Sorry, David, you misunderstood me (or at least what I
thought I meant).
I first tried to point out that gov't money was one thing,
not so much "socialism". But SS is something else -- I guess
I should have said most folks would agree that "social
security" is a form of socialism, but would add that it's
pretty good. I certainly meant that SS is prolly the
most recognized socialism/ socialist policy in the US.
One of the ways to "save" SS is the, so far unpopular,
means testing. The huge drugs bills should all include
means testing. I certainly oppose forcing the poor to
save or subsidize the rich!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 June, 2003 12:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon
> I would agree that not every government infringement of
> liberty warrants the
> label "socialist," although on a larger level a rose by any
> other name still
> has thorns. It's ironic, however, that Tom chose "pension
> reform" as an
> example to illustrate the point that not all government
> infringement of liberty is
> socialism, both because our Social Security system represents
> a massive
> transfer of income from poor young minority workers to idle,
> elderly white
> women--surely one of the vilest forms of socialism--and
> because German Marxists in
> league with Bismark out-maneuvered German (classical)
> liberals to produce "pension
> reform" as their first socialist success.
> Most polls, incidentally, demonstrate that most Americans
> under the age of 40
> do not believe that Social Security will be around to take
> care of them.
> Whether or not people "need" to be forced to save for
> themselves represents a
> value-judgement, not some sort of postulate of economics. I
> think we all agree
> that no poor person
> needs" to forced to save for a wealthy person.