Republicans are reminding us that Social Security and Medicare, for example, were huge mistakes. They represent socialism and shouldn't have been created in the first place.Notice the arrogance. He just assumes that anyone who would go against Social Security must be nuts. He offers no Constitutional argument for them. He also assumes they are right and good and that's that.
The truth is, to the Republican, they represent more than just some social engineering. They represent statism. We all know that Social Security was invented by Big Government people in order to enslave a permanent voting block. The idea of Liberty is at stake. Simply because Mr. Haxton refuses to understand the basics of a government that stands for Liberty because he sees what he thinks is injustice is not an argument. Extorting money from one human being and giving it to another because it makes you feel better is not an argument.
Haxton then argues that Republicans are hypocrites in a following paragraph.
Fair enough [that Social Security should not have been created]. How many Republicans are willing to give up their Social Security checks and Medicare assistance since it's not in the Constitution? Come on folks, don't be shy.This is an argument? Notice the typical emotive based argument. Nothing of substance at all can be found here. He simply mocks and marginalizes his political opponent into shame.
The fact is, I have been paying in to the Social Security pyramid scheme by the force of Left-wing politics. Perhaps he would be willing to pay me back for all of the money I have lost? The fact is, Bush Jr. did try to offer that option, and YES! I would have taken it! I would get more money if Leftists would quit stealing my money and giving it to someone else in a scheme that is illegal in any other sphere of life other than government.
But Mr. Haxton doesn't stop there. He keeps going on the same old tired out argument that Republicans and "Teabaggers" want to take away your Social Security or raise the age limit.
Face it, old people and those who didn't save enough during their working years are only a drain on society. If you haven't saved enough to retire at 60, tough break. There's nothing that says you can't be a crane operator until you're 70- or 75-years-old.First, I reject the arrogant premise that he just assumes is legitimate. He assumes it is the role of the Federal government to make certain you have a retirement. What did people do for the first 150 years of this Republic without his precious Social Security? So again, no argument to justify his position. Just more marginalizing the political opponent [are you seeing why he is our Local New York Times Editor?].
Second, Teabaggers are not the only ones who see that if we do not do something, Democrats are going to have to raise the age limit or confiscate more of our money. The Huffington Post in June tried to make John Beoner the bad guy for suggesting that the age limit be raised. However, if you bother to read the last lines of the article, you will see House Majority Leader also says the same thing.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has suggested similar solutions for extending the solvency of Social Security. During a speech at a Third Way event on June 22, 2010, Hoyer said:
"On the spending side, we could and should consider a higher retirement age, or one pegged to lifespan; more progressive Social Security and Medicare benefits; and a stronger safety net for the Americans who need it most."
Mr. Haxton needs to get off of his high horse and come back to fiscal reality. Social Security is unConstitutional. I, like many others, would gladly surrender Social Security for a different option that has been blocked by Democrats (Dems refuse to lose their money tree). Social Security is broke and has been for decades. Liberty is at stake. It is time to wake up.
Haxton offers no arguments to support his position. So I firmly stand with the Teabaggers. Thank God for the Tea Party.
Further reading with Walter Williams here.
No comments:
Post a Comment