* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The FDIC, SEC, FCC, TVA and Social Security were Roosevelt > administration products aimed at structurally addressing the causes of > that misery.
Has it been working in recent years (i.e, has the misery been largely eliminated)? If so, then why does the cost need to increase faster than the cost of living? > The Republican party has never quite gotten over what they believed > were socialist excesses. Their apparently undying need to "turn back" > the New Deal is described in a January 28 Slate essay by Daniel Gross Yeah, yeah, invent a straw man and knock it down. Real clever. Way to avoid considering that maybe people want to keep the system functioning without getting out of control, or Ifni forbid, IMPROVE it! > Social Security reflects a certain view of America: a place where > people are willing to sacrifice a little to ensure that seniors > wouldn't have to suffer the privations that the depression wrought on > so many of their fellow citizens. Once again, is it working? If so, then let us keep it the way it is, rather than continuously spending more and more on it. > In a fine editorial yesterday > (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021305A.shtml), Will Pitt uses the > story of his mother's thoughtful and generous response to a distressing > crime to underline this view of Social Security and how the ongoing > efforts of neo-conservatives to dismantle it reflect a view of a > different America. This was absolutely pathetic. Way to totally avoid any worthwhile consideration of social security. And to throw in the absurd claim about "failed completely to make sense when held up to the light of basic arithmetic" just completes the irony. Here is someone who lives in their own separate world of bleeding heart compassion without any concept of reality. Sure, there are many miserable people in the world. Let's help them all! Let's give everyone in the world $30,000 a year and they can all be happy! Amen! Hallelujah! Do you think we could actually spend a moment and look at the actual costs and benefits of the system being discussed? You know, dollars? Maybe consider what is the most efficient way to help the most people? You know, numbers? Reasonable analysis? Policy? Maybe? > The approach he took with this editorial -- beginning with a personal > story that lets us know what informs his opinion on Social Security > -- reminds me of the work of the Public Conversations Project > (http://www.publicconversations.org/). The PCP teaches how to host > conversations about controversial topics that avoid the descent > into shouting matches by starting with personal stories that help > participants understand how each other came to hold their particular > positions. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Way to live in fantasy land. Almost unbelievable that you consider this a worthwhile article. Let's be all polite and cutesy and compassionate and tearful and ignore anything close to reality or practicality. That's the way to get something done. Yup. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
