It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seriously!! People that are ignorant of the issues should not be allowed to vote.

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by GrantedBail
 



Social Security is not an ENTITLEMENT!!!!!


Oh WOW!

It isn't???

I'm sorry, but it most certainly is! Think of Social Security as you would car insurance.....bear with me, I know it is difficult.....
I Love when people Like Seeker get all Huffy and Cocky, while making themselves looked Foolish with their Ignorance.
You can call it Car Insurance , A Duck, or a Hammer if you want, for its None of those Regardless.

Bear with Me Seeker, I know its Difficult, ..... But SS is basically a IRA , held by, and Invested by the Fed Government, with Funds the Worker has Contributed through his Work.

Its not a Entitlement , no matter how many times you put quotations around the word.
Its money held in Trust, by the Gov, to be Repaid back to the Contributor in his Golden years.




posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 





There is a trust fund. It has been borrowed against by congress. They need to pay it back.


I'm sorry but an empty trust fund is no longer a trust fund. It's gone. Now you're just playing semantics. The money was spent years ago. Earlier in this thread you claimed there were trillions in an account, now you admit it has been "borrowed". Nice try.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 





But SS is basically a IRA ,


That was hilarious SS is like a IRA!.

An Ira is something a person actually funds themselves, not making employers, and other people pay for it

An IRA is absolutely nothing like SS
edit on 14-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by GrantedBail
 



OK I see where you went. I will agree. What I don't agree with is the framing of the national discussion regarding Social Security as some kind of welfare benefit that affects the deficit and the budget.

It is a "meme", "entitlement".

You know what we are talking about. You want to play semantics...let's go.


The fact that you think I am playing semantics, proves only one thing to me! You believe in the two party system!!!

I hate em both!!!! Get it????

The fact of your OP and what pissed me off, was that you chose to blame all of our problems on 1 program! That fact alone and what you said, led me to believe you are a die hard right winger! Am I right?

So don't get all bent out of shape, because I choose to believe that the reason our country is so screwed up is to not be blamed on one party and one party alone! If the partisan arguments could hold any water whatsoever, then why is it that no matter how much they argue, NOT A DAMN ONE OF EM, WILL STAND UP AND TELL THE TRUTH????

But you go right ahead and call people who don't believe in the two party system too dumb to vote, or you go ahead and believe that those who don't believe as do you that they are too stupid to vote, when the fact of the matter is, that the whole process is rigged from the get go!

It's people like you who believe that voting in someone whom has already been selected by those who control the game is going to solve our problems, the reason WE ARE ALL SCREWED!!!

Have fun living in your fantasy world. You will soon find out just like the rest of us, how the government has sold every damn one of us out to the globalist bankers!


edit on 14-4-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)


You seem really confused. Did you read the same OP as the rest of us? Or do not even care what he actually said and your just looking for a chance to go on a rant?



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I think people are in their won right to vote, or not vote. I don't vote and probably never will (in the UK)



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 



It is an insurance fund that has been paid into for decades by middle class Americans.


So, if that's all social security is, then why bother "paying into it" by sending the government your money when you could just open a savings account?
edit on 15-4-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


cause elections aren't rigged and both parties aren't controlled by the same people.

bwahahahahahaha

seriously, people who are ignorant of the truth should not be allowed to post



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


who decides what consitutes " informed " ? - many issues do not have a right / wrong answer , rather each alternative will have differening befenfits and disadvantages

you are not one of those people who only wants people who agreee with your ideology to be allowed to vote are you



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by GrantedBail
 



There is a trust fund. It has been borrowed against by congress. They need to pay it back.

I'm sorry but an empty trust fund is no longer a trust fund. It's gone. Now you're just playing semantics. The money was spent years ago. Earlier in this thread you claimed there were trillions in an account, now you admit it has been "borrowed". Nice try.



What money is NOT borrowed money? Debt is what fuels our monetary system. What bank exists that could pay every last cent back out to its account holders and have it retain the value it has at this moment? It all works by trust, trust that those paper notes represent an actual value. Not enough money exists to pay off every debt and settle every account. "Interest" has made sure of that. We just print more of that paper and life goes on.

Someday it may all come to an end with our monetary systems and we can only hope some other type of equitable system will be in place to keep civilization from grinding to a halt. Both frightening and humorous when it is all examined and the reality of it actually sets in. Hope then you will have something of actual value that could sustain you. It is a faith-based system so it seems appropriate our currency is stamped with the words "In God We Trust."
Might as well laugh about it...
and honor our debts.


edit on 15-4-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by seeker1963
 


Dude. I know all about the trust fund. I know how congress borrows from it bla bla bla bla. It is not a government expenditure. It is a freaking candy bowl that is dipped into all the time.

I don't know what you are tripping on.

Social Security is not an ENTITLEMENT!!!!! It is not flipping welfare. It is an insurance fund that has been paid into for decades by middle class Americans.

I up on all of that.

Anything else??


What trust fund? Thanks to Clinton and Bush that was emptied out years ago. And yes it is an entitlement if a person pays into something for decades then they should be entitled to get money out of it.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The real sad part of the entire argument is that both of you are correct in your assessment. And here is why.



Social Security was started back in 1935. It was designed to encompass several social welfare and social insurance all rolled up into one nice neat tidy package. The funds, which all who make money are suppose to pay into, through the payroll taxes and FICA. They are then entrusted to the Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund, Disability, and hospital insurance, and Supplemntary Medical Insurance.

This was passed during FDR's first term in office, to assist the senior citizens who had lost everything due to the Great Depression, and were in poverty, and as a means to protect the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, widows and fatherless children. It was never ment to be the sole means of income that it has become for millions of people. The ideal being that you paided into it, and when you retired, you would be able to collect on the money that you paid into the system to assist with everyday living. After all who wants to see their Grandmother out on the street living like a bag lady?

Idealy it was a good idea, and still is, as it provides protections for those who are old or infirmed, but it has ultimately started to spiral out of control. And one of the main problems is the Federal government, as it is not easily sustainable.

The biggest problem came when the fund started to make money, it was running surplusses in the fund, well out of the danger zone, that was great, until the people in Congress decided it was another source of money that could be exploited and they do. They take the money from this fund and then leave an IOU in its place, creating a debt to Social Security.

So there you can see that you are both correct it is and is not a part of the problem. If the federal government were to pay back all of the money it has borrowed from the Social Security fund, it would be solvent again. But it does such at a slow pace, and makes it difficult for the people running it to try to manage what is in the fund. Kind of like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Combine that with the lack of COLA increase every year, infact they are planning to cut back on Social Security payments, if not freeze them in the upcoming year, making it harder for those who depend on it to survive and live.

In short it is a fund that we all pay into, but do to government overspending, has become a part of the national debt.

But here is the other problem about the electorate, for all of the freedoms that we have, and for all of the ability for us to use our voices, many people do not care, do not take the time to vote or go with what seems popular, listening to the outright lies that all politicians will say to get elected. That is more of the problem, not the ignorance of the issues, but the lies politicians will tell to get a vote.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
So basically, nobody with a different oppinion should be allowed to vote. How very close-minded.
How do you know that you're not the ignorant one?



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Actually, you're right, but so is your father.

Firstly, SS IS funded. Partly by the individual worker, and partly by the employer. The problem, years ago, the "lock box" was pilfered, with the intent to pay it back. How often do politicians keep those kinds of promises?

I am one that sees that light at the end of the tunnel and will be able to reap that benefit. So as a baby boomer, one how funded a few wars, sent people to the moon etc, all with the promise that in my senior years, would be taken care of, are slowly but deliberately being pushed into having to take more care of our selves. Add to that, actually being told that, now, after being proud to serve their country, just by working and contributing to,society, are now a pariah?

Sorry but, I'm offended.

Both sides of that table (Reps and Democrats) feel their solutions will improve/repair SS, So I guess there is a desire to keep it going.

Sadly, these days, each party strongly feels that the only solution is THEIR solution with no desire to compromise.

A big help, initially, would be to turn it back to the "lock box" paradigm. Put monies from now on, instead of the general fun. That by itself would add years to the fund.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
Someday it may all come to an end with our monetary systems and we can only hope some other type of equitable system will be in place to keep civilization from grinding to a halt.


Maybe civilization itself is the problem. Perhaps it should come to a grinding halt; or, rather, a fantastic and catastrophic end.

But if you install a new "system" after the collapse, the same problems we have now will inevitably resurface in one form or another. You can't have a "system" without social coercion. And social coercion breeds resentment; resentment fosters greed, etc.

So no new "systems". Human beings have evolved over millions of years to be hunter-gatherers. That's probably the only system we need.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NthOther

Maybe civilization itself is the problem. Perhaps it should come to a grinding halt; or, rather, a fantastic and catastrophic end.

But if you install a new "system" after the collapse, the same problems we have now will inevitably resurface in one form or another. You can't have a "system" without social coercion. And social coercion breeds resentment; resentment fosters greed, etc.

So no new "systems". Human beings have evolved over millions of years to be hunter-gatherers. That's probably the only system we need.


Perhaps civilization was just a bad experiment and we should revert back to a more savage state. I'm good with that, I'm an American expat retired and living in Mexico. Works for me.

Really, nothing in this life is perfect and we just have to do the best we can and try to be happy. Some form of community seems desireable and we have a plethora of models to examine and to learn by, none of those perfect either. From all I can tell the leading global planners don't have the most equitable system in mind for us for their idea of a new order. Our best bet is having localized autonomies with an option to live alone and apart as well. Community is good for some but no one size fits all. Should we vote on it?



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Well, I don't think we should do that for real, but I think it is a good idea anyway. I know that since I moved to Idaho, I have become less informed because there are active campaigns in the state to keep me misinformed or ill-informed. From socializing in the area to television to news stations, there are a *lot* of ways to be lied to and manipulated by some conservatives.

I pick up so many false facts, I am sure that if I voted, I would be voting based on a fantasy and not a reality - meaning someone else is benefiting off my brainwashing, even if I try to vote for what I think is best based on what I "know."



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Unless we are voting on what to have for dinner nobody should be voting on anything. My freedom isn't up for a vote.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join