Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I have a hard time arguing the logic of taxation to people who want to keep all their money and then demand something when their plans fail. (They lose a job, get sick, and then lose their house...) Social Security was how Congress chose to fund a system to prevent starvation of those who lost their savings to the criminals on Wall Street and Main Street. It was a knee-jerk response and probably not the best course, but you can't undo the past. The alternative is for the government to allow people to starve. Which is fine on paper, but a better plan seemed the progressive thing to do at the time.
Obviously, if we cut the government back to its true purpose, many of us would be better off, but probably not like you think. If you sell goods or services, you would immediately lose 30-50% of your business. People would be too busy saving to spend, or too busy eating to buy other things. Nothing wrong with that, just suggesting we think the economics through, rather than standing blindly on principle without a plan.
BUZZZZ, wrong.
The Social Security program was brought to us by a socialist/progressive and with the help of the big banks.
Here is one good bit of history on in. http://mises.org/pdf/asc/essays/attarian.pdf
What happens when we end it? http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/15/social-security-by-choice-the
No one who understand economics buys what you're selling there.
----
As for War the government, well those pulling the strings, have been at war with "we the people" for a long time now. (thank you Mr Lincoln)
Thanks to FDR's "new deal" we can be punished and enslaved without being able to have a day inside a court in law. The state's now pass out administrative punishments without court orders all the time. In administrative courts, you are guilt until you can prove you are not.