Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Republicans

Journal pudge's Journal: GOP Can't Handle Disagreement 20

Journal by pudge

OK, fair is fair, and I submitted my views on Social Security reform to GOP.com last Tuesday, and while two new posts appeared on the page in addition to the one that was already there, mine did not show up.

I don't have an exact quote of what I sent, but essentially, I said I agreed with the various thrust of the GOP proposals except that private accounts are a bad idea, since they would not be needed if we simply didn't give benefits to people who didn't need benefits, as this would make our SS taxes go down, giving us more money in our pockets to invest on our own.

I can only surmise it didn't get posted because it was not in full agreement.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GOP Can't Handle Disagreement More

GOP Can't Handle Disagreement

Comments Filter:

  • Agreement (Score:2)

    by Hemos ( 2 ) *
    While there's a fair amount of things that Pudge and I disagree about when it comes to politics, I've got to give him credit for taking a principled stand; e.g. rather then just blindly saying "YES MASTER PRIVATE ACCOUNTS", cutting SS benefits as the alternative. Kudos to Pudge.
    • I so want 2 as my /. number. I had a really cool low one and forgot the password....

      Listen, if you die or are killed or in a coma or mangled in a thresher or set upon by dogs that have killer bees that shoot out of their mouths... can I have your number?
  • What exactly is wrong with people being allowed to keep their own money?
    I mean, if you wanted a minimum guaranteed benefit, okay, but seriously, if its your money, or you earned it, shouldn't you at least have a say? Nay, even a right to it?
    • People are biased, which extends to how they give to charity. For example, middle-class folks tend to live with other middle-class folks. They donate to their neighborhood, city, causes that matter to them. The problem is if they live in San Jose, but homelessness isn't a big problem there, but it is in Oakland, the donations and charity aren't as likely to reach the homeless. So the poor, who generally live among the poor, can't afford to give as much, and proportionately probably aren't likely to get
      • So while I understand that everyone wants to keep their money and use it how they choose, the greater good is more important to me.

        Who could disagree with a statement like that?

        <hand type="raised"/>

        What many folks miss on the left when claiming the right is forcing morals on them is that the same thing is happening in their agenda. And once the government chooses how to do it, I probably run into some disagreements, and support then becomes political and can change on the whims of an administrati
        • if I choose to give to charity-x which supports my moral views, you can give to charity-y which supports your moral views.

          Except that charity-z, world hunger, gets less funding if we're both biased towards domestic issues.

          Neither of us fully agrees with our elected representatives, even the ones we voted for. But we, and our politicians, compromise. When government compromises on how to fund social programs and science research, I disagree with where some of the money goes, but it's probably a fairer c
      • Even if I agreed with the sentiment, it does not logically follow that this is a federal responsibility. For example, I used to live in California. Like most states, education is paid for largely with local funds, but some areas do not have enough funds to have decent schools. I support the state giving extra to the areas that need it in order to have decent schools.

        I do not support any federal spending on education. This is clearly a state responsibility. Same thing goes for welfare programs.

  • SS is something no one has really figured out, I mean philisophically.

    What is it? Is it a security blanket for retired citizens? The Supreme Court ruled it was (*ahem*).

    I guess, reading your journal, the problem people are having with private accounts is that they look at it as a system, just as a paycheck that better be there or else.

    Its a horribly broken system. Federal workers get private accounts. Many states have moved to private accounts. Corporations moved to private accounts long ago. Why? Easier
    • Oh, and party lineups at the koolaid dispenser are the reason I belong to none.
    • SS is something no one has really figured out, I mean philisophically.

      What is it? Is it a security blanket for retired citizens? The Supreme Court ruled it was (*ahem*).

      A lot of people understand what SS is but describe it in different ways. Here's one: it's a mandatory insurance policy that that only pays out in the event you become disabled or become old :)

      Its a horribly broken system. Federal workers get private accounts. Many states have moved to private accounts. Corporations moved to private acco
      • Bah. That's the problem with politics today, that people find it exceptional or worthy of note when someone in a party doesn't tow the line.

        Besides, I actually in favor of "phasing out" Social Security as we know it. I don't have a solution on hand, but I don't want either what we have now, or what we had when it was created. I don't think TPM would find my views all that conscientious. :-)

        I just know it isn't going to happen, and would prefer it to -- if it is to exist -- be sane, which means not payi
      • A lot of people understand what SS is but describe it in different ways.

        Thats like saying a lot of people understand what an atom is, they just describe it in different ways. The difference being in what "description" is the most useful in building a program. Two bit pundits can always say things, talk is cheap. Sheep can always pretend that any of a hundred of those descriptions make sense.

        Just to drive the point:

        it's a mandatory insurance policy that that only pays out in the event you become disable

    • SS is something no one has really figured out, I mean philisophically.

      Social Security is a special interest entitlement program. Like all special interest programs it can generally count on the support of those who plan to benefit from it, ie. people who are old, and people who hope to be old one day.

      That's a political description, not really a philosopical one. Philosophical reasons for Social Security will change according to the purpose of the person descibing it, the audience, and the direction

  • Without means testing, the system is a retirement plan.

    With means testing we are all paying too much for it not to be a retirement plan.

    If we introduce means testing, I say keep benefits as low as possible (like subsidised housing low) so it has 0 appeal to people as a retirement plan. They retire but no florida vacations, they just rot in misery because they failed to save their own cash.

    The problem with SS (which is unavoidable) is that you cannot renig on those who are currently paying into the syste
  • Try posting it at the Democrat's site. I'm sure they'd love it. ;^)
  • Ownership Society.

    The Republican political machine (Carl Rove?) wants to drive home the notion that if you own things, including your retirement fund, you will dynamically create republicans for generations to come. The financial details are not as important as creating an environment that fosters the creation of conservatives. I admire the political brilliance that is Carl Rove. All this focus on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and problems that will happen in the future is a plus-plus because it div
    • The financial details are not as important as creating an environment that fosters the creation of conservatives. I admire the political brilliance that is [K]arl Rove.

      The Democrats have been doing this for many decades years, creating social programs to make the people more reliant on big federal programs, so they would support the party which supported them. You could say the Clinton health care plan in the early 90s did this.

      In general the GOP is very divided.

      In a sense. Certainly, the conservati

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close