(11-08-2020, 07:26 PM)nemonowan Wrote:(11-08-2020, 05:12 PM)GethN7 Wrote: Yes. Social Security has such broad-reaching implications NO ONE, regardless of their politics, should mess with it, unless they handle it with the greatest care.
Social Security, on the other hand, is right up there with all the other basic "don't meddle with this unless you have expertly researched the options prior, and even then tread cautiously" positions, like our need to have a bare minimum for maintaining the postal system and need to regulate universal questions of law enforcement and civil defense that it would lead to anarchy and societal breakdown if we didn't.
Well, that's where you are misunderstanding (too) many of Republican and also Democratic Elders.
They CARE very much about Social Security , and they HAVE been researching the options; they have been doing it since the days of FDR. Because they WANT IT GONE. Same about the postal system, although that seems to be more recent. That eliminating the payroll tax would defund Social Security and bankrupt it is not a unfortunate, unforeseen side effect: IT WAS THE WHOLE POINT.
Why? Because their ideology is that no government program can improve the lives of people., and if there is any that does, it must be destroyed in order to prove that it actually couldn't do it. And it all comes from the fact that they will have less (economic/societal/etc) power over a prosperous people than over a starving, desperate people.
Therefore, according to them the only responsibility of a government should be the "law enforcement and civil defense" that you mentioned. Because it is needed to protect them from the "anarchy and societal breakdown" that starving, desperate people in revolt usually cause unless cowed by a military boot on their necks.
Then those who would destroy it are fools.
While I mostly consider myself a classical liberal, classical republicanism had the right idea on how the government has an obligation to see to the welfare of its citizens, and FDR was right when he considered Social Security to be the domain of the deserving poor, as in, those who otherwise would starve and die without assistance from anyone else.
I otherwise believe strongly trade should have some degree of protectionism, immigration is fine insofar as it's legal (I have no sympathy for illegal immigration), and that the average citizen is entitled to a chance at employment to earn their own bread with their own labor if at all possible.
Basically, I don't fit into a standard Republican/Democrat mold. My beliefs are a mix of what I consider the best parts of both platforms, as some aspects of both are worth considering and some I consider madness.
For example, I strongly support gay marriage despite being a devout Christian because everyone should have the right to choose and gay people marrying is no infringement on my own rights or that of others insofar as they are subject to the same penalties and restrictions as heterosexual couples insofar as the law makes feasible. I disagree with a certain part of the Republican platform that opposes abortion for the same reasons. I deplore it on moral grounds, but I believe its absolute abolishment is unrealistic, would cause more problems than it solves, and again, is a matter of personal moral choice, one that does not infringe on my rights for any woman to exercise, and despite my religious beliefs, I believe the choice to get one is a matter of law in the realm of Men. The hereafter is the business of the hereafter in that regard.
By the same token, I strongly believe law enforcement is a public good and oppose its defunding. I do agree when it steps over the line or becomes corrupt those officials should be punished harshly for it, but the demands by certain sections of the public to utterly dismantle law enforcement I consider absolute madness.
As for supporting Trump, I believed he had the necessary acumen to see to the recovery of the economy, would ensure immigration laws were better enforced, and I had no faith in Hilary Clinton's probity nor competence. I admit I have some concerns about Biden, but compared to Hilary, they are far less pronounced and I would be far less uneasy if he turns out to have legitimately won the Presidency. I believe Biden's remarks about the economy are unsound and not keen on his apparent intention to reverse Trump's protectionist stances, but we'll see how it goes if Biden winds up the legitimate winner.