On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > It is destructive even to regard Social Security as a "fund." To do so is > opens up the conversation on the "problems" of Social Security, and that > conversation has to be killed. If it continues at all in "respectable" > contexts sooner or later, probably sooner, it will lead to severe damage to > the system -- and certainly suppress the important demand that SS payments > be substantially increased and the tax on low incomes be eliminated. It was > a serious defeat in the '30s when it was established as "insurance" rather > than a payment out of general funds. Now that defeat is engendering more > defeats. >
Maybe, but as a practical matter, do you think the average US citizen will get behind Soc Sec if it is explicitly presented as a social welfare program? Once again you have to face the unpleasant fact that a plurality of the US public holds some truly repugnant ideological views. You cannot simply wish this away or blame it on the capitalists. -raghu. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
