Converation thread

Absolutely not, strongly against that. FDR did do that for a time, though he did not try to drastically centralize executive power, Trump will do that, and his goals won’t be to create welfare, but to destroy it and separation of powers.

Ever heard of his court packing scheme to allow the President to pack the Supreme Court for his own personal interests, or the thousands of unconstitutional executive orders he signed, bypassing Congress, or the 2,000 Americans he knowingly allowed to be slaughtered at Pearl Harbour despite (and this has been proved under the Freedom of Information Act) knowing a Japanese attack was coming to Pearl Harbour? I can go on if that's not enough for you....

And he also gave us the Manhattan Project, social security, revived the economy during WW2, and was the only president ever to win 4 terms and have the highest amount of states in the electoral college. I COULD go on as well. Do I approve of everything he did? No, but there’s pros and cons here, and they drastically outweigh the cons. Besides, less than 10 of his orders were actually revoked.

Social security is a desperate need for those with nothing. We can’t leave them out to dry, and if that were privatized, they’d just be indebted to those corporations for generations. We needed it for the elderly, we needed it so they weren’t left to die on the streets if they were left without a retirement fund. It’s called a safety net for a reason, and that safety net saves lives.

If they never had to pay for it in the first place, however, this issue would be nonexistent. The returns on their "investment" seniors get in this program proves it is a liability, not an asset. This is harming people, not helping them. You have also used the two fallacies – the Slippery Slope fallacy and the Appeal to Emotion, claiming seniors would die on the streets if social security was privatised, which is the reverse of the truth – seniors, and citizens in general, would get actual service that is honest and direct from a PRIVATE source. The main thing that would…  Read more change would be that participation in the program would be voluntary, increasing people's liberties. Also, there would be a far better return on each participant's investment as there would be no meddling Congress spending the money they paid into the insurance scheme on foreign wars and counterproductive social programs. Rather than multiplying misery it would alleviate it, creating a safe, honest, and secure means by which seniors may retire in dignity and younger Americans may invest their income in whatever way they so choose. Remove the sensationalism and emotionalism from this issue and it becomes clear-cut – voluntarism and liberty vs cronyism and coercion. Why is the former choice so controversial?

Healthcare isn’t a freaking investment it’s not a business, nor should it have ever been, it’s a means of keeping people healthy into their elderly years. I didn’t say that ALL seniors would be in jeopardy, but far too many would be. Privatizing social security is a lazy and obvious cash grab for the very corporations you so vehemently stand against. Seniors, if they got an unlucky investment, would suffer incredibly in their old age. Corporations don’t increase the quality of their care, they just ramp up costs while stockpiling the drugs they have so then it can have momentary demand, and even then, the process is delayed. Besides, people don’t always make good investment decisions, and when that happens, they suffer. It’s a really crappy idea in general.

I know you believe all that, you've already established that. But please prove LOGICAL reasons why? This entire argument felt like one giant Question Begging Fallacy...