An experiment for Conservatives

reply to post by whatukno


Oh look guys, political baiting with a half-baked analogy that makes no sense!

You pay into something then claim, that's not entitlement is it?
Don't pay into something and claim, that's entitlement isn't it?

DOH! I fed the troll.....

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by whatukno

 

Oh look guys, political baiting with a half-baked analogy that makes no sense!

Political trolling is allowed now.

You just have to use a few paragraphs. Then it isn't trolling anymore, it is an 'argument' or a 'point being made'.

reply to post by Rockpuck


I just wonder why people think it's an entitlement if I pay for it.

Don't you think that you should get something that you paid for?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

I just wonder why people think it's an entitlement if I pay for it.

Don't you think that you should get something that you paid for?

It's an entitlement because you have no choice in it. The government takes your money and sticks it in a pool that earns minimal interest. You don't have any choice in that either. It's YOUR money. Why don't you, at the very least, have a choice of how to invest it? If they are going to take it from you, by force (but for your own good), the least they could do is give you the illusion that you have some say so in how YOUR money is invested!

But that isn't the way the government works, is it? If you have something, the government takes a portion, if not all, of it from you, under threat of imprisonment. They take it from you at the point of a gun and do you say"hey..that's mine you can't have it?" No, you say "here have some more! Is that enough?" Sometimes they give that money, that YOU worked for, to someone else. And you don't get it back because you're not poor enough, or you're the wrong color, or the wrong sex. But you are forced to give until you bleed, and you have NO CHOICE! I hate to break this to you, whatukno, but you have been brainwashed. You didn't even see it coming. Until you break the hold the government has on you, you will continue to be OK with extortion, deceit and theft.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American

But that isn't the way the government works, is it? If you have something, the government takes a portion, if not all, of it from you, under threat of imprisonment. They take it from you at the point of a gun and do you say"hey..that's mine you can't have it?" No, you say "here have some more! Is that enough?" Sometimes they give that money, that YOU worked for, to someone else. And you don't get it back because you're not poor enough, or you're the wrong color, or the wrong sex. But you are forced to give until you bleed, and you have NO CHOICE! I hate to break this to you, whatukno, but you have been brainwashed. You didn't even see it coming. Until you break the hold the government has on you, you will continue to be OK with extortion, deceit and theft.

Does this happen to you every payday? It's odd, but no one comes to me from the government with a gun and demands money from me. They have never done this to me. So, why should I believe your delusion that the government comes and commits armed robbery?

See, when you start off with a lie, the rest of what you say becomes a lie.

Sure, maybe we could set it up to where if you don't want to have SS taken out of your check but instead invest it in a 401K or blow it on whatever that's your choice. But what happens when you retire? What happens when some wall street crook like Bernie Madoff comes along and rips you off, or if you choose to not invest it at all? Would it be right to just let you starve and die in a gutter?

reply to post by skeet

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears.

After having read your long post I , for what reason I'm not sure, just had to reply. Down at the end of your list you say a conservative would email a friend so they could enjoy the laugh and liberal would delete it from being offended.
Well seeing as I do not find your post funny does that make me a liberal Democrat? I am offended, I can tell you that. But you see, I'm a Republican an have been for forty years son , I'm going to tell you why I'm offended.

Your whole thing here offends me. Sure, the OP in both our opinions laid out a silly and simple statement aimed at conservatives designed to be an example of his understanding of SS.

Was your reply intelligent, designed to aid the OP in understanding of a point of view different than his own.
He'll no. You showed him. You showed him how a conservative can act dumber than a liberal.

Your post takes one stereotypical situation or example after another and stacks them up like a house of cards that a brain dead cat could knock over on his way to a milk bowl.

Now the if a list you made. You made a list of a number of situations and offered a reasoned approach and resolution to the situation.
Then you give a totally stupid reaction to it and label it liberal democrat.

This is funny to you? To me it's sad.

That is unless you really believe this stuff. Then it's really sad.

No wonder liberals think conservatives are Yochums.

I'm just saying you're not helping anything with posts like that just like I'm probably not with posts like this.

Anyway, good night. It's past my bed time.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by The Old American

 

Does this happen to you every payday? It's odd, but no one comes to me from the government with a gun and demands money from me. They have never done this to me. So, why should I believe your delusion that the government comes and commits armed robbery?

See, when you start off with a lie, the rest of what you say becomes a lie.

Sure, maybe we could set it up to where if you don't want to have SS taken out of your check but instead invest it in a 401K or blow it on whatever that's your choice. But what happens when you retire? What happens when some wall street crook like Bernie Madoff comes along and rips you off, or if you choose to not invest it at all? Would it be right to just let you starve and die in a gutter?

You completely, utterly and with malice aforethought dismissed my argument out of hand. You focused on the banana peel, but ignored the piano plummeting toward your body. "Whew, sure am lucky I didn't step on that banana peelSQUISH!"

But, let's address the "lie" as you put it. If you don't pay into SS (meaning: if you find some way to prevent the company you work for from taking it out of your check, or if you are self-employed you just don't pay it) you will get a bill from the IRS at the end of the fiscal year. If you don't pay that bill, you will be fined. If you don't pay the fine and/or the bill you will go to jail. Simple? Is it a lie now? Will they point daisies at you while sending you to the pokey? Balloons maybe?

Now let's address my post. It said, in essence:

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE BUT TO PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY. NONE. ZIP. NADA. YOU ARE FORCED TO PAY. AGAIN: YOU. HAVE. NO. CHOICE.

I can't understand how a (supposedly) rational person would think it's OK to have no choice in how to spend your own money. I know the truth burns and you want to curl up, plug your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" until it goes away. Maybe when you get older you'll realize that since the government can't even fix their own budget, trusting them to handle your money may be a bad idea.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American

You completely, utterly and with malice aforethought dismissed my argument out of hand.

See, the problem here is, I have committed no murder, so, I could not have used Malice Aforethought in dismissing your argument out of hand. Malice Aforethought applies to murder and not dismissing a erroneous thought by another.

malice aforethought n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

But as I conceded earlier in this thread that people should have the option to not pay into this system. However, I don't want to instead be forced to pay wall street, that's like trusting a crackhead with money, sure, you can try, but it's likely that you won't see that money ever again.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by The Old American

 

You completely, utterly and with malice aforethought dismissed my argument out of hand.

See, the problem here is, I have committed no murder, so, I could not have used Malice Aforethought in dismissing your argument out of hand. Malice Aforethought applies to murder and not dismissing a erroneous thought by another.

I chose my words carefully. You murdered reason.

But as I conceded earlier in this thread that people should have the option to not pay into this system. However, I don't want to instead be forced to pay wall street, that's like trusting a crackhead with money, sure, you can try, but it's likely that you won't see that money ever again.

On this we can agree. Nobody should be forced to contribute to anything. It ceases, then, to be a contribution and becomes extortion.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


I heard that tax collectors bought a bunch of shotguns last year.

It would be much more efficient and less costly if they just went door to door robbing people during tax time. While sticking a gun in their employers face the collectors can explain how this behaviour is "the price we pay for civilization"...

All the desk jockeys they employ are a waste of money, it is like welfare for people with degrees and should be ended.

reply to post by The Old American


Now what happens to the people that opt out of SS and Medicare if for some reason they become disabled? Say they don't pay anyone for any kind of insurance or retirement? What happens to those people? Do they just starve and die?

Now, what is odd to me is when people say that Social Security is insolvent, it's broke, there's no money left. Because they never back up their claims with anything concrete.

But however This article seems to fly in the face of the naysayers who say that Social Security is broke.

Social Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus which has been building up since the 1983 amendments and is intended to help absorb the retirement of the baby boomers. This surplus is invested in US Treasury securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. According to the Social Security Trustees 2010 report, Social Security can pay full benefits until 2037, at which time, if nothing were done to strengthen its financing, Social Security would still be able to pay about 78 percent of benefits. This quarter of a century means there is time to strengthen its financing without cutting benefits for future beneficiaries. The American people will insist that Congress do what is needed for the program to pay full benefits and protect these benefits they were promised and have earned.

So, am I living in bizzaro world? Since when is a surplus actually broke?

Now it does go onto say that if we do nothing that retirees would only get 78% of their benefits. But that's a long way from saying that people would get nothing.

reply to post by The Sword


Centrist demonkrats are socialists, deny ignorance.

reply to post by whatukno
Do you really believe what you just wrote? If you do not believe that there are guns and coercion involved, try this experiment: Don't pay your taxes, but keep on working. They will come for you and take their money plus more and there is a very good chance you will go to prison for it. Please stop and think about that.

Originally posted by whatukno
Now, what is odd to me is when people say that Social Security is insolvent, it's broke, there's no money left. Because they never back up their claims with anything concrete.

But however This article seems to fly in the face of the naysayers who say that Social Security is broke.

Social Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus which has been building up since the 1983 amendments and is intended to help absorb the retirement of the baby boomers. This surplus is invested in US Treasury securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. According to the Social Security Trustees 2010 report, Social Security can pay full benefits until 2037, at which time, if nothing were done to strengthen its financing, Social Security would still be able to pay about 78 percent of benefits. This quarter of a century means there is time to strengthen its financing without cutting benefits for future beneficiaries. The American people will insist that Congress do what is needed for the program to pay full benefits and protect these benefits they were promised and have earned.

So, am I living in bizzaro world? Since when is a surplus actually broke?

Now it does go onto say that if we do nothing that retirees would only get 78% of their benefits. But that's a long way from saying that people would get nothing.

I have answered this same question in another thread, let's try it here too.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776.....and that does not scare you? Do you not understand that there is no social security trust fund? The so called trust fund is flooded with valueless T-Bonds. How can you not get that this is a huge problem???????? The money is worthless, just as soon as people realize it is. It's current "worth" is based solely upon your belief that it has value. Please stop deluding yourself and understand that the US government is broke; thus yes, like it or not, we are all broke. It is only a matter of time. Why do you think gold and silver are at all time highs? Why are people minting their own currencies? Why are states issuing their own currencies? We are in the shadow of a great big shoe and we are just waiting for it to drop. The only thing holding that "shoe" up and stopping from dropping right now is the shared belief that "full faith and credit" actually means something. Please take off your rose colored glasses and look at our current government. Look at who we have in government. Recall all of their lies and obfuscations. How much faith can you actually have in them? Believing in God and Jesus is a cinch compared to believing in obama, reid, pelosi, etc.... As for credit, have you checked our national debt?

Originally posted by whatukno
Here is an experiment for the conservatives who want to tell everyone that believe that Social Security and Medicare are "entitlement programs"

Go into a store, any store will do, pick a bunch of stuff that you want. Bring it to the counter, pay for it, then leave the store without it.

That's what Conservatives want everyone to do.

Each and every week, I pay for Social Security and Medicare, but for some reason, thinking that someday I may take this money that I have paid into the system, Conservatives think I am doing something wrong.

So, there it is, the experiment, go into any store of your choosing, pick out items you want, go and pay for those items, and leave them at the store, because that is what you are wanting everyone to do.

The other thing they want, is for us to give money to wall street.

So, there's an experiment for that too, go out, find a thief, bum, some other low life scum, give him your money, and ask him to go to the store for you. See how well that goes.

Let's try am addendum to your experiment. First, I am forced at gun point to go into that store every week and buy other people's groceries at which point I am given an IOU redeemable only at that grocery store and redeemable at age 62, later the redemption date is changed to 65, later the redemption date is 67, now they say that "you really want to work longer than age 67, so we are planning to move the redemption date to age 70. But don't worry your IOU is safe, backed by the full faith and credit of this grocery store" later you read in the news that the money you paid in that was not used just for other people's groceries but also for pet projects like aisle expansions as directed by the board of directors. So many nice things were done to the store to pretty it up that now the store is in massive debt. Actually half of their income now pays just for the debt that they accumulated. But hey don't worry, we stand behind that IOU.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


That would be impressive if you actually backed it up with any facts, any facts at all.

But without data to prove your rant there, all it becomes is a speculative rant by someone who is brainwashed by the right wing agenda.

You sat there stating that the SSA is lying in their report, (that I linked btw) but you don't have any proof at all to back up your claims?

So again, the experiment, go pay for your groceries, and just leave them in the store because that is what you are saying to me. Because I fully expect to get that money back when I retire. Even though I have conservatives SCREAMING at the top of their lungs that if I do, then I am receiving some sort of entitlement that I don't deserve.

reply to post by whatukno


Ok, I understand now. There are none so blind as he who Will Not See. Peace WuK.

One last thing just in case you missed it. Your own post provided the evidence for which you ask. I highlighted it in red for you.

Originally posted by whatukno
Now, what is odd to me is when people say that Social Security is insolvent, it's broke, there's no money left. Because they never back up their claims with anything concrete.



But however This article seems to fly in the face of the naysayers who say that Social Security is broke.

Social Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus which has been building up since the 1983 amendments and is intended to help absorb the retirement of the baby boomers. This surplus is invested in US Treasury securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. According to the Social Security Trustees 2010 report, Social Security can pay full benefits until 2037, at which time, if nothing were done to strengthen its financing, Social Security would still be able to pay about 78 percent of benefits. This quarter of a century means there is time to strengthen its financing without cutting benefits for future beneficiaries. The American people will insist that Congress do what is needed for the program to pay full benefits and protect these benefits they were promised and have earned.

So, am I living in bizzaro world? Since when is a surplus actually broke?

Now it does go onto say that if we do nothing that retirees would only get 78% of their benefits. But that's a long way from saying that people would get nothing.

You need some clarity on the reality and the myth of the SS "trust fund". We know that this money is tucked away in Federal bonds. Therefore, principal and interest on these bonds must be repaid by future generations, according to law of the land. The bonds in the Social Security trust fund are recorded both as an asset of the trust fund and as a liability, because they are part of the total federal debt. Essentially, one hand of the government owes the other hand, and the investments in the “trust fund” are not separate from the entity that sponsors the trust fund.

Its a circle of BUST! not trust. SS is a pay as you go system. Future generations will end up funding the benefits and the repayment of the principal and interest on the l government bonds in the trust fund.

Does not compute in my book. Danger Danger... Its all written on paper, show me the cash and the gold to back it up. The only way to honor these bonds is if future generations can actually afford to repay them!!

reply to post by whatukno


Hate to use Wikipedia but oh well:

It is instructive to note that the $2.5 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund has value, not as a tangible economic asset, but because it is a claim on behalf of beneficiaries on the goods and services produced by the working population. This claim will be enforced by the United States Government although the precise monetary mechanism of enforcement is yet to be determined. In order to repay the Trust Fund, the United States government has three options, which may all be pursued to varying degrees.

The insolvent solution:

Scenario 1 (Trust Fund is an accounting fiction):

* 1984: $1 payroll tax collected in 1984
* 1984: $1 lent by Social Security to the federal government
* 1984: Federal government increases spending on government programs by $1
* 2020: Federal government raises taxes by $1 plus interest to repay the loan to Social Security
* 2020: $1 plus interest transferred from Federal Government to Social Security.

The solvent solution:

Scenario 2 (Trust Fund represents real economic savings):

* 1984: $1 payroll tax collected in 1984
* 1984: $1 lent by Social Security to the federal government
* 1984: Federal government borrows $1 less from other sources and increases spending on government programs by $0
* 2020: Federal government raises taxes by $0, but may borrow from other sources, to repay the loan to Social Security. Any tax increases that occur in 2020 would have happened anyway without Social Security.
* 2020: $1 plus interest transferred from Federal Government to Social Security.

So as long as these "not yet determined" methods of funding show up everything's honky dory.

Would you invest capital in me? I promise to pay you back once a method for doing so has been determined.

The best part is that all of the projected sources of not yet determined funding involve debt scams with third world nations and selling it off to other nations and banks. So while the proponents of SS like to point out the grossly irresponsible behavior of bankster frauds the institution which they like to hold up as the antidote is seeking its funding in the exact same way.

It all comes down to some blind sense of righteous government. It can do no wrong even when it's doing wrong. If ghetto Joe wants to smash up my shop for not paying his "set" their due that's bad. If federal Stan wants to toss me in prison and sell off my assets for not paying his "set" their due that's wholly righteous and noble and I'm a crook for thinking otherwise.

Government can do no wrong. If it ever should happen to do wrong it's certainly for your own good. Or at least the "greater good."

It'll find it's "yet to be determined" funding. Either through shady derivative trading that has worked out so well in the past or through massive war mongering and that's great. Anything to keep the king healthy.