Quote: (08-31-2012 04:11 AM)speakeasy Wrote:
Quote: (08-31-2012 03:34 AM)kosko Wrote:
When the created these programs they knew they would bankrupt them selves down the road. They were never intended to be sustainable long term.
You believe that the programs from the get go where intended to be bankrupted? Why do you believe that?
Some people do want them bankrupted so that they will become insoluble and then dismantled. See "starving the beast":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
None of these programs HAVE to go bankrupt. They will when the Republicans slash taxes on the 1% in the hope of making them dysfunctional so that they can later point out how they don't work.
Voting does matter. If Gore won in 2000, the Bush tax cuts would not have happened, and we would've never been in Iraq. How can anyone look at just those two disastrous policies and say it doesn't matter who you vote for. Really?
Theseprograms are unsustainable. It's more complicated than GOP tax cuts. When social security started, the ratio was around 7 working people supporting 1 retiree. that ratio has since dropped to around 2. You could avert it by decreasing benefits or pushing back the earliest years, but the retired and the soon to be retired (baby boomers) don't want that, it'spolitically unpalattable.
Also, what evidence says that with Gore we never would have gone into Iraq?