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-----
> Sent: 17 June, 2003 12:43 PM
> 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.

Reply via email to