Calling my comments bigoted is the same as calling me bigoted, unless you’re suggesting my mouth occasionally takes a vacation from my brain.

I’m sorry you find the word “illiterate” so offensive. That line of thinking, however, suggests the many studies out there measuring literacy are equally bigoted because they dare call large segments of the population illiterate. Writing is not the sole determining factor for literacy as I’ve already laid out. If you disagree with me, I suppose we’ll have to be content with that.

On social security, I did not merely repeat my political philosophy. I expanded on my previous comments to explain how despite my political philosophy, I could see the concerns of people with disabilities relying on the benefits. I suggest you look past your disagreements with my political views and see my points for what they were. That could lead to a more intelligent debate, since your personal reasoning on the subject is flawed, to put it courteously. You simultaneously argue that the greater number of retirees will help supplement benefits like SSDI, then argue that the recent economic downturn has put a dent in the program because more people are drawing from the fund. In both scenarios, if I’m understanding them correctly, the availability of funds is diminishing either from consumption or from lack of tax influx. Will it completely disappear? I doubt that. As I also stated in the podcast, it is likely that benefits could be cut between a third and one half depending on your age range. Your reliance on this concept of a social contract for benefits like SSDI to endure is frankly dillusional. There is no social contract if there is no money, but if you want to go on believing that just because you paid your taxes, the money will be there, you go right on ahead and plan that way. I have slightly more faith in my pension plan than I do any social security benefits, and I don’t really put that much stock in my pension surviving so that kind of gives you a sense of my faith in the system. My investments are the only things I trust, and even with investments you have to plan carefully. Increasing or eliminating the payroll cap on high income earners could be one way to put a bandaid on the problem, but social security is not the only social program in need of a vast revamp under the liberal way of approaching issues.

On the topic of social security repeating your political philosophy does not make you appear anymore informed about this important topic. I would urge you to get some guests if you wish to cover this topic in an informed manner. There is no long term demographic problem for the disability trust fund because baby boomers will be leaving working age and entering retirement age in great numbers stabilizing th number of sSDI recipinents per worker in time. There has been a short term issue with SsDI as unemployed workers used SSDI as a replacement for unemployment benefits during the economic downturn. Joe should be aware that entitlements are called that because we purchased those benefits with defined payroll taxes, they aren’t gifts, we paid for them so we are entitled to them. Reducing thos benefits would be reneging on a social contract. No one can accurately predict what future politicians will do, but perhaps the most likely solution to be adopted would be increasing or eliminating the payroll cap for high incomes.