Comments on: Obama: “We’re all in it together”!! http://wakalix.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/obama-social-security-responsibility-collectivism/ Life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:44:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: sam http://wakalix.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/obama-social-security-responsibility-collectivism/#comment-156 Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:08:22 +0000 http://www.wakalix.com/wp/?p=352#comment-156 How ironic. If someone did try to take away social security retirees would scream bloody-murder. They usually vote Republican. The fact is both parties have elements of entitlement.

I am a young person and I am going to be screwed; my social security goes to current retirees, but social security won’t exist by the time I’m retirement age. Give me my social security money and I will add it to my existing investments. Better we do this now rather then later.

]]> By: sam http://wakalix.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/obama-social-security-responsibility-collectivism/#comment-159 Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:08:00 +0000 http://www.wakalix.com/wp/?p=352#comment-159 How ironic. If someone did try to take away social security retirees would scream bloody-murder. They usually vote Republican. The fact is both parties have elements of entitlement.

I am a young person and I am going to be screwed; my social security goes to current retirees, but social security won’t exist by the time I’m retirement age. Give me my social security money and I will add it to my existing investments. Better we do this now rather then later.

]]> By: nub http://wakalix.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/obama-social-security-responsibility-collectivism/#comment-155 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:11:05 +0000 http://www.wakalix.com/wp/?p=352#comment-155 Well actually, these days I see that term being used a lot more by the right than the left – lefties usually just call it progressive taxation and call it a day. And I think it’s a wee bit disingenuous of you to toss about accusations of Orwellianism when the principal rhetorical tactic of libertarians everywhere is to take commonly accepted terms and replace them with “scare words,” just as you’re attempting to do here. “Legalized plunder,” “government schools,” etc. Sort of a reverse doublespeak, if you ask me.

]]> By: nub http://wakalix.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/obama-social-security-responsibility-collectivism/#comment-158 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:11:00 +0000 http://www.wakalix.com/wp/?p=352#comment-158 Well actually, these days I see that term being used a lot more by the right than the left – lefties usually just call it progressive taxation and call it a day. And I think it’s a wee bit disingenuous of you to toss about accusations of Orwellianism when the principal rhetorical tactic of libertarians everywhere is to take commonly accepted terms and replace them with “scare words,” just as you’re attempting to do here. “Legalized plunder,” “government schools,” etc. Sort of a reverse doublespeak, if you ask me.

]]> By: nub http://wakalix.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/obama-social-security-responsibility-collectivism/#comment-154 Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:50:51 +0000 http://www.wakalix.com/wp/?p=352#comment-154 Wow. You sound so shocked about this whole thing, like you just woke up this morning and realized that there’s this thing called social security where – gasp! – they take money out of our paychecks and – horror! – give it to retirees.

I get it, you hate wealth redistribution. But the way you frame it, like Obama’s the first one to ever have this idea, just seems a bit overwrought.

Brian replies: Yeah, I see what you’re saying. But just because the program has been around for a long time does not make it less morally egregious. It’s still a horror. And I just wanted to get my thoughts down quickly.

And since Obama talks about “change” so much, his commitment Social Security as it stands seems rather disingenuous. I mean, does Obama even suggest raising the retirement age to adjust for the difference in longevity between now and when the program started? (I haven’t looked…)

The WordPress browswer shows the first lines of your comment. So when I read “Wow. You sound so shocked about this whole thing, like you just woke up this morning and realized that…” I thought you’d refer to Obama’s collectivism. :)

Lastly, the term “wealth redistribution” is inaccurate: It implies that wealth is “distributed” (by whom?) rather than created. This smells like Marxism, no surprise, given the leanings of those who advocate it. So they smuggle a premise in to the argument without people noticing. Quite Orwellian. I’d like to come up with a more accurate term. Legalized plunder?

]]> By: nub http://wakalix.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/obama-social-security-responsibility-collectivism/#comment-157 Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:50:00 +0000 http://www.wakalix.com/wp/?p=352#comment-157 Wow. You sound so shocked about this whole thing, like you just woke up this morning and realized that there’s this thing called social security where – gasp! – they take money out of our paychecks and – horror! – give it to retirees.

I get it, you hate wealth redistribution. But the way you frame it, like Obama’s the first one to ever have this idea, just seems a bit overwrought.

Brian replies: Yeah, I see what you’re saying. But just because the program has been around for a long time does not make it less morally egregious. It’s still a horror. And I just wanted to get my thoughts down quickly.

And since Obama talks about “change” so much, his commitment Social Security as it stands seems rather disingenuous. I mean, does Obama even suggest raising the retirement age to adjust for the difference in longevity between now and when the program started? (I haven’t looked…)

The WordPress browswer shows the first lines of your comment. So when I read “Wow. You sound so shocked about this whole thing, like you just woke up this morning and realized that…” I thought you’d refer to Obama’s collectivism. :)

Lastly, the term “wealth redistribution” is inaccurate: It implies that wealth is “distributed” (by whom?) rather than created. This smells like Marxism, no surprise, given the leanings of those who advocate it. So they smuggle a premise in to the argument without people noticing. Quite Orwellian. I’d like to come up with a more accurate term. Legalized plunder?

]]>