Nov 1, 2013

Fox News Wants To Correct The Record -- Republicans Did Too Vote For The Ponzi Scheme Known As Social Security

     Could this be a faint ray of light from the right? Fox News has a story about how Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel got it all wrong when he said that the Social Security Act passed in 1935 without any Republican votes. As Fox News correctly points out, there were lots of Republican votes for Social Security in 1935. Is Fox News proud that Republicans voted for creating a dole, welfare, massive dependence, a Ponzi scheme, the descent into socialism and communism and the destruction of traditional American values? Will Fox News tell us in the future that many Republicans voted for Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and Food Stamps?


Anonymous said...

Sometimes people label all people of a group as the same. Similar to thinking all black folks are the same. Some republicans of 1935 may have been more sensible than the tea party/moderate republicans of today. That being said,republicans generally care VERY LITTLE for poor people without real upwardly mobile opportunities,including poor white people on social security and medicare.

Anonymous said...

I'm a conservative if you wanna call it that. I work hard and make a pretty good living. I have a wife, kids, a home and so on -- solid middle class I'm guessing.

If the left keeps taking more and more from me to give to the so called "poor", soon I will need to rely on those same programs to survive. Is that the grand plan? Get everyone dependent so we all need help?

There are many wealthy democrats, just look at congress or Hollywood for that matter. Why don't they give more of their money for their cause?

Anonymous said...

Charity was tried in the 19th Century, they failed as the demand was too great and most could not help, today incomes are larger and programs like those supported by the SSA and the people who work there, keep seniors, the blind and disabled people out of abject poverty, it's been found those who protest are the poor who are underpaid while working and then collecting food stamps to feed themselves and their deserving families, raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour like is done in Australia which wasn't affected by the recession and the usage of food stamps will go down dramatically and the nation will be richer as a whole, though CEOs of Walmart won't like taking less from the makers of the economy, the people who are able to work for a living... In CA the minimum wage by 2016 will be $10.00 an hour, the fast food joints and Walmart will not be closing anytime soon or moving anywhere, they'd be crazy to do that.

Anonymous said...

Rangel should certainly be one to talk since he is known for avoiding paying taxes and his fair share every way he can..

Anonymous said...

Maybe I'm missing something here. If we raise the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour, what would that mean for "skilled" workers? For instance, if you're going to pay an unskilled worker $15/hr to flip burgers or wash dishes, something anyone can do, what do you pay the person doing skilled work making $40/hr? It can't stay at $40/hr - that would be ridiculous. Would it get raised by the same percentage? A 50% raise would put it at $60/hr.

I work a second job. I make minimum wage, $7.85 per hour, doing unskilled labor at a store (stock, cashier, cleaning etc). The manager makes just over $14.00 per hour. Some people who have been there for years only make $10-11/hr. If I go to $15/hr - they get equal raises, right? How can small business owners or anyone else afford this " chain reaction"?

My guess is you would have to implement the raise over many years so the business could incrimintally pass the burden on to the consumers. If that's the case, over those years, the cost of things would increase causing the "raise" to be worthless. Places raise prices when people can afford more.

How could this equilibrium be avoided which renders the increase null and void long term?