An experiment for Conservatives

Originally posted by whatukno
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.

The problem - just so that ukno - is that you will want to spend more of that social security money for yourself than you have actually paid in. That you will want to spend money that the government really doesn't have.

Instead of trying to blame conservatives, try blaming ALL of the politicians over the years that decided that the social security trust fund - meant to help keep social security solvent - was a cash cow they could tap for whatever pork barrel spending they wanted to use if for. After all, to them it was just a pile of money just sitting there doing nothing - right?

WUK Big I enjoyed your apt analogy and share your views on SS not being an entitlement program.

Funny to see all the usual suspects attack your creative metaphor as they are unable to offer any original ideas of their own. I suspect they don't want the government involved since they'd rather farm it out through privatization so they can repay all the corporate banksters who contributed to their campaigns.

Once the corporate fat cats have skimmed and embezzled all they can and the private firms fail, Uncle Sam would still be left holding the bag anyway. By the way, as far as programs go, (government or private) Medicare is actually a highly efficient system and operates with 5% administrative costs.

Administrative costs are lower under Medicare than for private health insurance, although Medicare costs are higher than reported in the Federal budget and private costs are not dramatically higher than Medicare once non-comparable costs (commissions, premium tax and profit) are removed. Our best estimates indicate Medicare at slightly above 5% of total Medicare cost in 2003, whereas the government currently reports about 2%..

SOURCE (Page 2)

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 also an "entitlement" because the government also hands it out to people that didn't pay into it - like illegals. Ukno, people that aren't "entitled" to it.

source

reply to post by centurion1211


Again, and this is where everyone who has responded negatively to this thread has failed to do so far. How is it wrong for me to get what I pay for?

Why is this wrong?

If I pay for something, why should I feel bad about taking what I paid for?

If you get a great deal on a car, or a discount at a store or hotel, do you say "oh no, I can't do that, that would be wrong for me to do!"?

I am just not seeing why it's wrong to want something I paid for.

reply to post by centurion1211


But I'm not an illegal, I am a natural born citizen of this country and ever since I started working I have paid into this system with the promise that when I retire, that I will get this money back.

If you bought insurance on your car, and you get into an accident, do you tell the insurance company. "Oh no, don't pay for the repairs, that would be an entitlement!"?

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Funny to see all the usual suspects attack your creative metaphor as they are unable to offer any original ideas of their own.

Also funny to see the usual suspects here that still think the government's money is not also our money. That still fail to understand the concept of WE DON"T HAVE THE MONEY. That also don't understand that having the government borrow money and print money to pay for things is really bad for current citizens - due to the inflation that simply printing money causes - and future citizens - who will someday have to deal with the monetary problems they are choosing to ignore.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by centurion1211

 

But I'm not an illegal, I am a natural born citizen of this country and ever since I started working I have paid into this system with the promise that when I retire, that I will get this money back.

If you bought insurance on your car, and you get into an accident, do you tell the insurance company. "Oh no, don't pay for the repairs, that would be an entitlement!"?

Read my other post about where much of the social security money has really gone - spent by greedy politicians.

And also try to understand this relatively simple concept/example concerning payments to illegals and government "borrowing" of SS money..

You pay in $100,000 to social security and expect to get it back someday when you retire.

Meanwhile, the government gives $25,000 to some people that didn't pay into the system.

The government also decides that since your money is just sitting there, they will use $25,000 of it for something else "temporarily" but never remembers to pay it back.

So, the $100,000 you expect to receive is now only $50,000.

What to do, what to do?

Originally posted by centurion1211
Also funny to see the usual suspects here that still think the government's money is not also our money.

Funny you must not have followed my link in post above. Here is an excerpt so you don't have to click your mouse.

Social Security ISN'T an entitlement because the money being issued to recipients of the program is actually theirs to begin with!

For some reason Politicians seem to think they are entitled to take OUR MONEY away. Money WE contributed. No it was NEVER meant to subsidize a luxurious lifestyle... It was intended as a well deserved benefit for retired working Americans who paid into the system to supplement their non income producing years along with personal savings, investments,401K's, insurance, annuities and other financial instruments.

It seems we agree, no?

reply to post by whatukno


The argument that say "well we pay S.S. tax so its ours" No it is just that. a TAX you do not deserve it it can be taking away. It is not a god givin right.

reply to post by whatukno


It's not wrong for you to expect to get what you pay for. If I buy a cheeseburger I expect to get a cheeseburger.

It's wrong to be forced to pay for a thing. You have no right to put a gun to my head and demand I buy a cheeseburger. Likewise I have no right to expect to receive said cheeseburger if I never paid for it.

This whole "I paid for it so I should get it" idea is part of the problem. Yes, you paid for it. Yes, you should get it. But did you pay of your own free will?

reply to post by kinda kurious

Social Security is an entitlement program. Let us try to make this very simple. WuK pays $1 into SS, the government gives this dollar to Jane Smith for her use. WuK keeps handing that dollar over to Jane Smith until he retires. WuK now needs money for "his" SS check, so the government takes a dollar from Bob Wilson to give WuK.
Lather, rinse, repeat as needed.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


The only way this is actually a problem is if Jane Smith is somehow immortal and never paid into SS herself.

Otherwise Jane smith paid in her own money before she retired.

Course your analogy doesn't include Jose Illegalalien who paid into social security all his life and then gets deported by Joe Arpio in Arizona and doesn't collect a dime.

reply to post by whatukno


I can't speak for conservatives in general, but I just want to stop having my money taken from me by force of government. Let ME opt out, and I'll pay for my own stuff when I pick it up, thanks.

The ponzi scheme has to collapse eventually - with our financial house in the order it's in right now, our unfunded liabilities being what they are and population aging mean all that money you paid in is going to keep getting divided up between more and more people - which means your piece of the pie keeps getting smaller and smaller.

Redistribution of wealth is wrong, sorry. It should be a voluntary system, and the government should have to control their spending to keep it viable.

Originally posted by Praetorius

I can't speak for conservatives in general, but I just want to stop having my money taken from me by force of government. Let ME opt out, and I'll pay for my own stuff when I pick it up, thanks.

Not being able to "opt out" is a key trait of pyramid or MLM schemes. The system needs to force compliance because it cant sustain itself on its own merit.

If SS were so great a system it should be able to survive by presenting itself as a federal retirement fund that is worth investing in.

But instead it forces your participation with threats of arrest and property confiscation.

I dont too many other IRA's or 401K's that could get away with that.

It's sad how in the "freest nation on earth" you have barely any opportunity to actually make a choice for yourself. And what choices you do have are so highly restricted and regulated it's like having no choice at all.

It's run just like MS-13.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

The only way this is actually a problem is if Jane Smith is somehow immortal and never paid into SS herself.

Otherwise Jane smith paid in her own money before she retired.

Course your analogy doesn't include Jose Illegalalien who paid into social security all his life and then gets deported by Joe Arpio in Arizona and doesn't collect a dime.

edit on 4/6/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)

No there is another way it becomes a serious problem. Let's add 1(in several places) word to my previous example.

Social Security is an entitlement program. Let us try to make this very simple. Generation WuK pays $1 into SS, the government gives this dollar to Generation Smith for their use. Generation WuK keeps handing that dollar over to generation Smith until they retire. Generation WuK now needs money for "their" SS checks, so the government takes a dollar from generation Wilson to give generation WuK.
Lather, rinse, repeat as needed.

Here is the problem. Generation Smith was ok because generation WuK was very big(ie baby boomers). When generation WuK retires, generation Wilson is much smaller than generation WuK. Whether due to the millions of babies aborted or just lower birth rates for other reasons, generation Wilson is still much smaller than generation WuK. See the problem? This does not even address the great government theft of the SS "trust fund". These politicians that you trust(you know the "faith part") are not very trustworthy, are they?

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by centurion1211
Also funny to see the usual suspects here that still think the government's money is not also our money.

Funny you must not have followed my link in post above. Here is an excerpt so you don't have to click your mouse.

Social Security ISN'T an entitlement because the money being issued to recipients of the program is actually theirs to begin with!

For some reason Politicians seem to think they are entitled to take OUR MONEY away. Money WE contributed. No it was NEVER meant to subsidize a luxurious lifestyle... It was intended as a well deserved benefit for retired working Americans who paid into the system to supplement their non income producing years along with personal savings, investments,401K's, insurance, annuities and other financial instruments.

It seems we agree, no?

edit on 6-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

You rang... I like your little quote thingy that's neato. What about those who never paid a penny into the system. My grandmother never worked a day after she got married in 1925 (prior to the 1935 SS establishment date) and yet she collected full benefits and the benefits of my grandfather after his death.

Your quote also indicates that it was intended to SUPPLEMENT ones personal savings. Please share that with others in this thread who think all banks and investment institutions are the work of the devil himself, Mr. Beelzabankster. Apparently, they believe that they will be able to live comfortably off of SS.

It's an entitlement especially for those who have never paid or paid very little into the system.

Please place 75% of my SS deduction into my own personal account and place the rest into the pot (I'm a nice guy). That's my compromise.

In 1981 Chile, guided by conservative US Economist Milton Friedman, instituted a system where civilian workers set aside 10% of their earnings and invested them in one of a choice of mutual funds. 97% of salaried workers are in the system which, by the end of 2007, had accumulated the equivalent of $100 billion US dollars, or 70% of Chile’s gross domestic product. A report by the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business found that “the reforms have reduced fiscal liabilities, helped develop Chile’s financial sectors and improved the equity of the pension systems”.

In the US Social Security system workers and employers together contribute 15.3% of employees’ income into a fund that gets raided by Congress whenever it builds up any cash which is then exchanged for low earning government IOUs. Contrast that with the Chilean system where workers’ contributions are in individual accounts, invested in managed funds, and are the personal assets of the workers.

One investment in the US that compares with the Chilean system is state sponsored college savings accounts permitted under Section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code. State agencies offer a choice of no-load mutual funds as investments. Although the stock market has wilted during the current recession my five grand kids’ college accounts have still increased 80% in 8 years, about equal to the Chilean experience of 10% per annum real rate of return since 1981 according to the Wharton report. Chilean retirees have several options but most choose to take lump sum distributions and purchase annuity contracts to provide secure retirement income.

nevadanewsandviews.com...

www.cato.org...

The Chilean system is not perfect and experience typical problems related to the non contributors into the system and thus underwent a balanced overhaul a couple of years ago.

The Chilean government is not getting rid of its funded retirement system. President Michelle Bachelet began as a skeptic of Chile's personal accounts, but acknowledged to Parliament that the evidence shows "it will pay good pensions to those who contribute on a regular basis." She has suggested ways to fill in the gaps left by people who do not contribute regularly. Every contributory scheme has these gaps, including the United States, and they are especially large in low- and middle-income countries like Chile. Chile is now in the process of rethinking its arrangements for filling these gaps, while retaining its successful system of personal accounts as its main pension plan for contributors.

Great article that suggests we my be able to have the best of both worlds. Although, I'm opposed to a VAT tax.
www.ncpa.org...

Originally posted by jibeho
What about those who never paid a penny into the system. My grandmother never worked a day after she got married in 1925 (prior to the 1935 SS establishment date) and yet she collected full benefits and the benefits of my grandfather after his death.

I'm upset by that and feel resentment toward her. Not because she abused the system, but because she was partially responsible for bringing you into the world.

She's fortunate the system provided for her under the rules. I suspect she might not have received such compassion or sustenance from her own family if your stance is any indication. :shk: Just curious, did your Grandfather happen to be a veteran?

BTW, I'm flattered you steal my lines. Ultimate form of flattery.

The people who demand you pay for something are the same bastards who promoted the programs in the first place to improve their populist standing, and knowingly underestimated the total cost.

There are 139,000,000 employed in the US. There are 308,000,000 residents in the US. Less than half of the people are supporting the entire population. If healthcare was turned into a right, some of the world population of 7,000,000,000 (7B) would come to the US for the free health care. Or welfare. Or retirement money.

reply to post by dbriefed

The people who demand you pay for something are the same bastards who promoted the programs in the first place to improve their populist standing, and knowingly underestimated the total cost.

Then what are the people that demand that you not take something that you paid for?

Who are they to make decisions for me?

Back to my original experiment, go somewhere, pay for something and don't take it. Wouldn't you feel more ripped off than if someone told you to go someplace and buy something and you brought it home?

This is something that I actually pay for, a lot of us pay for out of each and every paycheck.

But conservatives look down their noses at us with scorn. "How dare you think you should have something you paid for!"

I mean the audacity that we have to actually want something we pay for. The unmitigated GAUL of actually thinking that someday I will reap the rewards of paying into a system my entire working life.

Do Conservatives do this with everything they purchase? Do you do this with your 401K? "I paid for this my whole life, now here I am retired, and I won't take a dime of it because that would be WRONG!"

Do you do this with Car Insurance? I know the answer is yes with health insurance, you all made that abundantly clear. And any conservative that pays for health insurance and actually uses it is a total hypocrite.

Reply to post by whatukno

You keep coming back to that and that's a bad example.

One you are forced to pay into the other not.

I think this thread has more to do with trolling than anything else since you recuse to expandthe discussion and insist on beating the dead horse.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com