Leaderboard

He certainly was from 28 July 1964 through 17 February 1972.

Good to know that so many think they can speak AND interpret for me. Let me educate you a little bit; cause those from Canada, Britain and some here in the US seem to think they know what they're talking about - when they don't. . What Mr. Stewart was arguing for wasn't pay, wasn't healthcare. It was about the disability fund for those first responders. If you are injured or get a disease in the service of your country there is a fund set up to ensure you remain whole. If you get too sick or your injuries begin to affect the way you can perform which jeopardizes your ability to work; it can have an effect on you and your family's livelihood. Firefighters, police officers, and some other vocations cannot purchase long-term disability like those in other jobs because their jobs are too dangerous and there is an exclusion clause. Try being a professional skydiver and try to get long-term disability insurance. Heck, try to get life insurance. Not going to happen. And, social security - even after paying 100% of the committed amount for it for years and receiving $2,000/mo is not going to pay the rent or groceries in New York City. Remember that the U.S. got the idea for a social-security system from 19th century Germany. That very capitalist monarchy launched an old-age social insurance program in 1889 at the behest of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, partly to stave off radical socialist ideas being floated at the time. The original social security was actually an anti-socialist maneuver by a conservative government. Again, it's not about Pay or Healthcare; it's about extending a disability fund specific for those heroes. It's not a socialist program. But, I'm sure some very educated people and foreigners will be here shortly to attempt to correct me or throw out some one-liners.

There is no means test for this program. It's about helping those injured in the line of duty. 'One of the authors of the Social Security Act, Senator Walter F. George (Democrat of Georgia), asserted, "Social security is not a handout; it is not charity; it is not relief.... As an earned right, the individual is eligible to receive his benefit in dignity and self-respect."' In my opinion, if you pay for groceries; you expect to have dinner that night, I said I wouldn't vote for Mr. Stewart because he's a self-avowed Socialist. I've been to Socialist countries (not on vacation).and, my fear is when those who tout themselves as "socialist" really don't know what it is - and then they want to impart that self-proclaimed wisdom on the rest of America - in office. I didn't say his going to congress was a bad idea or that he's a bad person. I think he'd be refreshing to have in the room as an advisor just to get a different perspective from his views. He was effective and the next day. The Next Day. Congress approved the act (neither the left or right did that - he did. One man). I don't see it as any different than my agreeing with the other posters on here regarding specific points of regard - climate change, responsible gun ownership, etc. That doesn't make them socialists - it just means they give a shit about this country. This argument is getting silly.. I don't mind people who have a different political philosophy, or who believe in a different religion or who don't even believe - period. People have a right to differing viewpoints and our constitution guarantees it.. What I don't want to see here in the U.S. is a migration of capitalism towards socialism. I get that it's a cool new buzzword; but the reality is - socialism really really sucks. You've got to ask yourself why countries like China; Vietnam; Cuba are moving more towards capitalism every day. If your interested; feel free to read the following hyperlink. Of course; I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say that I'm just "copying/pasting more bullshit from the internet." https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081514/socialist-economies-how-china-cuba-and-north-korea-work.asp