An experiment for Conservatives

reply to post by whatukno


Sure they're all grasshoppers.

The government is their ant by virtue of violence. Instead of grasshoppers raiding the ants you have one master ant raiding all of the grasshoppers who are too stupid to or too lazy to take care of themselves and their own.

Nobody takes care of their own so they allowed the government to attempt to take care of them at gun point.

There's nothing wrong with socialism. The way my family has operated is very socialist.

Relatively small tribes are the largest sustainable unit before violence, theft, and force have to come in to retain any semblance of functional cohesion. And that is wrong and evil. It's where an authority class rises and corruption runs rampant. It hurts everyone.

My attitude is family first. Tribe second. The state is not a consideration. The state has separated itself from the tribe by its own actions. It made itself the enemy with its use of violence and theft toward a non aggressive weaker body.

Socialism is great when all participants are voluntary and like minded. The moment just one participant becomes involuntary the whole thing fails. Which is why family/tribe units are as large as it can go. Socialism at gun point is just state run capitalism.

Originally posted by Volund
It is a ponzee scheme, not a savings account. And because of this it will only work so long as the numbers contributed into it continue to rise year after year... But this wont happen because the baby boom stopped and therefore we cant keep up. Sad really.

edit on 5-4-2011 by Volund because: Spelling

No, the system was working just fine until corrupt politicians found ways to start siphoning money out of it to pay for other things that had nothing to do with Social Security or Medicare. Right out thievery, and we let them get away with it. They cleverly disguised it so it didn't appear "illegal", just "loopoles".

And I really wish people would stop saying "because we are living longer we are draining the system dry",...BS!...just another lie the corrupt are feeding us so we don't see the real truth "...just one example, when I was in college our professor asked us to do an experiment. She asked use to go to OLD graveyards and record the ages on the tombstones. When we got to class the next week, she asked what was the medium age of death we found. While other students absently answered that those people died earlier than we do today (and laughed about 'why would they even step in an old graveyard,better things to do, teacher would never know, knowing what the teacher's lesson was on(that we live longer today), I actually found a disturbing trend when I did actually go to the old graveyards. The people in the old graveyards were living to their late 80's, 90's, even 100's. People today seem to be living to their 60's, 70's 80's (yeah I know there are exceptions)(and no I didn't visit a modern graveyard to take medium age counts). The younger people who passed away in the old graveyards were INFANTS and very young children (not even old enough to contribute to the tax system yet).

Originally posted by RoyalBlue
The younger people who passed away in the old graveyards were INFANTS and very young children (not even old enough to contribute to the tax system yet).

As if without value.

Got to me the creepiest thing Ive read all week.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

My attitude is family first.

You kinda showed that this isn't the truth in your statement about your family member who took Social Security earlier.

Tribe second.

We have a big tribe here, it's called America, and every American is in that same tribe, but since you reject the tribe because you believe the tribal leaders are stealing from you using violence, then that makes this statement a lie too.

So, two down none to go, the truth must be that the only thing you believe in is numero uno, yourself.

But it's hard to have a me first attitude when the government has a constitutional obligation to regulate commerce, however, you can't stand that because it destroys your me first plan for America where every person is an island to themselves and the weak are thrown to the curb for the strong.

It's frankly a mid-evil mindset. It's barbaric and wrong in my opinion.

Now, I understand where you say that you don't want to be in Social Security, that's fine in my book, but I don't think that is the end of your disagreement with that program, I believe now that you despise anyone who asks for help. You feel that they are weak and undeserving of life.

reply to post by whatukno


When she took the SS she left the family and joined another tribe. You forget or you wont accept that SS is blood money. It's no different than if some family member came home with a stolen wallet full of cash.

This whole "we're America" thing doesnt work. It's too big. The minute one dissenting voice rises and is met with violence to keep it in order it has failed.

It's like a raft that's held together with duct tape.

From the minute Washington trampled over a bunch of PA farmers it was a failure.

I dont feel anyone asking for help is weak or undeserving. I've dished out a lot of help in my time to family and non-family. The only people who are undeserving of life and weak are the people who rob me to help themselves.

Let me elaborate a little on the analogy

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.

The GOP is working the register....they take your money AND your purchases and tell you...sorry, it's been a rough year. You say "what??? I want my money back"

(privatize)
The guy at the register says " I tell you what...I have a friend that likes to gamble, he doesn't have the best record..as a matter of fact he recently lost his ass like nobodys business...but I will make you a deal, I will give your money to him and if there is anything left after he gets done placing some bets and taking his cut and kicking some back to me... you can have what is left over"

You say "WTF...give me my money or give me my purchases"...the guy chuckles and says "Sorry, not going to happen, like I said, it's been a rough year."

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

This whole "we're America" thing doesnt work. It's too big. The minute one dissenting voice rises and is met with violence to keep it in order it has failed.

Even ancient tribes used to have rules of order. Some of them were quite brutal too. Banishment was often a death sentence.

Nothing has failed as long as there are people who want to make it work.

It's like a raft that's held together with duct tape.

From the minute Washington trampled over a bunch of PA farmers it was a failure.

You don't want government at all do you? You just want complete anarchy.

Originally posted by whatukno

You don't want government at all do you? You just want complete anarchy.

Nice one bro.

That is a pretty standard argument but it always fails. (only because it is bogus and weak. I know these things)

"You either support the regime or you want somalia to happen here" - it is usually a variation of that.

Originally posted by whatukno
You don't want government at all do you? You just want complete anarchy.

I want to be left alone. I want to have my home and my labor free of artificial limitation and theft. I want to get up in the morning as a free man, work in the dirt all day knowing that work is my own and sleep a tired heavy sleep without interruption.

But nobody else wants that apparently so might makes right and I just do whatever the guy with the gun to my head tells me to do the way he tells me to do it until I drop dead.

Here's a thought experiment.

Pretend you own a shop, and a gang "owns" the area. In order for your shop to not be defiled by them, the gang extorts money from you. Now, according to the gang it's just insurance, so it's a good thing. But in a lawful society you shouldn't be forced to pay that insurance so the gang doesn't bust up your shop. Try not paying them. If the gang doesn't extort money from you their street creds go down and pretty soon other people won't pay the gang either.

Not in the US; not a conservative. But this is common sense.

well maybe you should
... build a turtle fence...!!



sorry just kidding

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

But nobody else wants that apparently so might makes right and I just do whatever the guy with the gun to my head tells me to do the way he tells me to do it until I drop dead.

Unless you are living with a complete psychopath, (and I don't mean metaphorically) then no one has a gun to your head. Fact is, you do have the option to leave. You hate this country and the people in it, then just take a boat, go find a deserted island somewhere and bingo, the life you always wished.

reply to post by Exuberant1


If/then and either/or have to be the most common mental traps.

It's either the government or somalia.

It's either a democrat or a republican.

It's either government or corporation.

It's either Medicare or corpses in the streets.

Naturally the "or" is so absurd and frightening we have to stick to the "either."

The only either/or with any real worth is you are either free or you arent just because the moment freedom is regulated it ceases to be freedom.

Thinking "out of the box" doesnt do any good when the "box" is just inside a slightly larger "box."

reply to post by whatukno


Love it or leave it? You sound like one of those redneck, warmongering Bush supporters.

There isnt a nation on this earth that isnt run like this one. Totalitarianism covers the globe. There are slight insignificant differences and varying degrees of oppression here and there but it's all oppression.

Either a stand for real liberty has to be made somewhere or something has to happen to kill a few billion of you off so I can get some peace.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by DeepThoughtCriminal

 

Yet it like most things has been destroyed by liberal spending habits. Pay for everything, take care of everybody. Socialize.

First...conservatives' spending habits spend billions of dollars on military industrial complexes, WARS, Wall Street bankers and fat cats, corporate welfare, on and on. Doesn't leave much room to point at the Liberals' "spending habits".

Second, all these people who are "me, me ,me first.....I got mine, who cares about you, I want to take care of just myself, be a FREE man" completely DISREGARD the fact that humans are a social species! Our very survival since the dawn of time depends on one another to keep the social environment going. Everything that these people have today is built on the social benefits and sacrifices people of the past have put into place. Roads, schools, post offices, hospitals, doctors, working plumbing, drinkable water, electricity, a house, food, firefighters, police officers, medicines, military, social structure where we don't have to worry about fighting like savages for our very survival, on and on. For all those that are so quick to say "let me take care of myself, I do it better than anyone else", fine. DISREGARD the sacrifices of all the generations before you that made you and your family possible, and so successful today, that you don't have to do your part to keep it going (after all it ends with you, you win, you get all the rewards of all the generations of the past, why not, nobody said YOU had to give any back (our NEW capitalist theme and structure). SO then why don't you move out of our society, go live in a far away remote location, where you don't benefit from anything the rest of us are giving blood, sweat , tears (even our lives) to keep working, and lets see how you do. Remember, YOU will have to tame your habitat from wild (some deadly creatures) You can't call the police to protect you from wild savages that would just as soon kill you. WHEN you get sick you will have to figure out your own medicine, heal yourself when you get injured. YOU will have to figure out how to get clean drinking water. When lighting strikes, you can't call any firefighters, you'll have to put it out yourself, save your OWN family members. You will have to make your own materials and tools to build your own shelter, figure out working plumbing, how to make energy, build your own roads and bridges, on and on and on.

DARN!!!.. we can't actually take away your education you've been given, you're still benefiting from that our society HAS given you (even when you leave it)!!!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


See but I compromised with you, but like conservatives do, you refuse to compromise in return. In every society there must be a give and take, in order for that society to survive.

As a society, we all agree that murder is wrong right? Or is that a right that you think you should have?

The problem with many people I see on here is, they think that just because THEY don't agree with something that everyone should go without it.

Again because people are missing the point, I agreed with you that you shouldn't have to pay into social security.

But now it appears that you want to pay no taxes whatsoever.

Well guess what, if that's your idea, then get off the internet, (that's a US Military invention paid for by tax dollars)
Unplug your phone, your electricity, don't drive on roads, don't buy any food from a store, don't get gas, in fact pretty much anything that is a modern convenience beyond the 16th century, including your toilet is out of bounds for you now.

Like those things? Well then guess you have to pay taxes.

reply to post by whatukno


Drop a legal document in front of me that says I cant have access to any of these "conveniences" whatsoever and cannot even travel off of my acreage at all in exchange for no taxes and complete sovereignty and I'll sign it in a heeartbeat. Without hesitation. It's all Ive ever wanted and it's all I dream about.

The only reason I'm behind this screen in this cube is because I have to make an income to pay property taxes.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Yea, it's called the US Constitution and the loan documents you signed when you bought your property.

The blood that was shed to make this country was the blood that signed the documents long before you were born. We have a republic as long as we can keep it, if something is broken, you don't just throw it away, you fix it.

Read the fine print.

reply to post by whatukno

Originally posted by whatukno

I am simply just trying to show the flaw in your argument, the me first eff you attitude of the conservative mindset.

Sure I do believe it should be voluntary, but you haven't explained what to do with those who fail in your system.

In your system of me first eff you society where you rely solely on corporations to take care of you as long as you can afford to pay them or as long as their stock is still viable, how do you deal with the ones who fail?

I don't know where you get the notion that the social security debate is between a 100% sure thing for everyone (social security) v. a game of roulette where lots and lots of people are going to fail (saving or investing).

As others have mentioned, a simple savings account will earn a higher yield than social security. A well--diversified portfolio of investments will likely — in the long-term — earn more than a savings account at a comparable level of certainty.

Compare that with Social Security where the rate of return is much, much lower AND Social Security will almost certainly become insolvent before I'm eligible in 40ish years. Not only is it more likely that sticking with social security will cause more people to "fail" than sound saving and investing strategies, but it also severely limits the amount of retirement income available for those who don't "fail".

Essentially, anyone who doesn't already invest in the market and save responsibly for retirement fails under the current system because Social Security only pays out a pittance. I just used a SS calculator, and someone earning $60,000 today at age 24 would receive approx. $16,000 (current dollars) per year from SS upon age 62. That calculator also assumed 1-2% average salary increases over those 38 years. Not many people in many circumstances can live comfortably on $16,000 — even retirees.

The way I see it, the social security debate should be framed as follows: Either we want people to pay into a scheme with a high likelihood of failure in the worst case and extremely insufficient returns in the best case, where such a scheme also creates a false sense of security in some individuals because they rely on that ultimately insufficient/insolvent scheme OR we encourage people to manage their finances to receive greater rates of return, a low risk of insolvency given the broad risk distribution over different investment assets, savings accounts, markets, industries, etc., and retain flexibility and autonomy to make decisions according to their own values (i.e. take their usual annual contribution to retirement for a downpayment on a home or car, pay tuition to improve future income, etc., and then make up that difference the following year).

If we think of it in those terms, a private retirement system is preferable to Social Security in every reasonable area of concern.

As for the "me first" attitude, anyone who plans to take social security in the next 30 years is being extremely selfish. Let me clarify, however, that it's not selfish to take SS if you're older and/or haven't had time or the ability to adequately make other preparations like a 401(k) or IRA account. The point remains, however, that the program is nearly in financial ruins, and it will either fail completely or pay below the expected value to some group of people at some point in time. Eventually some generation will be shortchanged in the SS ponzi scheme, and that generation will be forced to pay SS taxes and see the well run dry before they reach the retirement age. Everyone who's the least bit politically informed should be aware of this. Given the awareness that eventually someone will pay SS taxes their entire working life and not receive some or all of their expected benefits, those individuals who want to keep Social Security the way it is today without major changes or elimination are selfishly saying, "me first, F you," to their children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews.

Ultimately, I think it's substantially more selfish to demand one's social security benefits, future insolvency be damned, than it is to recognize the problem and begin working out a detailed plan sooner rather than later to transition into a more sustainable pattern of retirement savings. I'm 24 years old, and I won't see a penny from social security, but I will almost certainly be picking up the tab for everyone who's retiring in the next decade or two.

Since you started the discussion with a thought experiment, let me offer you one. Let's say the manager of a small store knew that he wouldn't have enough money to pay both his salary and his employee's wages on payday but had enough time to make arrangements to solve the problem and at least pay most of what they each earned. However, the manager instead decided he'd just take all the money that was left as his paycheck anyway because he felt he had earned it. Is that just? Is it selfish? The manager only did what those who want to keep Social Security as-is and get while the getting is good are doing.

reply to post by whatukno


I never signed the constitution and that loan would have been for the price of the property. Has nothing to do with taxes. Once that loan is paid you still have to pay taxes year after year after year. You never own your home. You always rent from government.

I like how you go from "I agree it should be voluntary" to "WE the people" to "love it or leave it" to "that's the way it is accept it." Even to go so far as to offer me an out in exchange for all these wonderful things you say the government provides for me only to immediately return with "well, too bad."

Might makes right. I bet it feels good to force me to do thing I dont want to do doesnt it? You'd make a good politician. Lies, threats, force.