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! Tom > -----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. > > DBL
