Boomchild wrote:So it seems to me that your first response is what you are really think is need. Which is what? Taxing people more.
Currently, income over 117k isn’t subject to Social Security taxes. Social Security is funded primarily by taxes on wages, so why is the burden placed on the shoulders of the working class? A cashier making 20k a year has to pay social security taxes on every last nickel of that. This country already tried it your way. What was the result? Old people dying in county poorhouses. Poorhouses, btw, were funded by…yes, wait for it…TAXES! So all I can really say is, grow up dude. To quote Supreme Court Justice, Wendell Holmes, “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”
Boomchild wrote: Not only that, you are suggesting to make senior citizens work longer. That seems like a fair and logical solution.

Actually it DOES. People are living longer these days. When Social Security was implemented the average life span was only 65. That was
IF you were lucky. Now it’s up to 80. So this is really just basic common sense. Try applying it sometime, instead of arguing everything from a juvenile Ayn Rand “makers vs. takers” paradigm.
Boomchild wrote:Wall Street crashing again? What are you talking about? Our Federal Government which you are so supportive of has told us they have and are taking steps to prevent that from happening again. So we don't need to even consider that, right?
That’s a cute non-answer. Of course, Dodd-Frank is fairly weak, but parts of it, like enhanced liquidity standards, are certainly better than nothing. With the Republican senate it is sure to be weakened even further. This should make you very happy.
Boomchild wrote:For a start the government could at least do something to reduce the amount of waste and fraud associated with SS programs like SSI and SSD.
No argument there. So I’m assuming you are in favor of increasing the payroll of the Office of the Inspector General to root out such waste and abuse? Or were you hoping the free market would solve it?
Boomchild wrote:It's funny that you as a progressive Democrat use the exact words "big government". Day in day out we hear that progressive Democrats state in the press that no one EVER said they want or are for "big government". Yet here you are a representative of them saying so. Thank you for proving what know is the truth about progressive Democrats.
I'm not running away from America’s legacy of big government. The Unites States put a man on the moon, built the interstate, and defeated Hitler. I think you have been spending too much time drinking the wine at Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church.
Boomchild wrote:Our government was never designed with the intention of solving or taking care of it's citizens personal financial needs\problems. It was designed to protect a person's rights and freedoms to live how they choose to and not be subjected to a government or a aristocrat that rules over it citizens.
Uh-huh. Clearly your NRA pocket copy of the constitution doesn't include the preamble. Contrary to what you may think, “promoting the general welfare", doesn't mean every American born child receives a free AK 47 and tot-sized bandoleer. No, rather, as Thomas Paine said, “No tax shall be imposed except for the general welfare and to meet public needs.” I'm pretty sure preventing seniors from dying in the gutter falls under the category.
Boomchild wrote:So if you want a example of a Libertarian or Constitutionalist policy success story, you live under it. Thing's like The Constitution of The Untied States and The Bill of Rights.
So the most recent example of successful libertarian policy is 1787?! Is that the best you got? Boy, and I thought the Republicans were desperate with their chronic case of invoking Saint Ronnie (or Reagan tourettes). Actually, the Libertarians of that time a.k.a. The Anti-Federalists, HATED the constitution, preferred the Articles of Confederation, and viewed the Philadelphia Convention as a tyrannical amassing of federal power. And given that 27 amendments have passed since the Constitution was first adopted, I would think you would be skeptical of the document's so-called "success." The very idea of amendments sound awfully similar to the various short-term "band-aids" to Social Security.