Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (48895)	6/6/2004 10:24:59 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 793931

You have been talking about social democrats recently...perhaps that made you speak to social security. Ah, Mike, you've engaged in a little drive by shooting exercise here. Some random comments. 1. It wasn't social democrats we were discussing, but rather the long American tradition of democratic socialism. I know it's long and know some of the major figures but the genuine expert on democratic socialism is the spouse of one of our mutual online friends who has a book on the subject. If you're interested, I'll be happy to find a link to the book. 2. I was aware of the LBJ item on your list but have never read seriously as to why he moved in that direction. I've always assumed it occurred during his attempts to finance the Vietnam war. If that's the case, it might be equally accurate to say that particular feature of SS funding is due to that war. The major biographer of LBJ, Robert Caro, won't have the volume(s) on his presidency out for some time, most likely at least a couple of years. So, for my money we won't know definitively until then. However, in the interim, if one were interested, there is no doubt some information in Dallek's biography or Dugger's. Those leap immediately to mind. 3. As for the other items, I've heard them but you are drawing, for interpretation, on urban myths. No doubt each and every restriction was the result of fairly serious legislative negotiations. If you wish to make the "Dems are responsible" claim in any serious sense, you would have to do some digging. 4. I have no stake in defending the record of the Dem party on SS, against some absolute standard of protecting it. They are certainly better than the Reps but fall short of what should have been done. 5. As for which party more vigorously supports social security and medicare, there is simply no question about that. Once the Reaganites gained control of the Rep party with the often whispered and sometimes publicly stated goal of either getting rid of it or "privatizing" it, it's been clear that the Dems were the only hope of continuing, however meager, some protective devices to reduce the incidence of poverty among the elderly and to provide reasonably decent health care for them (us).

To: unclewest who wrote (48895)	6/6/2004 10:34:34 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793931

What john wont tell you is that the democrats have been trying to turn SS into a welfare program for both citizens and non-citizens alike which is certainly not what it was when it was started. They dont care who contributed what but who gets what in the end. Actually at this point i agree with this view but eschew the hypocrisy that these folks use to mask their real agenda. I think that poor old folks need to be taken care of. I believe that non-poor folks be incented to provided for their own retirememnt. I also believe that we should transition out of SS for these folks during this period but continue to help the poor among us. Libeals would be for the welfare portion but against the incenting of the rest. Go figure. They want to fool the middle class but isnt that what democrats are about? Mike