Armed and dangerous Hispanics -- help wanted!

[midcan5]

Doug, I don't disagree that every (?) person who led a so called socialist state did not turn it into something very much different. I don't think I argued that socialism was a good thing, I think of it more as an ingredient. My point was you simplified it as government - always the bogeyman.

This is a point we are in agreement on, I would not trust the socialism salesman any more than a democracy salesman, Hitler called his Reich a democracy.

Chomsky is a critic, his observations are often brilliant, whether he could find or create workable solutions I doubt. The qualities of leadership are rare and the application of power maybe a harder task. Zinn is a more honest spokesman in the sense that he lived a war, he worked in civil rights. When he speaks he speaks from a life not an idea.

Look only at how America has changed since 911, American values of cooperation and respect for individual freedom, for open communication, and for democratic principles have changed over one successful foreign act of terrorism. Could our democracy collapse or fall into a state similar to other nations (socialist even) that do not establish checks and balance, term limits, a strong legal system, a written constitution, and a strong middle class? Probably. We were kinda lucky in the formation of this nation. The historic period, the ideas, and some pretty smart people who worked together made an excellent stew.

Socialism like democracy are ideas that some have about how we should govern, doesn't mean we follow them lock stock and barrel. American democracy started with slavery, it was over a hundred years before woman had certain rights, or blacks. Even today the equal amendment would not pass.

But I am sort of a socialist in the sense that society should operate for its citizens and not for vested or monied interests only.

Lincoln huh, well, what can I say, even Lincoln in his rhetoric to stir up a nation can use nationalistic jargon during a time of great difficulty - it is not the words maybe but their use.

Next question - I am still too busy with work if I don't answer right away.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Doug, I don't disagree that every (?) person who led a so called socialist state did not turn it into something very much different. I don't think I argued that socialism was a good thing, I think of it more as an ingredient. My point was you simplified it as government - always the bogeyman.

This is a point we are in agreement on, I would not trust the socialism salesman any more than a democracy salesman, Hitler called his Reich a democracy.

Chomsky is a critic, his observations are often brilliant, whether he could find or create workable solutions I doubt. The qualities of leadership are rare and the application of power maybe a harder task. Zinn is a more honest spokesman in the sense that he lived a war, he worked in civil rights. When he speaks he speaks from a life not an idea.

Look only at how America has changed since 911, American values of cooperation and respect for individual freedom, for open communication, and for democratic principles have changed over one successful foreign act of terrorism. Could our democracy collapse or fall into a state similar to other nations (socialist even) that do not establish checks and balance, term limits, a strong legal system, a written constitution, and a strong middle class? Probably. We were kinda lucky in the formation of this nation. The historic period, the ideas, and some pretty smart people who worked together made an excellent stew.

Socialism like democracy are ideas that some have about how we should govern, doesn't mean we follow them lock stock and barrel. American democracy started with slavery, it was over a hundred years before woman had certain rights, or blacks. Even today the equal amendment would not pass.

But I am sort of a socialist in the sense that society should operate for its citizens and not for vested or monied interests only.

Lincoln huh, well, what can I say, even Lincoln in his rhetoric to stir up a nation can use nationalistic jargon during a time of great difficulty - it is not the words maybe but their use.

Next question - I am still too busy with work if I don't answer right away.

Bullshit. 911 reminded us we have enemies that COULD reach us even in America. I keep waiting for someone to list all the rights we have lost. No one can actually provide any real one. The Courts still protect us, we still have all our rights and we still have the vote and access to Government and the Courts. Hell even the non citizens captured in a foreign country fighting against us have access to our courts.

 

[trobinett]

Bullshit. 911 reminded us we have enemies that COULD reach us even in America. I keep waiting for someone to list all the rights we have lost. No one can actually provide any real one. The Courts still protect us, we still have all our rights and we still have the vote and access to Government and the Courts. Hell even the non citizens captured in a foreign country fighting against us have access to our courts.

Wait, you don't mean, that we actually are doing something RIGHT?

This will surelly piss off some, maybe ALL, of the "cut and run" crowd.

Great post RGS!

 

[Doug]

MidCan: By your definition of socialism, every single person I know, including the most hard-hearted rightwing ultra-conservative, is a socialist.

But using the word that way robs us of a useful distinction, between those who believe that the road to human happiness requires very extensive state ownership of the economy, and those who do not.

Mind you, there are more than a few conservatives who like to call liberals, socialists. But you need not imitate them in this error.

As for Noam Chomsky. I know that many liberals love him. But I wonder if they have really studied closely, what he says. Your general, admirable skepticism about "salesmen" of both socialism, and democracy, would serve you well in your assessment of this salesman of ... whatever his system is. (He is coy about what should replace our system of democratic capitalism.)

In particular, you ought to read some of the criticisms of Chomsky's scholarship, which is not so meticulous as you might think. Many people are bowled over when they see a lot of footnotes -- but he is often a shoddy polemicist, who rips his quotes out of context. There are numerous examples of this, and they are so egregious that not only conservatives are aware of them.

Have a look at [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Chomsky-Reader-Peter-Collier/dp/189355497X/ref=sr_1_3/103-9655811-7155832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192380657&sr=8-3]<b>The Anti-Chomsky Reader</b>[/ame], or at least read[ame=http://newcriterion.com:81/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm] Keith Windshuttle's observations[/ame] about Chomsky. (I don't endorse everything written in <b>The Anti-Chomsky Reader</b> by the way. But most of it is sound.)

Here is [another fellow/url] who doesn't think much of Chomsky's scholarship on Cambodia.

What Chomsky does have is the absolute self-assurance that I have found many very clever people to have, and also many wealthy people who were born to rule. They brook no disagreement with their assertions, and dismiss each and every critic as beneath their contempt. It can be intimidating, but you should not be impressed too much. It's probably genetic.

If you don't fancy my conservative rebuttals above, at least read[url=http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/chomsky.html] this assessment of Chomsky by a liberal Berkeley economics professor, and/or this one by another leftwinger. Both make essentially the same point: Chomsky has, at a high level, the outlook of a paranoid: every event must be the result of a conscious conspiracy by our wicked rulers.

And this includes, in Chomsky's view, such men as FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton: he would try them all for war crimes -- do you really want to endorse such a man? I know you would like to try Mr Bush, but do you really hate yourselves? Are liberals masochists?

As for Howard Zinn -- I honor him for his courageous service as in the Air Force during the Second World War. I hope had I been old enough to fight at that time, that I would have too.

Too bad he thinks he, and we, were wrong to resist Hitler.

I also honor him for his activities in the Civil Rights movement, but my feelings are tempered by the fact that I was active in it too, in the South for several years.

I wonder if he thinks we were right to resist racism, since he has changed his mind on resisting Nazi-ism.

Now as for Zinn's book .... well, another time.

 

[William Joyce]

Yes, DeadCanDance, I am a conservative Bush-voter.

I am against illegal immigration, or illegal coming-here-for-whatever-reason. And I am especially against it if it rapidly changes -- as it is -- the racial/cultural balance here. (Yes, race and culture are linked, but only loosely, and the relationship is dynamic and can change over time. )

I do not pretend that I would oppose it nearly as much if the illegal aliens were Canadians.

We should not pussy-foot around this issue. On another thread William Joyce put the cat among the pigeons on this issue, and it evoked a lot of pious evasions.

I don't want to see the Balkanization of the United States. Societies are not just collections of individuals. Social cohesion and the nominal committment of a polity's citizens to an abstract set of principles is not enough to make a healthy nation: you need some mystic chords stretching from every patriot grave into the hearts of its people.

If -- as I hope happens -- over the next few decades, Mexico grows economically, makes poverty an exception rather than the rule among its people, grows a big middle class, crushes the drug gangs which rule Northern Mexico, and most importantly sees the idea of the rule of law really take root in its culture -- if, to put it in a nutshell, Mexico becomes more like Costa Rica, or better yet just a Canada where they speak Spanish -- then my opposition to mass immigration from that country would diminish in proportion.

But having said that ... I have noticed on this Board some pretty ugly stuff about Mexicans en toto, along with barely-concealed, or not-concealed-at-all, sighs for a mythical all-white country which has never existed and never will exist. Not from the great majority of posters, but from some, who may wrongly be identified as conservatives. Conservatives have a duty -- and an intrest -- to repudiate this filth.

People who broadcast this sort of poison are doing far more towards the Balkanization of the United States than someone who comes over to work in a chicken-gutting factory or to look after your children.

The genius of America is that it can assimilate a wide range of people -- including people far more culturally alien than our Roman Catholic neighbors.

This is not some mystical power we have, but rather is a natural process: people come to a country where they are accepted and given the opportunity to flourish, a country where the government is in the hands of the people and not of some oppressive aristocracy ... and it is entirely natural that they will grow to love that country.

But there are other psychological and social realities in play at the same time.

So we must not strain the natural process of assimilation by trying to mix in too many newcomers at any one time, and we have to keep an idea on the prior loves and loyalties of new immigrants. (If the poor Christian Mexicans coming here were poor Muslim Pakistanis, I would be even more worried, since religious loyalties can trump national ones pretty easily.)

Plus there is the fact that immigrants coming here in the first part of the Twentieth Century were coming to a country which was proud of itself and its history.

Today, immigrants come to a country whose liberal intelligentsia is ashamed of it. They have a good chance of being taught in a school whose teachers were trained in an Ed School where Howard Zinn's book is the text.

However, assimilation can happen, and the men above give irrefutable proof of that. They loved their country, warts and all.

Whether they would do the same again if they had been raised in an America subjected to the continuous insidious propaganda of the America-hating Left is an open question.

So consider my post a shot at both the racists and the hard Left.

You tantalize and scandalize with acknowledgment of some role for race and ethnicity, but I set the absorption powers of America lower. At some point, assimilation morphs into replacement. That's what's going on now. Italians are racially similar enough to Irish and English to assimilate. Most Hispanics are not. That's my bottom line. The people of Mexico run along a racial continuum from mostly European (if not all) to mostly indigenous. The indigenous peoples are genetically sharply different from white, or European-derived, peoples. That means that either 1) they won't blend - much less get along in a society or 2) their blending is dysgenic for whites. Yes, yes... scary stuff, I know, but am I wrong? The "whiter" a Hispanic area is, the better it is... look at Chile and Costa Rica (comparatively white) in contrast with Bolivia or southern Mexican states like Chiapas. It's predictable like clockwork. Look at Mexico's ruling class: they're mostly white. Not, probably, because they're so evil, but because cream rises to the top, if you will. Or even if you won't.

You complain that conservatives have a "duty" to "repudiate" this "filth," but don't worry, guy --- they HAVE, and HOW. You won't find many power-level conservatives who will say race is real, much less openly stand up for white people. Those who do/did have been drummed out of "respectable" conservative circles. But you will note that ever since, "conservatives" haven't really conserved much of anything.

Facts don't change. But power-holders --- and message-shapers --- DO. Race continues to be a reality. Racial groups do indeed differ in their abilities, intelligence, etc., and the consequences this has for social policy are PROFOUND. Once upon a time, this was widely acknowledged. Today we are forbidden from even thinking the thought. But again, that doesn't change the reality. That abides.

 

[Annie]

Yes, DeadCanDance, I am a conservative Bush-voter.

I am against illegal immigration, or illegal coming-here-for-whatever-reason. And I am especially against it if it rapidly changes -- as it is -- the racial/cultural balance here. (Yes, race and culture are linked, but only loosely, and the relationship is dynamic and can change over time. )

I do not pretend that I would oppose it nearly as much if the illegal aliens were Canadians.

We should not pussy-foot around this issue. On another thread William Joyce put the cat among the pigeons on this issue, and it evoked a lot of pious evasions.

I don't want to see the Balkanization of the United States. Societies are not just collections of individuals. Social cohesion and the nominal committment of a polity's citizens to an abstract set of principles is not enough to make a healthy nation: you need some mystic chords stretching from every patriot grave into the hearts of its people.

If -- as I hope happens -- over the next few decades, Mexico grows economically, makes poverty an exception rather than the rule among its people, grows a big middle class, crushes the drug gangs which rule Northern Mexico, and most importantly sees the idea of the rule of law really take root in its culture -- if, to put it in a nutshell, Mexico becomes more like Costa Rica, or better yet just a Canada where they speak Spanish -- then my opposition to mass immigration from that country would diminish in proportion.

But having said that ... I have noticed on this Board some pretty ugly stuff about Mexicans en toto, along with barely-concealed, or not-concealed-at-all, sighs for a mythical all-white country which has never existed and never will exist. Not from the great majority of posters, but from some, who may wrongly be identified as conservatives. Conservatives have a duty -- and an intrest -- to repudiate this filth.

People who broadcast this sort of poison are doing far more towards the Balkanization of the United States than someone who comes over to work in a chicken-gutting factory or to look after your children.

The genius of America is that it can assimilate a wide range of people -- including people far more culturally alien than our Roman Catholic neighbors.

This is not some mystical power we have, but rather is a natural process: people come to a country where they are accepted and given the opportunity to flourish, a country where the government is in the hands of the people and not of some oppressive aristocracy ... and it is entirely natural that they will grow to love that country.

But there are other psychological and social realities in play at the same time.

So we must not strain the natural process of assimilation by trying to mix in too many newcomers at any one time, and we have to keep an idea on the prior loves and loyalties of new immigrants. (If the poor Christian Mexicans coming here were poor Muslim Pakistanis, I would be even more worried, since religious loyalties can trump national ones pretty easily.)

Plus there is the fact that immigrants coming here in the first part of the Twentieth Century were coming to a country which was proud of itself and its history.

Today, immigrants come to a country whose liberal intelligentsia is ashamed of it. They have a good chance of being taught in a school whose teachers were trained in an Ed School where Howard Zinn's book is the text.

However, assimilation can happen, and the men above give irrefutable proof of that. They loved their country, warts and all.

Whether they would do the same again if they had been raised in an America subjected to the continuous insidious propaganda of the America-hating Left is an open question.

So consider my post a shot at both the racists and the hard Left.

I'm pretty much coming from the same pov. I believe immigrants and diversity are the strength and lifeblood of our country. I strongly believe that the idea of a 'melting pot' is much superior to the 'tossed salad' we've been trying to create for the past 40+ years. The idea that immigrants keep what's important and pass those traditions and ideals down through the generations, that's good. However, when those traditions and ideals prohibit the assimilation through language and American traditions, those become balkanizing factors. The whole hyphening of XXX-American created in the 60's is and was crap, it divides, rather than unites.

I strongly disagree with WJ's take on race/ethnicity. I don't think there are superior races, however I will admit that there are cultures that are settling within our own, that have not only different work ethics, they have their own agenda. They are not looking to become American, but rather expand their territory, creating an enclave within our borders. It's partially on this basis that I'm for enforcing our borders vigorously. Less anyone assume I'm speaking towards Mexicans alone, be assured I'm not. There are Chinese, Eastern Europeans, and South Americans that are currently expanding enclaves within the US.

I have nothing against legal immigration, in fact I think those are the citizens we want and need. Those that follow the laws and want their children to thrive and prosper will only add good to our country.

 

[Doug]

Where William Joyce and his co-thinkers go wrong is here: while a racially-homogeneous nation might be desirable, if we were starting over, it is not possible, because we cannot start over.

We have to live together, and so we have to work on the best ways of living together.

Tip-toeing around the race issues and uttering PC liberal pieties about diversity doesn't help. At most, it drives nasty sentiments underground.

But loudly expressing the desire that what is approaching fifty percent of our nation should just vanish, is even worse. This sort of thing justifies and provokes tribalist defensive reactions from the disfavored fifty percent.

And, in crude short-range pragmatic terms, the racialists simply hand over tens of millions of voters to the Left without a fight.

In fact, many Blacks and Hispanics are quite conservative on cultural issues -- there is actually a greater percentage of Black self-identified conservatives than Black liberals, or was the last time I checked the relevant poll.

 

[José]

Joyce

When the massacre at Virginia Tech happened you created a thread entitled:

&#8220;What are the contributions of Koreans to the world?&#8221;

The main point you made there was that Koreans (and asians in general) are a mediocre people who never made significant contributions to the human family.

In another occasion, when people rightly pointed out to you that Japan is the second most developed economy in the world and Korea and China have extraordinarily high rates of economic growth and the fact that asian kids obtain the best school results in the world, you replied:

&#8220;That&#8217;s because asian countries are ethnically homogenous and have populations with some of the highest IQ's in the world.&#8221;

Make up your mind, Joyce:

Either Koreans (and asians in general) are a backward people with limited intelligence or they are &#8220;a people with some of the highest IQ&#8217;s in the world&#8221;.

They certainly can&#8217;t be both.

 

[José]

Here are a couple of facts Joyce would like to sweep under the carpet since they are not in line with his supremacist views:

If there is a logical correlation between ethnic homogeneity and economic development why nations like Camboja, Thailand, Nigeria and Ukraine, some of the most racially homogenous in the world are developing countries?

Why isn&#8217;t Argentina with its overwhelmingly white population (95%) an economic powerhouse?

Shouldn&#8217;t Argentina be on its way to replace the US as the most developed country in the Americas? (The US having 30% of its people made up by &#8220;subhumans&#8221; of non european ancestry as opposed to 5% in Argentina).

What about Russia, all of eastern Europe and all countries with caucasian majorities in Central Asia?

These are just some of the many contradictions Joyce incurs when he tries to adapt his supremacist views to reality by force.

 

[Doug]

Racialists who do their homework have a problem: if IQ, and/or adherence to social norms resulting in low crime levels, are the criteria by which we are to judge the superority of races, then the whites do not come out on top.
The Orientals do, although the IQ disparity between Oriental and white is not nearly so great as between Black and white.

You could point to the achievements of the whites over the last 500 years , which are indeed impressive, as evidence of racial superiority. But the Chinese once had a great civilization too, and are very much back in the running.

Nowadays, literate racialists will frankly admit this, although it does not really bother them. (Jared Taylor of American Renaissance is a great admirer of Japan.) They don't want their race to dominate others, just to be separate from them. Thus they are spared having to nominate a different race from their own for the role of world-dominator.

But the point is, it's all a fantasy. It is understandable for the assorted lunatics and trailer trash who make up the neo-Nazi groups to indulge in this nonsense. It is a way of having an identity for people who otherwise would be stuck with being toilet attendants.

What is strange is when obviously well-educated and intelligent people want to play Marcus Garvey.

 

[midcan5]

Bullshit. 911 reminded us we have enemies that COULD reach us even in America. I keep waiting for someone to list all the rights we have lost. No one can actually provide any real one. The Courts still protect us, we still have all our rights and we still have the vote and access to Government and the Courts. Hell even the non citizens captured in a foreign country fighting against us have access to our courts.

RGS, BS? not sure where you live but the nationalism, the criticism of anyone who wondered how this could happen, the detainment and jailing of many men of middle eastern descent, all demonstrate to me that you live under a rock. I will provide links below. And then who are these enemies and why? Does someone wake one day and think I hate America's freedom as W and his band of propagandists preach? Doubtful. And how do you explain Timothy McVeigh, I don't recall us invading Indiana over his act of terrorism. Is he an enemy? How do they differ? You obviously don't think very deeply which is a sign of the jingoism that leads to invasions of sovereign nations who once were our so called allies. Neither way is the right way. You don't ignore and you don't invade. The way the KKK was fought is the way terrorism needs to be fought.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/loss/loss_main.htm

http://www.trackedinamerica.org/timeline/after_911/intro/

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS, BS? not sure where you live but the nationalism, the criticism of anyone who wondered how this could happen, the detainment and jailing of many men of middle eastern descent, all demonstrate to me that you live under a rock. I will provide links below. And then who are these enemies and why? Does someone wake one day and think I hate America's freedom as W and his band of propagandists preach? Doubtful. And how do you explain Timothy McVeigh, I don't recall us invading Indiana over his act of terrorism. Is he an enemy? How do they differ? You obviously don't think very deeply which is a sign of the jingoism that leads to invasions of sovereign nations who once were our so called allies. Neither way is the right way. You don't ignore and you don't invade. The way the KKK was fought is the way terrorism needs to be fought.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/loss/loss_main.htm

http://www.trackedinamerica.org/timeline/after_911/intro/

I love how three white men suddenly equate to hundreds of Arab terrorists that blow themselves up to kill non believers, how three white men equate the US to Muslim Nations that provide THOUSANDS of terrorists every month. Even when you throw in the loons that have attacked Abortion clinics you have a very small handful of people. Comparing them to the Arab terrorist is always a laugh. Further unlike Arab nations and the Islamic movement, the US does not lionize these criminals, they do not make excuses for them and they sure as hell do not PAY their families after they are dead. The Christian churches do not support these loons. Ohh a couple loons that are supposed ministers do, but they are roundly critized by the rank and file and the VAST majority of the other Christian leaders. Now lets look to Islam, shall we? Not only do the rank and file NOT critize the suicide bombers they celebrate them, they call them heroes. Not only is not a couple religious leaders that support them it is rank and file leaders including HIGH ranking religious leaders and whole countries.

Simple tripe designed to embarrass fools that are not capable of distinguishing the Immense differences between the foolish comparison.

 

[midcan5]

Doug, Socialist is such a bad word in America today. My definition may be open but I think few would agree with me. Maybe I am wrong here. American is a land of individuals, it is a part of our cultural heritage and not one that can be easily changed. Youth today, and especially conservative youth, are more into the libertarian interpretation (see my Libertarian pieces in writing section) of society, and they really do believe that individual freedom is the key to success and prosperity. Maybe they are partly right but....? It doesn't matter if we said government or central planning or the corporate boardroom, any of them alone could and probably would create a mess. I work in corporate America and it sure has changed since say our parent's time. And that is everyone's fault. But our system of checks and balances operates in many areas of our society, so hopefully we move back to a little socialist thinking - lol. But I am afraid we are moving away from FDR values to RWR values. But more on that later.

I notice you often use genetic metaphors in your writing, have you ever read Mary Midgley. She and Dawkins had some interesting debates on this topic. Her, "The Myths We Live By" is excellent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Social Security is a joke. It is a ponzy scheme. And it is so because the Democrats that created it won't fix it.

Your in Corporate America, tell us what happens when a Corporation takes the funds of its employees that have been put into retirement accounts and spends that money completely every year on running the Company or building crap for their Board members?

Social Security is in danger, not because enough money is not coming in, but because the Democrats used all the money over the years and refused to fix it.When Republicans tried to fix it the response from the left was, " there is no problem"

 

[midcan5]

lSimple tripe designed to embarrass fools that are not capable of distinguishing the Immense differences between the foolish comparison.

RGS, you do what many do when their point is countered, you change the debate to scale. Evil gets put on a scale and weighed, too funny. So let do it together, one dead is ok if ten dead are not Ok. Is that right? This bad minister isn't so bad because this bad religion has five bad ministers. What hooey! You asked for an example, you got them, then you got lost under that rock again and burrowed even deeper criticizing a major religion with a bunch of cliches.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS, you do what many do when their point is countered, you change the debate to scale. Evil gets put on a scale and weighed, too funny. So let do it together, one dead is ok if ten dead are not Ok. Is that right? This bad minister isn't so bad because this bad religion has five bad ministers. What hooey! You asked for an example, you got them, then you got lost under that rock again and burrowed even deeper criticizing a major religion with a bunch of cliches.

Trying to equate 3 men to being as bad as entire nations and entire religions is ignorant at best. PLAIN and SIMPLE. Claiming a handful of nutjobs make a society or religion equal to a society or religion that endorses at the highest level the actions is also ignorant.

That you attempt it shows how desperate or willing to play games you are.

 

[midcan5]

Social Security is one of those great things that has made America a better nation. We should be proud of what this accomplishes for our children, for our people who have lost a loved one, for those whose lost pensions due to corporate mismanagement. Every so often something wonderful happens - this is one of those somethings.


"Social Security is truly a test of our values as Americans. Social Security is a fundamental promise that lifts half of our seniors out of poverty and helps millions of disabled Americans, widows and orphans. We owe Americans a better debate than we're having today. It's about time we do everything we can to keep the promise of Social Security." John Kerry

 

[midcan5]

RGS, and all you have is ad hominem. Sad.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS, and all you have is ad hominem. Sad.

All you have is claiming a couple crzies equal thousands and equal institutionalized behavior. THAT is what is sad.

As to Sociel Security, I wish it never occurred. BUT being a realist, I know it is not going to go away easily or maybe at all. WHAT MUST happen is it must be fixed. And there is a simple straight forward fix. Something that should have been done at it's inception.

Every dime collected for Social Security should be USED only for Social Security. That can include paying for running the program. IT SHOULD NOT be general funds that are used to run the Government.

I ask you a simple question, I notice you ignored it.

Here lets try again...

What happens to a Corporation in the United States if it takes the money its employees donated or were mandated to put in Corporate run retirement accounts and uses that money to RUN the Corporation?

 

[doniston]

Social Security is a joke. It is a ponzy scheme. And it is so because the Democrats that created it won't fix it.

Your misknowlege is more astute and astounding with every post.

Roosevelt set up something called old age pension, nearly 80 years ago Since then the ADMINISTRATIONS "ALL of them" have screwed arround with it, until we end up with the mishmash we presently have to contend with

Are you suggesting that the Democrats have been in power all that time? That is the only legitimate way you can blame the democrats for the mess