|
Opinion #1
Debater: paraquat99
|
|
Abolishing S.S. is idealistic but not realistic.
|
|
Goose makes several good points but I ask him to define a "normal" society. If his definition is "first-world" nations, I doubt that "people are cared for by their communities and families when they become old or infirm." Because in most European nations (and even Canada) countries have a broader, cradle-to-grave-style social welfare programs that include not only the young, old and infirm but pretty much everyone else (i.e. universal healthcare, et al). While I too wouldn't necessarily like to see that expansive in the U.S., he fails to answer the following: w/o programs like S.S., what happens to the elderly or infirm whose families have abandoned them or all-out died? Society will either a) still pick-up the tab to assist them OR b) let them sink and perish. Before S.S. the infirmed (disabled) were all lumped together and put-in gov't.-funded, often abusive, institutions anyway. The elderly poverty was twice as high as it is today. Abolishing S.S. is idealistic but NOT realistic.
|
|
|
|
Opinion #2
Debater: Jtaylor1
|
|
Social Security leads to Communism and Fascism.
|
|
The Wild Goose has no idea on this debate. First, Who is Charles Ponzi and why should we care? Second, The US is expensive when the government is turning our sovereignty into a Fascist Communism with Big Brother on their side. Most likely, Society is already dead. Besides, where will we be when the government forbids us to bury our dead families? Where will we be when the government decides to abolish marriage? So let ask ourselves. Should we let our folks force us down and tatoo the number "666" on our forehead or should we stand up and fight against the Fascist Commies and take back what is rightfully ours? Social Security leads to lazyness, Communism, and Fascism.
|
|
|
