Interesting Eisenhower quote

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Abner, Jun 2, 2005.

Loading...
  1. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Very prophetic quote by Eisenhower.


    Comments: This is one of several abridged versions circulating online of an actual statement by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961). The original passage, from a letter </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential%2Dpapers/first%2Dterm/documents/1147.cfm> Eisenhower wrote to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954, went as follows:

    Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.



    Abner :)
     
  2. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    So, then... edited for current day use:
    • "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security ... you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things ... [but t]heir number is negligible and they are stupid."

      - Dwight D. Eisenhower, from a 1954 letter to his brother, Edgar
    Ahhh. :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2005
  3. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Who's trying to "abolish" social security?
     
  4. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    little fauss is right, if I understand him correctly.

    The President sees an actuarial and financial problem a couple of decades in the future. He may not know MUCH (indeed he doesn't, from what I can see) but he DOES understand the time value of money. That MBA kicking in, I guess.

    FIX IT NOW. Waiting will cost so much MORE.
     
  5. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Of course you're assuming that everyone agrees it's even broke (as in, "Don't fix it if it ain't...").
     
  6. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    No, DesElms, I'm not assuming anything. I am basing my assessment on the figures that show that the system will begin to pay out more than it takes in at some point in the next twenty years. I am aware of no one who claims that this isn't so.

    There are different ways of dealing with this. One might be to let it happen, cut benefits at that time. Sure, but when that time comes, will cutting benefits be politically possible? It hasn't been so far.

    Or we could increase the payroll tax rate or raise the ceiling on taxable income, something the President has suggested. Okay, but if we wait to do that, the increases will be MUCH larger than they would be if we started NOW.

    Or we could impose a "means test" for benefits, something else the President has suggested. Again, okay, but if we do it NOW, the reduction in benefits for wealthier Americans will be much smaller than it will have to be if we wait.

    Private accounts have nothing to do with this argument. The purpose of the private account is to create the reality of ownership over some portion of one's social security savings. I am VERY MUCH in favor of that; as it stands, if you die before collecting, your tens of thousands of social security "contributions" disappear down the rat hole of federal spending. No wonder people are cynical!
     
  7. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    It's not even a matter of whether the program needs fixing. Assume a priori that it doesn't. That in spite of what many prominent Democrats were saying about the coming demise of the program (right up until Bush suggested that he wanted to tackle the problem, at which point there was an astounding about face; apparently the program, without any intervention, had miraculously fixed itself into the foreseeable future), that the program is fine and healthy.

    Even if, why not private accounts? Why not allow people on a purely voluntary basis to invest a miniscule portion in index funds or mutual funds? Why not? Even if the program were healthier that it had ever been in its 70 year history, why not make a decision that makes perfect economic sense? That will actually operate as a marginal but immediate stimulus to the economy and will almost certainly increase returns for those who voluntarily opt in to the program?

    The opposition to this is perfectly insane.
     
  8. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    little fauss:

    Insane? No. I think though that opposition stems from a profound and well merited distrust of this Aministration.

    I don't agree with the President because I BELIEVE him. I don't. I distrust him more thoroughly than I distrusted Nixon. He has lied, and lied, and lied...but in this matter, I can tell to my own satisfaction from sources independent of the Administration that something needs to be done.
     
  9. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    No, it's insane what they're doing to themselves here. Kind of like elevating that old-time fire-and-brimstone prophet Howard Dean. It's self-destructive. They're criticizing Bush, excoriating him for his good ideas, bad ideas, any ideas. Just reflexively opposing him for anything.

    Who can keep a straight face by opposing private, voluntary social security accounts? Who can keep a straight face by claiming that the judicial filibuster is a "time-honored tradition" that the Republicans are seeking to destroy after 200 years of glorious history?

    And while we agree on this point, I still think that you're letting the bitterness of 2000 cloud your judgment on this guy. Because the red state monkey relied on crummy, spotty intelligence to justify an invasion, we get from Democrats that he's all about "lies, lies, lies", purely Nixonesque. Come on! Tell me about all these lies--what lies? Can you name ANY other than the alleged lies that supprted the Iraqi invasion?

    Sheesh, at least he's not renting the Lincoln Bedroom to the highest bidder, having his way with near-teenage interns, sliding a defense secret or two to the Red Chinese in exchange for a little contribution, or mysteriously "losing" all those FBI files on politcal opponents. Talk about Nixonesque!
     
  10. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    No. The Iraqi invasion is nonsense with a hideous cost.

    Now, it's all about "spreading freedom". Sure. Wait and see what happens when American bayonets leave before you draw any conclusions about THAT. Regime change for its own sake is NEVER justification for invasion. Partly because its immoral and contrary to international law. Partly because it doesn't work.

    But it was SUPPOSED to be about WMD. Or, really, WMD was decided upon as the public justification well in advance of 9/11. The British memo is proof of that, if more proof were needed.

    Sorry, little fauss. The guy lied to get what he wanted. And he has a nice long history of doing exactly that.

    And now we're paying with lives and treasure to redeem his lies.
     
  11. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Privatization of SS in Britain

    Even if, why not private accounts? Why not allow people on a purely voluntary basis to invest a miniscule portion in index funds or mutual funds? Why not? Even if the program were healthier that it had ever been in its 70 year history, why not make a decision that makes perfect economic sense? That will actually operate as a marginal but immediate stimulus to the economy and will almost certainly increase returns for those who voluntarily opt in to the program?

    The opposition to this is perfectly insane. [/B][/QUOTE]

    I would merely direct you to the following link as far as private accounts:

    http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/socialsec/ss_britain.html

    Take care,

    Abner :)
     
  12. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction..."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
     
  13. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    "Mission Accomplished" GWB.
     
  14. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    And while I await your reply, counselor, which I'm sure will be pithy, I'd like to relate to you a little story that's cute that happened a few minutes ago.

    The wife was preparing Shabbat dinner and called me at the office: "Emergency, I forgot to get the rice for meal, can you come home while I go to the store?" As I only live 5 minutes from the office (one of the nice things about small town life), I zipped home to relieve her. My three oldest children (8,6,4) were re-enacting the fall of Jericho in the living room floor. Had the legos out and quite a little wall constructed with the obligatory lego Cannanites inside and the Israelites (well, guess they weren't technically that yet) marching about outside, let by a priest, properly a purple lego to signify his garments. I got the shofar down from the mantle for them and they marched their little lego armyu around the walls of Jericho 7 times, then shouted, pretended to blow the shofar, and the lego walls were dust! Scared the daylights out the baby playing nearby in the crib!

    Oh to be a kid again.
     
  15. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Re: Privatization of SS in Britain

    I would merely direct you to the following link as far as private accounts:

    http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/socialsec/ss_britain.html

    Take care,

    Abner :) [/B][/QUOTE]

    They have economic problems in the UK due to their socialist policies that go far beyond retirement accounts for social security. Their economy stinks! We are robust by comparison. I'm glad the AARP was able to scour the world for a single example of a privitization option gone bad, bully for them. They have left their objectivity on this matter far behind and have joined the dubious ranks of Amnesty International for sheer cynical partisanship.

    It depends on the stock market, and if anyone anywhere thinks that the U.S. stock market won't, over the long haul, outperform the 2% or so return offered by social security, they are misguided at best, blasted liars at worst.

    The stock market has historically averaged 10% or 11% increases over the long haul--including the Great Depression, the early 70s recession and the downturn of 2000. A more on point example right here in the U.S. is in Texas, where a municipality allowed privatization of retirement accounts that showed a huge return for those who opted for that option over the conventional; I believe it was in Galveston or Corpus Christi, and I believe the private rate of return was something like 300% more than the public.

    And again, a thousand times over, these accounts are a purely private option. Of course there's a chance--however miniscule--they might show a lesser rate of return. But what of it? We're talking about allowing people to make a choice as to what to do with their own retirement accounts. The AARP and apparently every major Democrat of note are against this freedom of choice. Why is this such a difficult concept for people?!?

    Anyway, best to you, Abner. :)
     
  16. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Privatization of SS in Britain

    They have economic problems in the UK due to their socialist policies that go far beyond retirement accounts for social security. Their economy stinks! We are robust by comparison. I'm glad the AARP was able to scour the world for a single example of a privitization option gone bad, bully for them. They have left their objectivity on this matter far behind and have joined the dubious ranks of Amnesty International for sheer cynical partisanship.

    It depends on the stock market, and if anyone anywhere thinks that the U.S. stock market won't, over the long haul, outperform the 2% or so return offered by social security, they are misguided at best, blasted liars at worst.

    The stock market has historically averaged 10% or 11% increases over the long haul--including the Great Depression, the early 70s recession and the downturn of 2000. A more on point example right here in the U.S. is in Texas, where a municipality allowed privatization of retirement accounts that showed a huge return for those who opted for that option over the conventional; I believe it was in Galveston or Corpus Christi, and I believe the private rate of return was something like 300% more than the public.

    And again, a thousand times over, these accounts are a purely private option. Of course there's a chance--however miniscule--they might show a lesser rate of return. But what of it? We're talking about allowing people to make a choice as to what to do with their own retirement accounts. The AARP and apparently every major Democrat of note are against this freedom of choice. Why is this such a difficult concept for people?!?

    Anyway, best to you, Abner. :) [/B][/QUOTE]

    Part of the opposition to private accounts is the extreme cost involved in order to initiate the change. I do not recall the exact amount, but is quite steep. Why would the Adminstration want to spend money it does not have? If the argument is that Social Security is in peril, why take some ungodly amount of money in order to supposedly start this "Blended" Social Security system. It just does not add up. Perhaps we need to worry about the immediate problems in this country like the deficit, which keeps getting worse daily. That is an urgent need, the value of the dollar keeps dropping and jobs keep getting outsourced. Not to mention that we owe enormous amounts of money to countries like Japan, China, etc. I would beg to differ that are economy is quite robust.

    Just my humble opinion Counselor,


    Have a great weekend!

    Abner :)
     
  17. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    He he he!




    He, he, he!


    Abner :)
     
  18. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Good points!

    Good points Nosborne!

    GWB can explain his lies to a young man I watched grow up, he came back from Iraq without his legs! His lies will never make him walk again. Let GWB tell him it will be ok!

    Just my two cents,

    Abner :)
     
  19. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    You omitted the most obvious palliative:

    SSA

    Raise the age.
     
  20. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    That's a cryptic remark.

    What does it mean? Abner seems to thinks it's funny. Or is at least playing along with a fellow Democrat. Or perhaps it's some inside joke to which I'm not privy.

    But what does "mission accomplished" mean in this context?

    Does it mean that by invading Iraq, GWB "accomplished the mission" that so many prominent Democrats seemed to think was so necessary judging by their rhetoric--which I've shown you all and to which I've heard a grand sum total of one non sequitur in response--but that they simply didn't have the will to carry out?

    Or that GWB engaged in a policy of such diabolical Hitlerian deception and misinformation regarding Iraq that it fooled even otherwise intelligent and peace-loving Democrats, hence the quotes?

    Which is it?

    You know, guys, I've gone and shown you how prominent Democrats, many of whom were very much privy to the same sort of data and intelligence as Bush, who seemed equally convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but that they posed a dire threat. And all I get, in response, is some cutesy little two word comment that I can't even decipher? And this is all you have to support your charges of "lies, lies, lies"?

    That's pretty pathetic. You're going to have to do better than that.
     

Share This Page