Of course it was.
It’s apparently politically unacceptable to point out that truth, but that’s largely because of decades of political indoctrination in state-run lower and higher education. We were taught in school that Roosevelt “saved capitalism,” which always struck me as a similar phrase to the Vietnam-era “we had to destroy the village to save it.” It started us down the wrong road, and we’re rapidly approaching a cliff if we can’t bushwhack our way back to the right path.
The raw deal lit the fuse on a bomb that is finally about to explode. The tea party looking back at the founding of our country may help to correct that mistake.
Counting down for Gerrib or Bob-1 to show up here to lecture us serfs on how ungrateful we are to the ruling class.
we need more discussion of what and how to dismantle the fed gov’t.
Egad I can’t stand Romney for so many reasons, including this groaner about Social Security:
“While it initially sparked controversy, it has over seven decades proved to be a success, providing needed benefits to millions of Americans in need and serving as a source of retirement income for America’s middle class.”
If, however, he turns out to be the Republican nominee he will still be significantly better than Obama. I won’t support Romney during any of the nomination process, but if he is on the ticket in November 2012 he reluctantly will get my vote.
Jiminator, the same goes for me. I keep telling myself I’ll refuse to vote again for the lesser of two evils, but in the end I know I’ll cast my vote to get rid of Obama even if the Republican candidate is repugnant in his/her own way. It really does suck to be a thinking voter that cares about the principles that made the country great.
I once watched a government official explain that the failure to correctly adjust the basket of goods in the consumer price index resulted in the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history, all due to Social Security.
Old folks accumulate a lot of assets, and the house and land they bought many decades ago massively increased in value (unless they were a union worker in Detroit). Due to a mistaken inflation measure across those decades, they’re getting paid a great deal more money than they otherwise would have. That money is paid in (like a Ponzi scheme) by young workers just starting out, who either have little or no accumulated assets or are buried under student loan debts.
It flies in the face of even what liberals believe (the poor supporting the rich), but the system is so entrenced (and old folks all vote) that it’s long been known as the third rail of politics. Few bother to ask how old folks retired prior to the 30’s, just as many British don’t ask how poor people got medical care prior to the NHS (answer: It was provided free by doctors as part of the what being a doctor meant, with costs covered by padding the bills of their more affluent patients. The NHS actually shifted the costs back on the poor in the form of taxes while lowering the costs for the rich).
There’s an interesting book covering social welfare back to the Colonial Era (sadly, I forget the title), which explained that we did a good job of taking care of the poor, disabled, orphaned, and widowed just as almost all societies have done, with local and personal intervension, taking people into our homes and getting them back on their feet.
I would conjecture that part of the reason we made a Faustian bargain on these big government programs is not because we thought the government would be there for us in our time of need, but that it would save us from the family guilt trip when our smelly old great aunt with a bad hip wanted to move in with us. The government wasn’t relieving the burden on the elderly, it was relieving us of our burden of being there for our elderly or disabled relatives. Since then, instead of having our relatives bitch about us all year long, we only have to see them at Thanksgiving and listen to them bitch about how Senator so-and-so wants to cut their payments.
Seventy years later, instead of living in a nice house with your great aunt taking the upstairs bedroom (and cooking and looking after the kids), you’re living in a apartment in Cleveland while she’s living in a $1.5m dollar home in Miama, and you’re being billed for her cruise through the Bahamas.
[social security] proved to be a success
This alone is reason for this man not to become president. I’d hate to see what his idea of a failure is. Yet, he’d still be an improvement over Obama.
This is not the America I grew up in.
Old folks accumulate a lot of assets, and the house and land they bought many decades ago massively increased in value (unless they were a union worker in Detroit).
Home prices don’t all increase massively like they do in California. My parents bought their house in 1973 for $18K. It may be worth $70K today, which isn’t even keeping up with inflation over that timeframe and doesn’t include the money paid in interest on the mortgage. I can’ confirm it but it wouldn’t surprise me if this isn’t more the norm for most people across the country.
As for the other things they’ve accumulated over the decades, most of that came from spending less than they earned. The same is true for my wife and myself. We have no pensions of any kind so we have to depend on what we manage to save for our own retirement. We have very little faith in Social Security and we don’t want to be a burden on our kids. As a result, we’ve been saving and investing as much as we could for over 20 years to be ready for retirement. If we get any money from Social Security, that will be gravy but we planned our retirements on the assumption that it won’t be there, or more likely, that they’ll give us a check with one hand and tax it away from us with the other.