, President Bush acknowledged that the initial debate on Social Security will be over ?whether there's a problem at all.?

?This administration firmly believes there is a problem; and not only that, believes that once we recognize the problem, we have a duty to do something about it,? Bush said in the interview.

Indeed there are some political leaders and even economists who believe Social Security can survive in its current form. They point out that Social Security actuaries and Congressional Budget Researchers who have studied the problem have factored in relatively conservative figures for economic growth and immigration.

But most advocates of the current Social Security program acknowledge the system faces a long-term financing problem.

?There is obviously a problem,? said Greenstein. ?There is a long-term shortfall. There is a need to take action on it.?

Even the AARP, the powerful lobbying group for older Americans, recognizes that changes need to be made. At a Brookings Institution forum this week John Rother, AARP's point man on the subject, suggested raising the wage cap on Social Security payroll taxes, currently at $90,000, and bringing into the system some of the few employees not covered by it. Raising the wage cap alone could close 40 percent of the financing gap, he said.

?I'm certainly not part of the head-in-the-sand school,? he said. ?Our view is we should do this (i.e. make any necessary changes) sooner rather than later.?

By exaggerating the severity of Social Security?s problems, Bush risks alienating even many of those who might be inclined to support some version of the voluntary personal accounts he is so determined to push through as a central plank in his new ?ownership society.?

He might do well to heed the advice of President Reagan, who chose to leave the future of Social Security largely in the hands of a commission that included representatives of both parties and appointees from both houses of Congress.

"For too long, too many people dependent on Social Security have been cruelly frightened by individuals seeking political gain through demagoguery and outright falsehood, and this must stop," Reagan said. "The future of Social Security is much too important to be used as a political football."
? 2007 MSNBC Interactive

As far as being "interesting in real life"...you'd have to ask my many friends and associates...I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that I am anything that I am not. I wound up with a college-level job, after a year at University of Houston, in pre-med, which I held for 15 years.
Now, I'm retired and pursuing my artistic and creative interests, writing, music and performance..I am acutely interested in politics and the arts...so I would say, with reservation, that I lead an interesting life...thanks for asking.
Oh, by the way....I posted the documentation you say was not forthcoming from me. Cheers.
TMI on your sex life.