re: This lady says” Founders are screaming in disgust at the spineless cowards we’ve become“

quote:

---

eliminating Social Security

---

The idea was floated in the early 80's to turn SS into private accounts. Democrats would not support it. Couldn't have black people less dependent on government.

quote:

---

that group nearly doubled from 2.6 million to 3.8 million.

---

Your math skills are whack. Try, "increased by less than 50%".

quote:

---

They would make bad decisions

---

I didn't say self-directed accounts. Just private accounts.

quote:

---

and your a man who pretends to be a lawyer on the internet.

---

I mean this is factually incorrect

quote:

---

ever since the obumbles administration they've been rubber stamping disability claims t

---

You're ignorant to disability, also.

Disability replaced welfare after the welfare reforms under Clinton. That really emerged during the GWB admin and has continued since. There is data that they dropped, per capita, under Obama.



But the point is looking at the increase at the end of Clinton and beginning of GWB. Your ODS is noted, though.

quote:

---

a friend of ours who actually is a lawyer and a US magistrate judge confirmed this to me personally.

---

Lawyers aren't immune from being emotional and believing anecdotes over real evidence. That's why people like me (who happens to be a lawyer but is not being used in an argument form authority) have to correct even them with actuald data.

She is right, but I fail to see how commenting and sharing helps anything.

People need to start getting involved at the local level! Large numbers of people working together will bring change.

Of course, too many will have lame excuses as to why they can't do that and our situation will only get worse as they keep complaining online.

Now is the time. It will be too late when they put another Democrat in the White House.

quote:

---

The idea was floated in the early 80's to turn SS into private accounts. Democrats would not support it.

---

Yes, specifically the GOP called for a 5% option to put your income tax into a private retirement fund. That would gradually increase to 10% etc. until SS was phased out. The Dems responded with TV and newspaper ads showing how the Republicans were going to kill the elderly.

quote:

---

We can test her theory by floating the policy of eliminating Social Security and observing the reacts.

---

Odd choice. How about we push the retirement ages back enough to make SS solvent, then start eliminating actual welfare?

Your response kind of shows the implicit assumption involved in the virtue signaling in op. By an objective analysis. Social security is a welfare program. The problem is that this conflicts with the thesis of op and will be rejected as we have seen.

The point of me testing the thesis of op and pushing back on it and having people defend it is to show the baked into the words used are assumptions. Are if we remove the assumption, or show that the assumption is not accurate, then all we're left with is baseless sky screaming and virtue signal. Signal. The point of bringing up social security is to test the argument in this manner.

This is a very common cognitive dissonance in political discussion today. There isn't as much of a factual or a logical foundation for arguments and it's more based in a perceived legitimacy or illegitimacy to create the in-out group dynamics. Testing this legitimacy often unravels the dishonest rhetoric and that's why you see people say that it's obsfucation or changing the topic. What they really want to do is skyscream and virtue signal based on perceived legitimacy that often doesn't exist and the last thing they want to do is actually defend the underlying arguments that they're trying to make.