On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:53:28 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Of course, no one is _forced_ to participate, even in the US. It's
only a condition of earning a wage in the US. ...


Wage earners are forced to participate. Wage earners are someone.


That is how I understand it also. However no one is forcing anyone to
support themselves through earning a wage.


What would happen if only those who were bad drivers could purchase
automobile insurance? Do you think the premiums would be affordable
in such a case? If you're opposed to SSI, are you also opposed to
automobile, aircraft, life, and health insurance?


Social Security is not insurance.


Perhaps you're correct. That's what it was called in the old days as
you can see he http://www.ssa.gov/history/1986dibhistory.html

A HISTORY OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY PROGRAMS
January 1986

INTRODUCTION

The recognition of the hardships created by a worker's loss of
earnings due to disability dates back to consideration of the
original Social Security Act of 1935. After the establishment of
the retirement insurance program under the 1935 Act, serious
thought was given to whether that program should be expanded to
provide wage related cash benefits to workers who become
permanently and totally disabled before age 65 and to their
dependents. ...


That attitude is rather shortsighted, and totally out of place in
today's global society. If you fail to bring the less fortunate up,
you will not be happy with the consequences. Trust me.


Why should anyone trust you?

Because I'm an honest guy?




You don't live in isolation regardless of whether your home is
situated behind the walls of a gated community or not. As the world
population is predicted to double within the next fifty years, we're
all going to have to adjust our tribal biases in order to coexist in
the future.


I doubt you'll ever adjust your biases.


It's not easy, but I'm aware of them and working on changing. How
about you?



And where is your compassion for your fellow man? Are you so
contemptuous of humanity, that you would condemn millions of innocent
people to poverty just to save a few dollars? I hope not.


Absurd.

Just for a moment try to imagine a nation where the poor old folks who
have given the toil of their youth to increasing the GNP (or whatever
its called these days) littering the pavement of your city so thick
that you can't walk down the sidewalk. Isn't that what you're
advocating? Or are you reluctant to address that issue in this
discussion?




Social Security is not a charity; it is insurance. There is an
inescapable loss of human dignity that occurs to those who receive
charity. Social Security recipients can be proud of having worked
hard during their lives, and owe no debt of gratitude to anyone other
than the FDR administration.


Social Security is not an insurance policy, it is a ponzi scheme.

Interesting. That notion is exacerbated by fluctuations in the age
distribution in the population, but given a linier rise in population
over time and infinite time, its difficult to justify such a belief.




Educate yourself:


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...cial_security/
FDR believed that Social Security should be simple, guaranteed,
fair, earned, and available to all Americans. President Roosevelt
was adamant that Social Security was an insurance program to
provide basic needs in retirement.

Today, thanks in large part to Social Security, the number of
older Americans below the poverty line has dropped from almost 50
percent to only 8 percent.


So how much of that was done by social security, how much was done by
changing the definition of "older Americans", and how much was done by
lowering the poverty line?


You tell me.