What is liberal statism? (Split from GD is MMM informed by...

[GuitarStv]

Ok, yes i think it's statist, I don't support it, and would like to see it ended due problems with at least these 5 common justifications:
1) Politically popular
2) administratively efficient
3) is a type of charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
5) is egalitarian in structure

Please elaborate as to how social security fails these those fronts.

[CDP45]

Ok, yes i think it's statist, I don't support it, and would like to see it ended due problems with at least these 5 common justifications:

Please elaborate as to how social security fails these those fronts.

1) Politically popular
    -Not a great way to morally justify actions
2) administratively efficient
   -Not a great way to morally justify actions
3) is a type of charity
  -Clearly it's not charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
  -there are lots of people still impoverished above 65, if their poors needs are housing and food there are more efficient ways to do so.
5) is egalitarian in structure
  -again not a great way to justify this program (especially given the income exception on higher earners)

[GuitarStv]

Could you elaborate on the more efficient ways to provide for impoverished people above 65 than social security?

[Daley]

Please elaborate as to how social security fails these those fronts.

1) Politically popular
    -Not a great way to morally justify actions
2) administratively efficient
   -Not a great way to morally justify actions
3) is a type of charity
  -Clearly it's not charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
  -there are lots of people still impoverished above 65, if their poors needs are housing and food there are more efficient ways to do so.
5) is egalitarian in structure
  -again not a great way to justify this program (especially given the income exception on higher earners)

1) Convince me how political popularity invalidates the possibility of morally just legislature. The preservation of life and the illegality of murder are pretty popular ideas, politically speaking. Does this make outlawing murder morally unjust?

2) Explain to me like I'm five how moral justification should or could have any bearing on the argument of your dismissing the SSA on terms of administrative efficiency, or its lack there-of.

3) Nobody claimed it was charity, yet you yourself cite this argument as being a reason for your opposition while also citing it isn't charity. Which is it? Is it charity that you're morally opposed to? Is it a tax? If it's charity, explain why this form of charity is objectionable. If it's a tax, explain why you're opposed to this tax instead of bringing charity into the argument.

4) Elaborate on what methods are more efficient, and how they serve the over-65 impoverished people better than the SSA.

5) Once again, nobody here called the SSA egalitarian but you, just like no one called it charity... except for you. Is it egalitarian or isn't it? If it is, explain why that's a bad thing. If it isn't, explain why it isn't and how its lack there-of is a quantifiable detriment to the program worth opposing. Explain how any factor of egalitarianism matters in weighing its value to society.

You appear to have cited those points as your core criteria for opposing and dismissing the SSA's value. Explain to us their direct relevance in justifying its dismantling.

[msilenus]

Liberal statism is best understood as the conservative counterweight to the recent surge of reactionary fervor in American politics.

I'm just going to put this back here. It probably sounded insane before the conversation turned to Social Security. 

Liberal statism is conservative, and vice versa.  You have to be a reactionary to be anti-statist in America today.

[CDP45]

Please elaborate as to how social security fails these those fronts.

1) Politically popular
    -Not a great way to morally justify actions
2) administratively efficient
   -Not a great way to morally justify actions
3) is a type of charity
  -Clearly it's not charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
  -there are lots of people still impoverished above 65, if their poors needs are housing and food there are more efficient ways to do so.
5) is egalitarian in structure
  -again not a great way to justify this program (especially given the income exception on higher earners)

My point is that these conditions aren't sufficient to justify the program. I'm just addressing 5 typical topics that are used to defend the SSA program, I'm happy to hear if there are others, and to be clear I was the one asking these questions that I'm answering lol. 

1) Convince me how political popularity invalidates the possibility of morally just legislature. The preservation of life and the illegality of murder are pretty popular ideas, politically speaking. Does this make outlawing murder morally unjust?

I didn't say popularity invalidates laws, I'm saying is not a sufficiently moral justification such as banning gay marriage was quite popular until about 10 years ago, that doesn't make banning it based on popularity moral. Luckily many moral actions are popular as well.

2) Explain to me like I'm five how moral justification should or could have any bearing on the argument of your dismissing the SSA on terms of administrative efficiency, or its lack there-of.

Correct, it's not a good justification.

3) Nobody claimed it was charity, yet you yourself cite this argument as being a reason for your opposition while also citing it isn't charity. Which is it? Is it charity that you're morally opposed to? Is it a tax? If it's charity, explain why this form of charity is objectionable. If it's a tax, explain why you're opposed to this tax instead of bringing charity into the argument.

Many people do believe it's a form of charity, it's a tax, not a charity. I'm opposed to this tax because it's theft from me.

4) Elaborate on what methods are more efficient, and how they serve the over-65 impoverished people better than the SSA.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to stop sending checks to millionaires? Why isn't the program measured against its objective of ending elder poverty? Shouldn't that be the measure of its success?

5) Once again, nobody here called the SSA egalitarian but you, just like no one called it charity... except for you. Is it egalitarian or isn't it? If it is, explain why that's a bad thing. If it isn't, explain why it isn't and how its lack there-of is a quantifiable detriment to the program worth opposing. Explain how any factor of egalitarianism matters in weighing its value to society.

This is also my point that the egalitarian value of actions I think are quite difficult to measure, and when taking into account their costs are even more difficult to morally justify.

You appear to have cited those points as your core criteria for opposing and dismissing the SSA's value. Explain to us their direct relevance in justifying its dismantling.

My point is that we should not turn a blind eye to the costs and damages of so many programs. Like why should everyone under the age of 50 suffer, at the least, decades of opportunity costs from investing. If we're so concerned with the poor, maybe not taking 6.5% from everyone's paycheck for 40 years would really help reduce elder poverty.

[Daley]

Quote from: msilenus on July 16, 2014, 01:52:52 PM

    If you don't mind, I'm curious: what are your thoughts about Social Security in the context of this discussion?  Do you think it is a statist program?  Do you support it?  Would you like to see it repealed?

Ok, yes i think it's statist, I don't support it, and would like to see it ended due problems with at least these 5 common justifications:
1) Politically popular
2) administratively efficient
3) is a type of charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
5) is egalitarian in structure

My point is that these conditions aren't sufficient to justify the program. I'm just addressing 5 typical topics that are used to defend the SSA program, I'm happy to hear if there are others, and to be clear I was the one asking these questions that I'm answering lol.

That wasn't the question we wanted you to answer, and we weren't asking you to cite strawmen that none of us used to defend SSA to have you explain why it deserved to be repealed. We don't want you telling us why other peoples arguments that aren't even involved with this discussion is wrong, we want you to explain to us why your ideas are right. Even still, you're using those points to justify its dismantling, which means it's on you to prove with authority that they're strong enough reasons to oppose and shut down a statist agency. Let's hit your major points, shall we?

1) Then why did you cite it as a reason to oppose the SSA? If it's not a strong enough reason to defend its presence, it's definitely not a strong enough reason to oppose it.

2) Then why did you cite it as a reason to oppose the SSA? If it's not a strong enough reason to defend its presence, it's definitely not a strong enough reason to oppose it.

3) Explain to me like I'm five how taxes are theft. After all, who's name and pictures are on the money you use? Does a creator not have the liberty to do with its creation as it sees fit?

The way I see it, you don't want to pay taxes, then you don't participate in or partake of any of the benefits of that organized society, for that society operates and progress made on the taxes collected. There's nothing stopping you from renouncing your citizenship and defecting to some other grand utopia. Now, have you actually done that? Utilizing a state sponsored financial system and the infrastructure its taxes helped create is pretty much a blatant act of endorsing statism through ones actions, no matter what they may argue and say against it. A man's actions are far louder than their words, and frequently betray them. Last time I checked, you're here using government money and resources to enable your walls of text on liberal statism as being some wicked monstrosity against the inherent freedom of man.

(Brief aside: I personally find it ironic that without the very liberal statism you so thoroughly denounce, you wouldn't have the freedom to communicate the things you have thus-far using technology sponsored and developed by the US Department of Defense... a liberal statist construct run on the very taxes that you say are stolen from the people.)

4) That's not an answer to the request. You're the one having to prove your talking points, not us. BACK YOUR CLAIMS, CITE HARD EVIDENCE, AND PROVE WITH FACTS THAT THERE ARE SUPERIOR METHODS ALREADY IN PLACE TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE FINANCIALLY STRAPPED ELDERLY. Rhetorical questions are not evidence, proof, or even philosophical conjecture.

5) Then why did you cite it as a reason to oppose the SSA? If it's not a strong enough reason to defend its presence, it's definitely not a strong enough reason to oppose it.

Three of your reasons are just ambiguous flailing, and hardly justification to prove your assertions... so why did you bring them up in the first place if you're just going to cop out on them as reasons to oppose the SSA? The other two, yet again, you have once again failed to provide any intellectually meaty justifications for your ideals, or anything of sufficient substance to even qualify as defense to your answers in the loosest context to the original questions cited in response to your thread. You have provided nothing of substance to justify and defend your attitudes towards the SSA, and by extension, any form of government you oppose.

We're trying to let you actually prove your point rationally and intelligently using a real world item that you oppose. You've replied with a lot of words thus far, but none of them are anything but angry rants against what you don't like. Angry rants are not logical reasons. You want to prove your denouncers wrong? Knock them out of the park with some well thought-out arguments. Not rhetorical questions. Not rants. Not circular logic. Not links to others expressing their beliefs for you. Not about why they are wrong, but why you are right (there is a very important difference between these concepts). You created this thread. Your job is to demonstrate why liberal statism is evil and destructive, how your approach to governance is superior, and back it up with evidence to prove it as a workable approach.

Mod Russ says:

Answering questions and explaining your views is great, but if you're just going to take bickering from another thread and repost it here I will be shutting this down. Just a heads up, as I can see this potentially going that way.

It's been a week. I'm still waiting for straight answers to the growing number of questions posed in this thread.

[CDP45]

It's been a week. I'm still waiting for straight answers to the growing number of questions posed in this thread.

We're trying to let you actually prove your point rationally and intelligently using a real world item that you oppose. You've replied with a lot of words thus far, but none of them are anything but angry rants against what you don't like. Angry rants are not logical reasons. You want to prove your denouncers wrong? Knock them out of the park with some well thought-out arguments. Not rhetorical questions. Not rants. Not circular logic. Not links to others expressing their beliefs for you. Not about why they are wrong, but why you are right (there is a very important difference between these concepts). You created this thread. Your job is to demonstrate why liberal statism is evil and destructive, how your approach to governance is superior, and back it up with evidence to prove it as a workable approach.

Well I did give you straight answers that SSA is unjustified for a variety of reasons, and just because you only think 2 of the 5 6 are worthy of defending doesn't mean I'm not honestly trying to make my point, and those 6 reasons weren't angry rants, and questions are a really good way to figure out the truth, especially when pointing out what's wrong. Care to get back to the SSA example?

That wasn't the question we wanted you to answer, and we weren't asking you to cite strawmen that none of us used to defend SSA to have you explain why it deserved to be repealed. We don't want you telling us why other peoples arguments that aren't even involved with this discussion is wrong, we want you to explain to us why your ideas are right. Even still, you're using those points to justify its dismantling, which means it's on you to prove with authority that they're strong enough reasons to oppose and shut down a statist agency. Let's hit your major points, shall we?

3) Explain to me like I'm five how taxes are theft. After all, who's name and pictures are on the money you use? Does a creator not have the liberty to do with its creation as it sees fit?

So the person who earns the wage does not own it, instead if that wage is paid in dollars all of it belongs to the government? Far out man... Taxes are theft because they are property involuntarily taken from the owner. To a 5 year old I would say if it isn't your stuff, you can't take it without permission.

The way I see it, you don't want to pay taxes, then you don't participate in or partake of any of the benefits of that organized society, for that society operates and progress made on the taxes collected. There's nothing stopping you from renouncing your citizenship and defecting to some other grand utopia. Now, have you actually done that? Utilizing a state sponsored financial system and the infrastructure its taxes helped create is pretty much a blatant act of endorsing statism through ones actions, no matter what they may argue and say against it. A man's actions are far louder than their words, and frequently betray them. Last time I checked, you're here using government money and resources to enable your walls of text on liberal statism as being some wicked monstrosity against the inherent freedom of man.

Sorry, silence does not equal consent, especially under duress. The prisoners are not consenting because they eat the food or follow the rules. Is this the same argument you use against gay marriage? "There's nothing stopping you from renouncing your citizenship and defecting to some other grand (gay) utopia." Or how about workplace sexual assault when the boss asks the young secretary to stay after for some 1:1 time? The love it or leave it argument is quite pathetic. Yes I too believe that action reveals preference, and all it does in this case is reveal my preference not to abandon my property and family.

(Brief aside: I personally find it ironic that without the very liberal statism you so thoroughly denounce, you wouldn't have the freedom to communicate the things you have thus-far using technology sponsored and developed by the US Department of Defense... a liberal statist construct run on the very taxes that you say are stolen from the people.)

Ohh I guess I missed USGOV-Online instead of AOL online? Because I've never bought a gov cell phone or computer. Just like Apple doesn't owe anything to nokia for the success of the iPhone, because nokia didn't ever make an iPhone.

4) That's not an answer to the request. You're the one having to prove your talking points, not us. BACK YOUR CLAIMS, CITE HARD EVIDENCE, AND PROVE WITH FACTS THAT THERE ARE SUPERIOR METHODS ALREADY IN PLACE TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE FINANCIALLY STRAPPED ELDERLY. Rhetorical questions are not evidence, proof, or even philosophical conjecture.

So are you arguing against future progress then? Nothing can satisfy your argument if it's not already in existence, so in effect if this was the 80s you'd be arguing against cell phones because there wasn't a national network of providers like hardwired payphones.

Regardless of that arbitrarily restrictive requirement-
Ok, it's not meeting the needs of 13% of people older than 65:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-age/

But it's not my program, the onus is on those that support it to justify 23% of every federal dollar spent to the hundreds of millions of people who are missing out on investment returns for decades. If the dollars collected to pay for the program were voluntarily collected, I would have no argument against it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

Also the benefits paid are a totally arbitrary amount of $1,294 average monthly benefit which doesn't seem to be enough to provide for all if its recipients. It's additionally unsound because people depend on that future income instead of become independent and providing for themselves, so now they are at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats.

Three of your reasons are just ambiguous flailing, and hardly justification to prove your assertions... so why did you bring them up in the first place if you're just going to cop out on them as reasons to oppose the SSA? The other two, yet again, you have once again failed to provide any intellectually meaty justifications for your ideals, or anything of sufficient substance to even qualify as defense to your answers in the loosest context to the original questions cited in response to your thread. You have provided nothing of substance to justify and defend your attitudes towards the SSA, and by extension, any form of government you oppose.

[Daley]

You are not answering and justifying your value system, you are for the most part attacking arguments that I never made and making me justify beliefs you think I hold.

Bolded for emphasis:

We don't want you telling us why other peoples arguments that aren't even involved with this discussion is wrong, we want you to explain to us why your ideas are right.

-snip-

We're trying to let you actually prove your point rationally and intelligently using a real world item that you oppose. You've replied with a lot of words thus far, but none of them are anything but angry rants against what you don't like. Angry rants are not logical reasons. You want to prove your denouncers wrong? Knock them out of the park with some well thought-out arguments. Not rhetorical questions. Not rants. Not circular logic. Not links to others expressing their beliefs for you. Not about why they are wrong, but why you are right (there is a very important difference between these concepts). You created this thread. Your job is to demonstrate why liberal statism is evil and destructive, how your approach to governance is superior, and back it up with evidence to prove it as a workable approach.

Still waiting. By the way, let me just leave you with a couple links to counter what actual ideas you presented as your own in that last post.

What is money? If we lived in a barter society, maybe you'd have a point... but the IRS isn't demanding taxes to be paid in lamb chops, and even if they were? Where do you think the power that allows you the ability to settle debt with lamb chops between parties come from?

What is ARPANET? The internet wouldn't exist today as it does without government involvement, trade and business agreements between governments and private enterprise, and the money that greases the whole system. The past is a fixed and unchanging part of the equation, and much of our modern technology and network was directly paid for with taxpayer dollars.

What is the difference between having a choice or the "love it or leave it" argument? There are no laws in the United States that prevents emigration. As such, you are not a prisoner. If you dislike it so much, you have the choice to leave. This is not love it or leave it, this is exercising your freedom to genuinely reject the social contract that you have so many problems with and refuse to accept. Staying indicates you hold some value in this system as being better than any other available on the free market. That means if you want to stay but you desire to change the social contract to how you want the world to run, you need to start making coherent and convincing arguments to defend how you want to change the world and why it should be changed.

[msilenus]

I think the crux of the dispute at this point is the morality of taxes.  Our reactionary friend asserts that taxes are theft, and even provides some reasoning behind that.  He stops short of considering alternatives, but one could imagine an entirely fee-based society.  If taxes are immoral, then so is SSA, and almost everything the government does.

Hold on a moment, I need to put a quarter in the Internet to continue.

Sorry, I'm back.  Anyway, if taxes are theft, and are immoral, then you're right to ask him what he's doing here.  I get paid biweekly.  If I were being robbed biweekly, I'd move.  I don't consider theft, so I don't move.  Moreover, I think that putting quarters into our roads every time I drove or rode my bike would get tiresome and inefficient.

Hold on a moment, neighbors are screaming something about raiders.  I need to pitch into the hat they're passing around to hire some mercenaries.

Okay.  Don't have a lot of time here, but I'll finish up the post really quick.  The utilitarian arguments are strong --strong enough to win a debate on their own-- but not morally grounded.  Without a moral division between taxes and theft, there's really no chance at reaching a common understanding, which is a much more difficult goal.  Here are some quick thoughts:

I've never had a thief spend my money on things for myself and other people.

I have no power to peacefully direct thieves, either in how much they make off with or in what use they do with their take.

Therefore I think it is pretty clear that whatever taxes are, they are not theft.  That's not to say what they are.  Maybe they're just taxes.

(Note: I once heard a libertarian equate taxes with slavery, and even persist after I spent a few paragraphs describing the appalling human toll of the Atlantic slave trade.  Sticking with theft is actually pretty restrained by the standards of these conversations.)

[GuitarStv]

Please elaborate as to how social security fails these those fronts.

1) Politically popular
    -Not a great way to morally justify actions
2) administratively efficient
   -Not a great way to morally justify actions
3) is a type of charity
  -Clearly it's not charity
4) meets the needs of the poor
  -there are lots of people still impoverished above 65, if their poors needs are housing and food there are more efficient ways to do so.
5) is egalitarian in structure
  -again not a great way to justify this program (especially given the income exception on higher earners)

My point is that these conditions aren't sufficient to justify the program. I'm just addressing 5 typical topics that are used to defend the SSA program, I'm happy to hear if there are others, and to be clear I was the one asking these questions that I'm answering lol. 

Could you elaborate on the more efficient ways to provide for impoverished people above 65 than social security?

I asked this because you had just made an extraordinary claim (that there are more efficient ways to provide for the poor than social security).  Being unable to elaborate, you have effectively been unable to answer your own straw man argument for the SSA program . . . This does not provide much credence to your claims.

[matchewed]

You are not answering and justifying your value system, you are for the most part attacking arguments that I never made and making me justify beliefs you think I hold.

You could probably just copy and paste this ad infinitum to all your replies in this discussion. :) It's why I stopped. I realized I wasn't going to get anything I said directly addressed. Just chopped up, spun around, and hurled back at me in some sort of mangled facsimile of a rational argument. Far as I can tell the main crux of it is either government is bad because it is, or taxes equal theft because they do, and liberal statism is bad because I say so. Then I'll just tack on a moral superiority claim. Initiate bowing to the awed masses.

All points to the contrary must be met with the following instructions. Finger insertion to ears, followed by "La la la I can't hear you." spoken firmly, loudly, and repeatedly.

Mocking aside, I too would like to see a cohesive argument detailing a functional alternative to SSA which is superior to it. Something that does better than keeping 87% of people over the age of 65 out of poverty.

[CDP45]

You are not answering and justifying your value system, you are for the most part attacking arguments that I never made and making me justify beliefs you think I hold.

I've said repeatedly that involuntary threats and violence is wrong, and that taxes are theft which are pretty big tenets of my value system. Additionally I believe every human has the right to be unmolested by their fellow humans, those who don't believe this are hypocrites and logically inconsistent. 

Bolded for emphasis:

We don't want you telling us why other peoples arguments that aren't even involved with this discussion is wrong, we want you to explain to us why your ideas are right.

-snip-

We're trying to let you actually prove your point rationally and intelligently using a real world item that you oppose. You've replied with a lot of words thus far, but none of them are anything but angry rants against what you don't like. Angry rants are not logical reasons. You want to prove your denouncers wrong? Knock them out of the park with some well thought-out arguments. Not rhetorical questions. Not rants. Not circular logic. Not links to others expressing their beliefs for you. Not about why they are wrong, but why you are right (there is a very important difference between these concepts). You created this thread. Your job is to demonstrate why liberal statism is evil and destructive, how your approach to governance is superior, and back it up with evidence to prove it as a workable approach.

Still waiting. By the way, let me just leave you with a couple links to counter what actual ideas you presented as your own in that last post.

It's ironic and hypocritical you badger me for posting a link and then you post 3. And no retort to my points about SSA? Just because certain rights are not respected anywhere is the world, that doesn't mean people don't have those rights and that governments are wrong to be violating them. A recent example is the recognition of gay marriage, I don't believe this was recognized anywhere in the world 50 years ago, yet gays still had a right to live and love whomever they wanted.

What is the difference between having a choice or the "love it or leave it" argument? There are no laws in the United States that prevents emigration. As such, you are not a prisoner. If you dislike it so much, you have the choice to leave. This is not love it or leave it, this is exercising your freedom to genuinely reject the social contract that you have so many problems with and refuse to accept. Staying indicates you hold some value in this system as being better than any other available on the free market. That means if you want to stay but you desire to change the social contract to how you want the world to run, you need to start making coherent and convincing arguments to defend how you want to change the world and why it should be changed.

My argument against SSA is coherent, I suppose it's up to the reader if they're convinced.
I'm definitely not convinced that your "having a choice" is different from "love it or leave it." Basically you're saying:
1) those who are suffering under the government have no right to denounce morally deplorable actions because they have a choice to leave, or
2) there are no justifiable abuses

But you switched at the end by saying well ok if you are going to stay then you must only offer coherent and convincing arguments that "BACK YOUR CLAIMS, CITE HARD EVIDENCE, AND PROVE WITH FACTS THAT THERE ARE SUPERIOR METHODS ALREADY IN PLACE," or can you relax that last requirement?

I think those suffering abuses have every right to point out what they are and ask for cessation without the duty of imaging solutions to complex social problems. Must the victim teach the thief how to replace their loot in a moral manner? Obviously not.

[CDP45]

You are not answering and justifying your value system, you are for the most part attacking arguments that I never made and making me justify beliefs you think I hold.

You could probably just copy and paste this ad infinitum to all your replies in this discussion. :) It's why I stopped. I realized I wasn't going to get anything I said directly addressed. Just chopped up, spun around, and hurled back at me in some sort of mangled facsimile of a rational argument. Far as I can tell the main crux of it is either government is bad because it is, or taxes equal theft because they do, and liberal statism is bad because I say so. Then I'll just tack on a moral superiority claim. Initiate bowing to the awed masses.

All points to the contrary must be met with the following instructions. Finger insertion to ears, followed by "La la la I can't hear you." spoken firmly, loudly, and repeatedly.

Mocking aside, I too would like to see a cohesive argument detailing a functional alternative to SSA which is superior to it. Something that does better than keeping 87% of people over the age of 65 out of poverty.

Creating a straw man arguments, lying about my efforts here, and refusing to debate the ideas are sure signs of your compelling views.

Oh, and please provide evidence for that unsubstantiated claim, I doubt all the millionaires receiving SSA checks are avoiding poverty due to the monthly pittance sent.

[matchewed]

You are not answering and justifying your value system, you are for the most part attacking arguments that I never made and making me justify beliefs you think I hold.

You could probably just copy and paste this ad infinitum to all your replies in this discussion. :) It's why I stopped. I realized I wasn't going to get anything I said directly addressed. Just chopped up, spun around, and hurled back at me in some sort of mangled facsimile of a rational argument. Far as I can tell the main crux of it is either government is bad because it is, or taxes equal theft because they do, and liberal statism is bad because I say so. Then I'll just tack on a moral superiority claim. Initiate bowing to the awed masses.

All points to the contrary must be met with the following instructions. Finger insertion to ears, followed by "La la la I can't hear you." spoken firmly, loudly, and repeatedly.

Mocking aside, I too would like to see a cohesive argument detailing a functional alternative to SSA which is superior to it. Something that does better than keeping 87% of people over the age of 65 out of poverty.

Creating a straw man arguments, lying about my efforts here, and refusing to debate the ideas are sure signs of your compelling views.

Oh, and please provide evidence for that unsubstantiated claim, I doubt all the millionaires receiving SSA checks are avoiding poverty due to the monthly pittance sent.

Feel free to point out the straw man. How have I lied about your efforts? Where have I refused to debate?

Uh... your post...

Ok, it's not meeting the needs of 13% of people older than 65:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-age/

100-13=87

[Russ]

MOD NOTE: ok guys, circular logic is circular so I'm shutting this down. CDP, if you would like to answer questions with something other than more questions, please try again in another thread