Today, I will eat a Serving of Crow.

[freedom fighter jh]

35. You're right. I should have said

should have said "you *seem to feel* you can't defend Social Security on its merits. As I said upthread, I agree with you that the program has plenty of merits. But I can't imagine any other reason than feeling that Social Security needs defense that it doesn't deserve that you would take the position you seem to be taking.

Social security money is for private use only after it has been distributed to recipients. It is collected for the public purpose of creating a program to support America's disabled and retired. "For public purposes" doesn't have to mean "for whatever public purposes the government decides at any time, even if it was collected for one specific public purpose." So I agree, up to a point: The government cannot spend the funds just wherever they want. But of course government *has to* spend the funds in paying them out.

By "distort" I meant your insistence that Social Security taxes are not taxes. I thought the dictionary definition was enough. But if you want to see more, check out this page from the Social Security Administration. Even they refer to the payments into the system as "taxes."

Helping conservatives? The Constitution does authorizes government to collect taxes -- but not to impose mandatory insurance premiums -- unless, of course, those premiums are taxes. (I'm not trying to say those deductions are not premiums -- only that they are a tax.) If you insist that "FICA deductions do not qualify as a 'tax'" then you're setting yourself up to be told they are unauthorized. Because they would be. Why go there?

The idea that money paid in to Social Security is a tax is not an anti-Social Security idea, nor does it support conservative ideas. It's just language. Insisting on something that is not true can weaken your argument.