I wonder why the Liberal agenda is so inconsistent. I read on my Social Security statement today that in 2017 we will be paying out more in benefits than receiving in taxes. Obviously this is because there are more elderly people collecting than younger people paying taxes. Therefore as the ever pragmatic libs should realize the more children born in this country means more tax revenue from those prospect tax payers and Social Security is fixed! But wait, aren’t they also the ones who are in favor of murdering thousands of potential tax payers in the form of abortion. True to the liberal inconsistent agenda, the answer will probably come in the form of euthanasia rather than life for babies. It makes me wonder why the inconsistency????
I Wonder Why. . .
Matthew Johnson
Follower of Jesus Christ. Husband of Bonnie. Father of Carter, Lucas, Bryce and Carley. Preacher of Grace. Lover of Truth.
Hmmm, consider, Matthew, that you may be making some logical leaps here. A fiscally liberal agenda does not necessarily mean a morally liberal agenda… the two are completely different issues and may not always be connected.
Ruth, why must you poke holes in my faulty logic??? I know that there are fiscal liberals, social liberals, theological liberals, etc. But one cannot deny that most social liberals are also fiscal liberals. Maybe not vice versa, but I believe your statement is the exception to the rule not the rule. Regardless of ones political or social agenda, would not population increase be the simplest salvation of the social security problem (long term here)? The reason I started thinking this is because the newsletter continued to say that in 2047 (something like that) we will only have enough money coming in (taxpayer revenue based upon number of taxpayers primarily) to pay $.78 for every $1.00 owed. The Social Security administration gave no suggested answer just said the problem and then in a squishy kind of way said basically to make sure you have other means of income when you get older. Another thing it said that made me think about this is something to the effect of this: Social security is a multi-generational compact. Therefore if this generation is taking more than is being paid in, would it not logically stand to reason to try to get more coming in (that is the best way to handle shortfalls in a budget-make more money-sadly not the most achievable, but the best). How then do we make more money for social security? I know, by having more social security payers in the future. But then I consider that our country has allowed over 49 million abortions since Roe v. Wade in 1973, and if only a third of those babies (read potential taxpayers) survived;(about 16 million) I am wondering if we would be in a social security crisis. Note the generation who is collecting social security now, did not have the abortion on demand that we have now when they were children.
There Ruthie, go ahead poke some more holes. . . for my logic is usually understood by no one but myself. 🙂
Well, first, to view aborted children as potential taxpayers is pretty mercenary, don’t you think?
Second, well, I had a whole clever retort planned out for you, but the more I think about all those abortions, the more I realize I can’t be flip and argumentative here. It just makes me sad to think about all those lives cut off.
We’ve really got two big problems here, don’t we? The social security problem doesn’t really trouble me too much… I’ve never counted on that money for my retirement anyway. I’ll just have to have lots of kids to support me when I get old. 😉 But seriously, increasing the population, by whatever means, is not going to solve the problem. It’s a flawed system–it was from the beginning.
The issue of abortion on the other hand is so disturbing, and sadly is not going away. I have no solutions to offer here and no more holes to poke.
Obviously I would hope that you (and others) would know me well enough to know that the abortion problem is very troubling to me, and not because of social security or the loss of taxpayers. The social security problem is not that important to me either. I my post and my response, I am actually attempting to be facetious. It seems to me that the Libs who are in favor of abortion are extremely pragmatic-no concern over the possibility (for me-certainty) that they are extinguishing a God given soul, no concern over whether abortion causes pain in the child (they would say fetus), no worry about the long-term psychological effects on the mother; but rather a pragmatic approach “We don’t want it so we will kill it and call it something else.” I was trying to show how cold and heartless this is by saying that if they are truly going to be unemotionally pragmatic and view these babies as fetuses and decide abortion is okay because it is so much more practical, the same could be turned around and it is so much more practical for the good of America to allow these children to live. My point about the inconsistency is that the Liberal agenda is one of practicality when it suits their world view, and it is thoughtful when it suits their world-view.
Now I don’t think of innocent babies as merely “tax payers” but my point is don’t complain about not having enough to fund social security (due to less young population) when you have allowed mass genocide of the young population.
Matt, rest assured that I DO know you well enough to know how troubling the issue is for you, and I did recognize your comments as facetious. 🙂 I was just feeling argumentative… and then when I got in the middle of it, realized that it was too heavy a topic for me to really pursue the subject so flippantly as I was.
Anyway, love ya, big brother!