----- Original Message ----- From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 4:12 PM Subject: Re: Welcome to life in George W. Bush's America
> At 04:01 PM 4/4/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > >I wouldn't really argue with the concept that, of the two parties, the > >Democrats have the more serious responsibility to talk straight facts about > >SS to the American people. But, I would argue it is the American people > >who have the most serious responsibility. One of the reasons that > >politicians lie to the American people is that, in many cases, the people > >want help in avoiding tough truths. > > Careful Dan, it sounds an awful lot to me like you are blaming the listener > for being lied to, and assigning the listener the most serious level of > responsibility. It is not really the listener's fault if they are told a > lie, and they believe - not nearly to the degree anyways, that it is the > liar's fault.
It is when they have a choice between people who tell hard truths and people who tell lies that are easily determined to be lies and they consistently pick the liars.
The moral reprehensibility of politicians who lie to get elected is higher than the moral reprehensibility of those who buy the easy lie before the hard truth. I have no problem with that. But, it is the electorate who is responsible for the penalty associated with telling hard truths.
Let me give a extreme historical example that can be used to illuminate this principal. Hitler is certainly more morally reprehensible than the average German citizen who voted for him. But, the citizens of Germany bear an enormous responsibility for supporting the Nazis, even though they were lied to by the Nazis.
Clearly, the American government's faults are very minor in comparison. But, if the American people chose straight shooters who disagreed with them on some issues over folks who mouth pleasant fictions more often, we'd have a better government.
Dan M.
Trying my hand at this provocative subject line stuff.
Two things I'll disagree with Dan on. First is the pay in pay out schedule, if he left out what I think he did. Did your example of 80,000 include what the company pays into the system for that one worker? Second, and this helps his argument, what are the historical 30 year returns since 1935? I was to a retirement seminar last week and the speaker was using 11% ROI, and I think that's way too high. I thought there were some very flat years in the 50s and 70s. People are basing the ROI on just what happened from 93 to 99 or over even shorter terms.
OTsameH, I don't blame FDR for this idiotic Ponzi scheme we have now; certainly not as much as I blame Johnson for the Great Society. He started the program with good intentions, Congress is the group that ruined it over the years.
I greatly benefited from SSA payouts. I was five when my father passed away at the age of 47 so that was at least 13 years of support to my mom for me. Plus with her being disabled she has been getting additional benefits for 25 years and hopefully for many more years to go. Yet I still don't believe this is fair. My father had no life insurance; neither of them planned for the future. If he had lived to retire we all would have been worse for it. How can a system be good if it's better that you die?
Kevin T. - VRWLC
Got muddled at the end. Time for bed.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
