Well I thought that you were arguing that earnings tests were OK because the
system had survived that long with them. This also counters Michael's point. But
if you are not arguing that earnings tests are OK because the system has
survived politically with them my analogy is not at all appropriate and I
apologise.
But what if someone responded to another who claimed that literacy tests
for blacks as a condition of getting the vote was a threat to the political
system and it was answered-to show that it was not-- but the system has survived
for a considerable time with these tests? One might be a bit puzzled by what was
going on even though the author did not intend this to imply support for the
tests. That is my only defense.
I guess the point is that one should read more carefully before responding
:)
Cheers,
Nathan Newman wrote:
> >On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
> >
> > So how long did the US survive with slavery, with no voting
> > rights for blacks or
> > women.
> > Is that an argument for slavery, etc.?
>
> Ken, this is just a bizarre analogy. Michael argues that earnings tests
> endanger SS's political survivability; I point out that it has survived
> quite well with such an earnings test.
>
> Since the point was he wanted Social Security to survive, how does comparing
> it to institutions like slavery serve the argument? What point were you
> trying to make?
>
> -- Nathan
>
> >
> > Nathan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Social Security survived for sixty-five years with the earnings
> > test, so it
> > > is more likely part of the reason for its resiliency not a hindrance as
> > > Louis's and your argument seems to argue.
> > >
> > > -- Nathan Newman
> >
