Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Cal  Thomas :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Democrat Counterrevolution
by Cal Thomas
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


In the end, the Republican "revolution" ran out of gas and out of vision. Too many congressional Republicans appeared to care more about maintaining power than using power to implement an agenda, which they also abandoned.

Republicans reverted to fear tactics about Democrats raising taxes and "cutting and running" from Iraq. Democrats probably will try to raise taxes (they call it "pay as you go") and introduce resolutions to withdraw from Iraq under cover of a "plan" that has little to do with victory. Investigations of the administration will be labeled "oversight," and headed by the most liberal members of the House.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a probable 2008 GOP presidential candidate, said on NBC Tuesday night that too many congressional Republicans had not been "careful stewards of taxpayer dollars," nor had they "adhered to conservative principles." He specifically mentioned such spending boondoggles as Alaska's "bridge to nowhere," numerous earmarks, pork barrel spending and scandals. When Republicans behave like Democrats, they lose. Why should people settle for counterfeits when they can have the genuine article?

Republicans can take some solace that President Bush might veto much of the Democrats' stealth agenda, which they hope he will do. Their objective is to win the White House in 2008 and they will turn the tables on the president if he vetoes their agenda, calling him an "obstructionist," a label he has tried to pin on them. The president would be wise to build relationships, at least with the conservative and more moderate Democrats, in hopes of isolating the liberals.

Republicans lost a significant part of their base in this election. Exit polls revealed nearly one-third of white evangelical Christians voted for Democrats, mostly because of perceived corruption in the GOP. They will continue to exercise influence within the Republican Party, but their days of veto power over policy and candidates may be over.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said he wants to cooperate with Republicans and search for common ground. Voters, who have been sickened (again) by corrosive and negative campaign ads, would appreciate that. But Dean has called Republicans "evil," "corrupt" and "brain-dead." That's not the kind of language that is likely to produce conciliation and comity.

One top House Democrat, who asked to remain anonymous until he sees whether his strategy will work, told me he will ask John Boehner, the current Republican majority leader, for permission to address the GOP caucus. The purpose, he says, would be to build a new relationship and reduce inter-party acrimony. Most people would probably wish him well if it results in progress that would benefit the country.

There are serious issues that must be addressed and resolved. Nice talk won't replace important philosophical differences and differing objectives. Most Americans may be tired of the Iraq war, but our enemies are not tired of it. If the United States pulls out of Iraq before Iraqis are trained and equipped to stand on their own against the insurgent terrorists, the terrorists will inherit a base and export terror around the world, including to the United States.

Democrats pledge to do nothing about Social Security, but this is irresponsible because Social Security cannot be sustained without huge tax increases and/or a sharp reduction in benefits. That is a fact that is beyond debate.

The problem for Republicans is their loss of revolutionary zeal. When Newt Gingrich was forced out as speaker, Republicans lost the best idea man they'd had in years. Speaker Dennis Hastert was rarely seen in public (until the Mark Foley scandal) and he has been more of a cautious manager than a bold leader. The retiring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has been uninspiring. What happened to eloquent Republicans?

Democrats recruited more moderate and even some conservative candidates to blur their left-wing socialist image. But their party leadership is overwhelmingly liberal. They include Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the latter a self-described "pro-lifer," who voted against the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both presumably pro-life, to the Supreme Court.

Will liberal Democrats, despite all their talk of fiscal conservatism, ethical reform and seeking common ground with Republicans, be able to resist the temptations that come with power and privilege? They didn't when they ran the House for 40 years. Washington and its lobbyists have a way of repaving the road of good intentions for a new majority, as they did with the previous one. But that road can still lead to the same destination.

Good luck, Democrats. You'll need it. You have power now and can't blame Republicans (though you'll try) if you fail.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Cal Thomas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Impossible Dream
I have dream. That the new Dem overlords will prove to be moderate and sensible, and put their ideals to work for the betterment, the assurance of prosperity ... for the general welfare.

Maybe they'll be so pleased with the vote of confidence -- chosing to so see it, rather than one of no confidence in the Reps. Maybe they'll be boyed by enthusasm, and chastened by their years in the wilderness, and by the hapless example of the feckless Republicans.

It could happen.

And after two years, the Republicans will return to power, with little harm done to the nation, and they themselves have matured fromtheir experience.

Yeah. It could happen

J

SocSec
I heard a local Democrat talking on a radio show and he said that there was no Social Security problem. Then he said that the only possible issues were 30-40 years down the road and that we needed to focus on the here and now. Amazingly, nobody challenged this.

I'm not counting on SocSec. The Republicans refuse to do anything about it and the Democrats won't touch it; these guys all refuse to do anything that might upset the applecart.

No, I actually don't know what is worse, the Dems who will "pay as you go" or the Reps who simply go into more debt because they couldn't resist the blank taxpayer funded check they were given.

The far left will surely push through their agenda and the more moderate Dems will vote as a block. The only hope is that the Republicans grow a pair, get back on a fiscally conservative agenda, and demonstrate that they voters appreciate conservatism. If public support (polls) moves towards the conservatives, the moderate Dems will move with the polls. That will be the only way to defeat the liberal agenda.

The Democrats never adjusted
The Democrats were so accustomed to power from 1960 through Clinton, that when someone else was in charge, they didn't know what to do. They got really angry and POW look what happened.

I would like to see someone have the courage of his/her convictions to cut budgets, cut spending, speak against the growth of government, no matter what the cost to him/her personally. That would be refreshing.

I believe that the Democrats are not so angry about the deficit as they are angry that the deficit is not for social programs and entitlements.

Deja Vu
This whole episode has the feeling of the failed Supreme Court nominee in favor for S. Alito.

Those who work hard at making G. W. Bush President work as hard because of resistance from their President to get a conservative on the court.

Maybe this kind of stubborness is being broken and genuine conservatism will being?

Dems' Duplicity
Sure, the Dems want to cuddle up with the Republicans. Just to get close enough to cut their throats.

The NewSpeak for Amerika:

1. OVERSIGHT: conduct investigations, hearings and impeach Bush.

2. PAY AS YOU GO: Raise taxes (on everyone)

3. SEEK COMMON GROUND: Tell the Republicans to obey and vote the way Pelosi wants them to vote.

4. REDUCE INTER-PARTY ACRIMONY: Destroy the Republican Party or diminish it to complete ineffectiveness.

5. RESOLVE THE IRAQ "ISSUE"": Pay off the terrorists with money and troop withdrawals; release all detainees from Gitmo.

The Democrats propaganda and rhetoric
It wasn't any issue I can think of which defeated the Republicans. Try complaining, propaganda, and rhetoric. That's more like it. For five years thats all we have heard from the Democrats and the media. If you don't think constant 24/7 propaganda isn't going to influence an election then your with the Democrats in thinking their rhetoric hasn't harmed our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't think the voters went to the polls thinking about the economy, free trade, immigration, and gas prices. The American people are exhausted after being pounded for five years about what a mistake the war in Iraq is. Even Conservatives fell for the Democrats propaganda, because every time they spoke they believed you have to somehow bash President Bush before your words were to have any creditability in the media. This election was about propaganda over issues and the American people turned their backs on National Security for propaganda. This election was a test model for the Democrats and the media to see if propaganda over issues can win elections for them. It can.

DavidMac: Raise taxes on everyone?
2. PAY AS YOU GO: Raise taxes (on everyone)

What reality do you hail from? The U.S. has a progressive tax system- the only people who actually pay income taxes are the top 50% (equal to or greater than $50K/year) of income earners who pay 96.6% of all incomes taxes. The Democrats will now try to increase the size of their parasite voter base by transferring payroll taxes (e.g., Social Security) from the bottom 50% of income earners to the top 50%, which will buy even more votes by allowing the "parasite class" to spend even more of their own money on such necessities as the newest technology in flat-screen televisions (they need their "Oprah"), gadget-filled cell phones/ring tones and subscriptions to People Magazine-i.e., the journal of feminine wisdom.

Demosthenes
I realize that about half the wage-earners in this country don't pay federal income tax.

I also realize that the Socialist-Democrats keep telling us that they are the party of the little guy, so they'll only raise taxes on the "rich".

And I realize that whenever socialists have taken over a country, eventually the "little guy" gets screwed because tax increases on the "rich" will eventually include almost everyone. All in the name of "equality" and "fair share", of course.

That's the reality I'm coming from, Demosthenes.

WHAT?!?!
Have you people paid any attention to what has happened to our government in the past six years? How can the constant barrages against your intelligence failed to have registered? The current administration thinks we are all idiots. They work for one group: the wealthy. They strive for one goal: to line their pockets. No health insurance. Destroy Social Security. Ignore global warming. Etc. Etc. Etc. I could go on and on! The Republican Congress succeeded in undermining all that we stand for! I understand that this is a partisan website and you are staunch Republicans, but how can you honestly claim with a straight face that your party deserves the complete power which they have so smugly abused? Unbelievable.

gee glass...
glad you see it so clearly. to whom then should we turn?

Also...
just because I don't remember what the party line is...

how do we square:

1% of pop paying 35.4% (up from clinton years - 33.6% 90's avg.) of all fed tax receipts AND
50% of pop paying 0% of fed tax receipts with 'making the rich richer...'

i'm a simple guy, but what you're saying doesn't compute with those facts. or does it?

Social Security
Social Security isn't going anywhere. Benefits cut? Maybe. Taxes raised? Maybe. The democrats won't talk about it, because some of the changes are likely to be unpopular. Social Security is an expensive welfare program that is packaged as a pension program.

In future, perhaps it will be treated more like a welfare program by offering benefits only to the retired that are in need. Right now benefits are reduced for working seniors while paid in full to seniors deriving income from investment. Kind of ridiculous, but thats the idiotic tax code we have.

People on this board and others complain about the increasing population, especially immigration from Mexico. While some of those arguments have merit, a smaller tax base makes the retired in our society more expensive for the rest of us to maintain. Talk about privitizing, incentivizing, tax cutting all you want, thats just reality.

"Taxing the Rich"
Ever wonder why the middle class has such a tax burden?

It starts with taxing the rich----but guess what? The rich are better able to throw some money into a tax shelter, so the receipts from upping taxes on the rich don't pan out, so "rich" gets re-defined downward into folks who can't shelter their money as well---that's usually defined as the middle class.

The answer is simple
I think the Democrats have some rising stars who may be capable of turning the political tide and of bringing honor back into the game by making decisions that benefit the majority. So who do I think we should turn to?

THE NEW MAJORITY! DEMOCRATS.

for paul...again...
how do illegal immigrants help if the bottom 50% of the tax base doesn't pay any federal tax and in fact - receives refunds? because they pay sales taxes with the portion they don't send back home? (i'm guessing...anything else though?) but then, are they contributing more rev than they use in services or less? in short, i don't think you can automatically conclude that an increase in that population 'expands' the tax base. certainly not on a net basis. now if we were importing 12 mil illegal Indian dot-com millionaires? hey - absolutely....a no brainer. But we're talking non-W-2'd cash workers. It seem doubtful.



uh glass...
that article doesn't even address my question much less answer it. anything else?

One thing we WON'T see . . .
would be that "bipartisanship" that Pelosi has mentioned lately.

This, from Insight Magazine --
"Nancy Pelosi wants total party discipline," a source in the Democratic Party leadership said. "If you played ball with the Republicans during this session, then you're not going to be given an important chair in the next session."

Wow!! You Dems are Right! Things really ARE going to be different now!

(You can't have it both ways.)

Homer
I answered your question in the post above the article.

the new democratic majority?
riiight - turn to the party of Virtue*. i should have thought of that. now that i have no - won't work. i don't believe any of the same things that those kind of 'people' believe, so no, couldn't really turn to them. anyone else though? (thanks for the suggestion, was worth a try I guess...)

Disclaimer* - as long as you define 'virtue' as including but not limited to: infanticide, pedophile and terrorists rights protection (for D's only though), income redistribution in any form but particularly from americans to non-americans, public confiscation of private property, governmental dependancy in all forms, first amendment violations, second and fourth amendment violations, general judicial activism, ethical and moral relativism, and electoral process tampering. You know - the whole 'Orwellian' trip on 'virtue.'

Bye bye, religious right
Tom Delay. Ralph Reed. Rick Santorum. George Allen. J.D.Hayworth
Poster boys for the Right Wing. All done for.
People are slow but they are not stupid. It took them a while to see what self serving phonies these clowns were, but better late than never.
So now, who does the religious right support in 2008? McCain who trashed them in 2000? Romney, the Mormon? Evangelicals don't like Mormons. They consider it a competing religion. How about pro-choice adulterer Rudi Guiliani with his New York City values?
The GOP got their butts kicked on Tuesday, but the real losers were the religious right. God must be mad at them.

The Dems?
Hmmm. The party of Virtue* - yeah - didn't think of that. now that I have, nope won't work. first - they don't believe in almost any of the things I believe in. second, i see no basis for believing a politician, any politician but Dems in particular, "will begin making decisions that benefit the majority." (That seems patentedly naive, but perhaps you have some evidence it's actually happened before - who knows?) Anyone else though? (thanks for the suggestion)

Disclaimer*: Virtue used in this context to denote primarily 'infanticide, expanded rights for pedophiles, murderers and terrorists (those w/o DNC registration), first amendment violations, second and fourth amendment violations, private property right erosion, judicial tyranny, unexceptionalist foreign policy, the destruction of national sovereignty, involuntary income seizure and redistribution of any kind but particularly from american to non-american, moral and ethical relativity and the minimization and replacement of the parental role in the nuclear family. Secondarily to denote intellectual dishonesty, specious perspectives, prurient interests, sine qua non assumptive stances (and other argumentative fallacies), and juvenile participation tactics.

anyone got a smoke....
(if they're not outlawed where you are I mean) because...mmmmm,yeah...that was even better the second time.

McCain
says we got beat because some Republicans stopped acting like Republicans and abandoned the base. He is exactly right, HE was the main one. If he is 2008 nominee, we will get beat again.

reconciliation
No not that kind of reconciliation. But I thought I would answer the questions above:
how do we square:

"1% of pop paying 35.4% (up from clinton years - 33.6% 90's avg.) of all fed tax receipts AND
50% of pop paying 0% of fed tax receipts with 'making the rich richer...'

i'm a simple guy, but what you're saying doesn't compute with those facts. or does it?"

I take it the question is how can one reconcile the idea that republican policies are making the rich richer compared with the poor, when they are paying a higher percentage fed tax receipts. But actually there is not much to reconcile. First the statistics here refer to only one kind of federal tax receipts. Social Security taxes are paid by most people. And the tax burden also includes state taxes which tend to be more regressive, so if the balance of taxes moves from income tax, or captital gains taxes to other taxes, then this will tend to benefit the rich.

But another way of looking at it is that since the tax rates have fallen heavily on the rich, the rise in the percentage of income tax they are paying is simply a reflection of the fact that the rich are getting richer compared with the poor and middle class. Although there is no guarantee of cause and effect either way, far from needing to reconcile those facts, they are facts that one would expect to go together. If policies favor the rich one would expect them to wind up paying more in income tax.

To suggfest
that Hastert or Frist are leaders is an oxymoron...neither one understand leadership. McCain is a snake in the grass and will only lead the Republican party to defeat...he Goober Graham, Snowe, and other Republican gang of 14 members are the enemy

homer's question

"how do we square: 1% of pop paying 35.4% (up from clinton years - 33.6% 90's avg.) of all fed tax receipts AND 50% of pop paying 0% of fed tax receipts with 'making the rich richer...'"

Simple. The share of income made by the top 1% is growing. The very rich are getting richer faster than everybody else, so their share of tax receipts has been increasing. Basically, your statistics actually work against what appears to be your argument.

Next, I wish you would cite your sources - it would make it so much easier to show where you're distorting the data. Without looking, I would ask you why you would take the "90's average" as representative of Clinton, since Clinton was not responsible for policy during four of the ten years? Now, looking at the data, I don't have any idea where you got your number.

I find that the right-leaning Tax Foundation reports that the top 1% paid 36.9% of federal income taxes in 2004 (most recently available data). Compare this to the 1992-2000 period:

1992: 27.54%
1993: 29.01%
1994: 28.86%
1995: 30.26%
1996: 32.31%
1997: 33.17%
1998: 34.75%
1999: 36.18%
2000: 37.42%

What this data seems to indicate is that, despite the addition of the 39.6% tax bracket, income disparity in the country continued to increase. This is confirmed by the data on the percentage of all income represented by the top 1% of tax returns:

1992: 14.23%
1993: 13.79%
1994: 13.80%
1995: 14.60%
1996: 16.04%
1997: 17.38%
1998: 18.47%
1999: 19.51%
2000: 20.81%

So much for the idea that the higher tax bracket was a big disincentive for income growth.

Another quick data point to demonstrate how much faster income has grown among the very wealthy compared to the average. Between 1987 and 2004, the threshold that marks the top 1% of tax returns has increased 135.5% (to $328K in 2004); the AGI of the median tax return has increased 69.5% (to $30K in 2004). I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it certainly explains the increase in percentage of taxes paid by the top 1%.

[all data: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html]

BTW, the statement "50% of the population paying 0% of federal tax receipts" is simply untrue. You mean federal INCOME tax receipts. Adding payroll taxes in changes the equation.

.

Farmer's Wife
"If he is 2008 nominee, we will get beat again."

I certainly hope so. Insane McCain is crazy.

maverick
If propaganda worked it only affected about 5% of the population, considering we received almost half the votes this election cycle. This slice of the population I refer to as the stupid, unpatriotic, cowardly group.

jerubaal

"This [5%] slice of the population I refer to as the stupid, unpatriotic, cowardly group."

Keep pushing moderates away. It's a good strategy.

.

Lou Dobbs
Glass,

Lou Dobbs is hardly the pundit I'd turn to for affirmation of all the good things the Dems will now do for the middle class. The party of perjury, paganism, and perversion knows that the middle class has all the $$ because there are so many of us. They will pull out all their tricks to fineagle the $$ from the middle class to pay out to the parasites who vote them into office, all the time telling the MC how much they feel their pain and how much they care.

Start a new party?
Maybe those of us who feel abandoned by the Republicans should start a new party called the CONSERVATIVE party.

tombo777 & GunnyG

Just so we're clear on terminology, how do you define "middle class"? Can you put it in terms of income tax returns? Like middle class is represented by the middle 50% of tax returns. That's just an example, you can define it however you want.

GunnyG - you're in la-la land with that imputed tax scenario of yours. Where did you get the idea for that nonsense?

.

truthbetold:

"Maybe those of us who feel abandoned by the Republicans should start a new party called the CONSERVATIVE party."

Not a good idea. Some Democrats tried that behind Ralph Nader and it cost them the 2000 Presidential election.

.

Newt "forced" out? Don't make me laugh
"When Newt Gingrich was forced out as speaker, Republicans lost the best idea man they'd had in years."

Cal, it takes more than bright ideas to make one a leader.
Newt forced himself out by carrying on an adulterous affair during his entire tenure as speaker. How emotionally intelligent was that for a person who was poised to be a world leader?
There are others who can articulate conservative ideas quite well such as John Kasich, JC Watts, Joe Scarborough.
Newt still needs to realize how idiotic he looks being married to a mistress younger than one of his own daughters.



GunnyG

"One, it's called R E S E A R C H. Try it sometime. Two, the article on my blog has links."

Here's what I did. Went to your rag - I mean blog, searched the page for "impute," found your hilariously paranoid scenario, laughed out loud, and came back.

1. Generally, scholarly articles will include citations for information that is not original. Not citing such information's source is called plagiarism. Wait - found the problem. I was thinking it was scholarly.

2. There are no links in your blog entry. The word "imputed" appears nowhere else on your blog page.

.

Komarad BS Detector
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52798

If you knew about this and knew I was telling the truth, WHY did you go to the trouble of making a snide remark to me questioning my credibility?

Is being a bellicose buffoon some kind of compulsion with you?
Do you take pleasure in looking stupid?

I feel you owe me an apology!

BS
Ralph Nader is not the kind of person that very many people would want to follow. He is "eccentric" to say the very least. Or to put it another way he is "Unsafe at Any Speed".

MyOpine

Why do you insist on crossing that discussion into other threads? Do you want me to show you to be a fool in all of them?

"If you knew about this and knew I was telling the truth, WHY did you go to the trouble of making a snide remark to me questioning my credibility?"

A little background for anybody who cares. MyOpine said "Nancy Pelosi owns a big vinyard in No. CA that is non union and hires NOTHING BUT Illegals," and I responded by saying "I'm guessing the proof of this is so easy to find even you could cite a source." MyOpine then claimed I called him a liar. I didn't. I implied he wasn't the brightest bulb on the string.

MyOpine indicated that he heard it on the radio - conveniently unverifiable. He subsequently said he couldn't find evidence


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2006/11/07/the_new_voter_fraud

continued

that Pelosi even owned a vineyard, much less that it "hires NOTHING BUT Illegals." I suggested trying Google. Brilliant, eh?

So then you throw this link in, and it indicates that there's no evidence at all that Pelosi's vineyard hires ANY illegals. Thanks for supplying the evidence that shows you were wrong.

My original point stands - with all of the radical conservatives like you out there, how could you think that Pelosi could hire illegals without the Bush administration sending the INS out to have a look?

After I pointed out that I never called you a liar, you proceeded to equate me with "the enemies of America," which caused me to intimate that if you said that to my face you might not get another sentence out before hitting the floor.

Let's review. You said I called you a liar when I had not. You then called me a traitor. And now you think *I* owe *you* an apology.

My response after your slander still holds:

You're an ignoramus, unwilling to consider the possibility that reasonable people in this country could disagree with you. For you to equate ANY Americans to our enemies says nothing about those you slander, but much about you.

Enjoy your life in loserville. Even when the Republicans regain power (which they will, as they move away from radicals like you to regain the far more numerous moderates your kind pushes away), you will remain lost. For as long as you lack the perspective to tolerate those who disagree with you, you are destined to remain on the fringe of American society.

.

It stinks.......
I still don't trust that mealy-mouthed lair we have for a President who is STILL occupying the White House.

And, the timing of the Rumsfeld "firing" stinks to high heaven.

That is, waiting until AFTER the election to do so (when doing so BEFORE the election might well have kept the Republicans in one or both houses of Congress in power) simply leads me to believe that Bush and his Cabal are still hard at work trying to hold onto their OWN power. And it would seem they are now willing to do ANYTHING…including sacrificing their own members of Congress…to do it.

When Bush announced Rumsfeld's departure (and, in the process, conceded that he had once again LIED to all of us about his intentions in the process) I immediately thought of all the young men and women who have died in Iraq (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqui civilians) for absolutely NO OTHER REASON but to keep this crowd firmly in power.

And, while they may have lost a political "battle" by the Democrats now taking over both houses of Congress, my hunch is that Bush and his neocon handlers have yet to concede defeat in their ongoing political "war" to rule the planet...by force.

Could Bush's grand strategy have been little more than throwing his Republican cohorts in the Congress to the wolves NOW so as to get the Democrats in power in time to let THEM screw things up for 2008? Then, he and his neocon handlers could once again go after the "big prize" …keeping another one of "their own" in the White House bully pulpit?

Paul
The Social Security (tax) is withheld from workers' paychecks, along with income tax, etc. before they ever receive their "net" salary. We can view it as a government program to insure that those who retire can rely on a monthly income. (Others, for various reasons, draw from the pot, also).

OR, we can call it a tool of socialism.

As it is set up now, everyone who meets the criteria is entitled to the benefits, even if they are wealthy. I don't agree that, under the present system, only those who end up with no money in their "old age" deserve get the fruits of everyone's labor. The wealthy pay into it, they're entitled to the benefits.

Why? Because some folks are sensible, careful about how they spend their dollars...they make sure some of that income gets invested for the day when they will no longer be earning.

But what about those who have to "have it all"? Those who spend every dime they make and use that magical credit card to buy even more! They live with debts they cannot pay off.

I belong to the thrifty set (obviously), and I don't want to support those who lived high and squandered their money. They are in a whole different category from anyone, who through no fault of his/her own, just can't survive without help.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.