Challenge Accepted, Sheetwise (What Democrats Believe)

[SammyKid11]

Please provide me ANY proof that you have that it WAS meant to be the sole source.

This is what's so interesting about you conservatives. Instead of recognizing the reality that this IS what many elderly depend upon as their sole source of income, you'd rather ask for evidence of what the original intentions of long-since dead men were almost 100 years ago. What you're missing is that when Social Security was first envisioned, farming was still the primary source of income for most of the citizens of this country. So, sure, in that sense I'm sure the creators of SS figured most of its recipients would also still eat the vegetables they grew and sell what they didn't eat. They didn't have the foresight to look ahead to a day when that wouldn't be the case for the vast majority of Americans. They also didn't have the foresight to build a gradually-rising retirement age into the original program...because they didn't foresee the rapid rise in life expectancy that was to come. This is exactly why strict constructionism doesn't WORK -- because it doesn't account for a changing time. Ultimately, I don't really care what percentage of income people almost 100 years ago saw SS accounting for. It'd be like asking about whether people saw leeches as actually BAD for you 100 years ago (which they didn't, doctors used them on patients)...those opinions are now irrelevant in the modern world. Irrelevancy is something at which you seem to excel.

You are correct. It is BEING SPENT BY THE GOVERNMENT!


So what? This has absolutely NOTHING to do with my argument. Yes, SS dollars are being spent by the government...it is part of how Bush paid for his war! The original argument, though, that private accounts are a gift to Wall Street...it is money that is currently NOT in the stock market that under Bush's private account plan WOULD be spent in the stock market. What part of this do you not understand? I didn't think this was a difficult concept.

Who is Wall Street? Who is it going to make richer? I really want you to think about it, do not just give the talking-points response. If the money is invested in "Wall Street", WHO will benefit? Could it be that, gasp, the OWNER OF THE MONEY will benefit. Can't have that now, need to keep the people relying on the government for everything....

Yes, maybe the owner of the money will benefit. And if you would READ the things I've written in this thread instead of picking individual lines out of context that you can write a one-liner in opposition to, you'd see that I've never said that I thought optional private accounts were necessarily a bad idea. All I've said about them is:
1) They are a windfall for Wall Street, and you're completely naive if you don't think this enters into the fervor with which many Republicans support the idea.
2) They won't create total solvency for the SS system, which needs to raise its retirement age to reflect today's average lifespan...not the average lifespan of 80 years ago.

That's it. That you're making those arguments indicates that you are simply not reading the things I've been writing.

What about all those Wall Street Democrats. Please look up who the richest in the Senate and House are. Look up where these people made their money. Would it shock you to find out that many of your precious Democratic leaders made money on, gasp, Wall Street.

Again, completely and utterly irrelevant to my point. I never said I hate Wall Street or the stock or bond markets, I simply said Bush's private account plan is at least partially motivated by the benefit this would give to these people (yes, investment bankers and stockbrokers would make a lot of money if the Bush SS plan was enacted...you're a fool if you think otherwise). I've never said it was a reason not to do it, just that it's part of the motive and that I don't believe it is the end-all be-all fix for the system. How Democratic congressmen made their money has absolutely NO bearing on the discussion at hand...it's just another diversionary, sound-byte tactic by you.



As President, he built the Republican Party into a strong national organization...On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy.


Here you are STILL being intellectually (I use that word lightly in your case) dishonest. I believe Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, jackass...and I know he was a Republican. It still has not one ounce more to do with the debate in THIS thread than it did the first time you posted it. We were talking about the Civil Rights movement of the NINETEEN-60's...and the debate was about which party deserves more credit for that movement. Lincoln freeing the slaves a HUNDRED years earlier simply had nothing to do with the discussion. Your irrelevance knows no bounds.

Good, let's start. The Federal Government has no right whatsoever to say what can be done in the schools of a given state. Why? Because its a States right that the Federal Government has stolen, and the people have let them. Game over, YOU lose.

The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees us that there will be a clear separation between Church and State. When individual STATES try to violate that piece of the Constitution, it is not only the federal government's perview, it is their OBLIGATION to intercede. Having prayer in public schools which children are required by law to attend (if they don't have the money to attend private schools) is a violation of their civil rights. As a proud athiest, I for one would sue the pants off any school district that subjected my child to prayer in a public school. And I'd be well within my Constitutional rights to do so. You don't win this argument by claiming states' rights...states do NOT have a right to throw out the Constitution just because the majority in that particular state choose to hold the Bible in higher authority. And regardless of what you think, your position is never going to be the law. Allow reality to sink in...the courts have ruled time and again on this issue, and you HAVE, in FACT...lost.

So, we can't use my comparison, we have to use yours. See, your argument only works in a vaccum, that's why you don't wan't to discuss mine.


YOUR argument only works when you compare apples and oranges, ecstasy and crack. MY argument works when you compare different forms of the VERY SAME DRUG. And I'll notice that you're not willing to debate my, more parallel example...because it is patently racist and the only people trying to change the issue are Democrats.

Because the Republicans have had a stranglehold on Congress for almost 50 years now... You make ZERO sense. How could the Republican's have forced through legislation AT ALL in the past 50 years? Face it, any law passed from 1940-1992 was passed with the ENDORSEMENT (whether expressed or implied) of the Democratic Party.


Ronald Reagan, through force and effect of his extreme personal popularity, got a lot of stuff through Congress that Democrats didn't want. Now, I blame the Democratic Party for not better standing up to him and other Republican presidents...but the fact remains that on the issue I'm actually speaking of (mandatory minimums on crack vs. powder cocaine), the only people attempting to right this wrong are Dems. Do you actually have anything to SAY on the issue...or are you just going to keep lobbing meaningless platitudes that skirt the subject?

I don't want business over regulated.


Yeah, thanks...you've thrown that meaningless one-liner out three times now. It sounds to me like you don't want business regulated at ALL...but then, I wouldn't know, because you haven't quantified or supported your preference at ALL.

So, you think it's right for Cyrus to marry his sister? Is that the position that you are taking? Because if you allow gay marriage, you have to allow incest. Because it's not fair to discriminate against people who REALLY love their family.


You are truly a sick, misguided, twisted, and possibly quite evil individual to compare homosexuality to incest. This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard on the subject, yet sadly you're not the first Christian conservative from whom I've heard it. And for the record, if two consenting, brother-sister, brother-brother, sister-sister adults decide they want to get married...I still don't think it's any of the government's damn business. But there doesn't seem to be an outcry in the Incest community for the government to quit denying them that right...there IS in the homosexual community, and you are a total buffoon for making this comparison.

In fact, I'm done responding to your horseshit, now and forever. You've accused me of rooting against our soldiers and now you've compared homosexuality to incest. You can rot in your fictitious hell for all I care. But arguing with someone who believes the government should legislate religion but NOT take care of the needy if it means any taxes at all is a waste of my time.