Social Security: if you had a choice

[Iriemon]

I can trace my philosophy to first principles and argue back up from there.

The principles are:

It's my life.

From that I derive:

It's my money I earned with my skills and my time in my life.

Since it's my money, it's not your money, and it's not anyone else's money. It's mine, all mine.

Since it is MY money, the great mythical "We" that SouthernDemocrat takes pitiful shelter behind cannot decide how I should spend it.

The "We" has to take it via force, or threat of force. This is "taxation" at it's worst. That the mob has power won't be denied. That the mob is right is usually a false statement.

I cannot be compelled by the mob to "care" about anything I do not wish to care about.

My failure to care about whatever the mob wants to feel angst about today is not a flaw, it's called "freedom".

The mob's refusal to care about whatever it is that concerns me is symptomatic of the peculiar law that states that knowledge of an issue is inversely proportional to the tonnage of brain tissue collected together to study that issue.

You certainly have a right to your opinions. Most including me disagree with you. Storry.

 

[Goobieman]

SS or any spending can be cut easily. All it takes is passing a law. Ask your Republican congressmen why they have not done it. They control the government and have the power to do it.

You seem to be missing the point.
YOU have not allowed for this idea. All of your complaints reviolve around all this money that will be spent and all the increase in deficits this will cause. You NEVER ONCE advocate cutting benifits as a possible solution

Why is that?

How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? Most of us don't want to live in a country were millions of cripples, infirm and aged live on the streets begging for food.

"Most of us wnt/don't want" isnt a sound argument when someone's freedom to choose hangs in the balance. Right?

How do these people you complain about have a right to my money?

Wouldn't work. Not enough would contribute, if not everyone is contributing.

Yes - as I said, you know you have to force people to 'contribute;' because otherwise it will fail -- when people are given the choice, they will do what's best for themselves and keep their own money.

That's the sure sign of a flawed program, and what liberals really think about "choice".

Do your own legal research.

Thatls what i thought.
You cannot show where the Fed Gvmnt was given the power to create SocSec.
You support a program that you cannot show to be Constitutional.
And you don't care, because you like that program.

I never denied they made a decision and had the power to do so.

I never said you did.
The question is how happily you accepted the decision.

 

[Goobieman]

You certainly have a right to your opinions. Most including me disagree with you. Storry.

Ah yes - The mob rules.
But when the mob rules against you.
Then you whine and cry.

 

[Pacridge]

The poll question is clearly and specifically framed. If you had a CHOICE which would you do?

Well then the poll sucks.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

A "coersce monopoly" as defined by the article means a monopoly where the producer has total market control because of Govt assistance. That doesn't mean there aren't other monopolies that can control a market without Govt assistance. There have been many examples in history.

Funny, you don't name one.

The insurance company doesn't have to pay any bucks and often won't unless it is forced to through litigation. Are you proposing more litigation as a way to maintain corporate responsibility towards worker safety?

The legal system is the way it is because the lowest class of society has been allowed to define and interpret the law, the lawyers. It's pretty plain that simple laws can be written to enforce simple contracts without complications induced by ambulance chasers.

Generally, more litigation is definitely preferable to more government.

Maybe that is the conservative philosophy for some things. There are many examples where from the very beginning we have nationalized certain affairs that involve local decisions.

Only those issues that are to applied to the people as a whole. There's a whole list of such things in the Constitution. In fact, that's the only legitimate list out there. That list doesn't include stealing money from Bob to pay for Pat's grandmother's retirement expenses.

What is your point, because private individuals pollute to it isn't business regulation?

Bingo! It's a property law.

Disagree. Where you have widespread discrimination, the market doesn't always provide options.

The market always provides options.

The market isn't required to provide options you like.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

A "coersce monopoly" as defined by the article means a monopoly where the producer has total market control because of Govt assistance. That doesn't mean there aren't other monopolies that can control a market without Govt assistance. There have been many examples in history.

Funny, you don't name one.

The insurance company doesn't have to pay any bucks and often won't unless it is forced to through litigation. Are you proposing more litigation as a way to maintain corporate responsibility towards worker safety?

The legal system is the way it is because the lowest class of society has been allowed to define and interpret the law, the lawyers. It's pretty plain that simple laws can be written to enforce simple contracts without complications induced by ambulance chasers.

Generally, more litigation is definitely preferable to more government.

Maybe that is the conservative philosophy for some things. There are many examples where from the very beginning we have nationalized certain affairs that involve local decisions.

Only those issues that are to applied to the people as a whole. There's a whole list of such things in the Constitution. In fact, that's the only legitimate list out there. That list doesn't include stealing money from Bob to pay for Pat's grandmother's retirement expenses.

What is your point, because private individuals pollute to it isn't business regulation?

Bingo! It's a property law.

Disagree. Where you have widespread discrimination, the market doesn't always provide options.

The market always provides options.

The market isn't required to provide options you like.

Jane gets felt up by her boss. Being a bull dyke, she objects, since her boss has an outy, not an inny. She quits, then gets her friends together to protest in front of her former employer's business, driving sales down and towards another shop across town, who doesn't harass women.

Enough of that, and unwanted behaviors are modified.

Or they're not. It's the boss's job to fill, not the employee's to hold, after all.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You certainly have a right to your opinions. Most including me disagree with you. Storry.

Ummm....on which point do you find error? In other words, is your disagreement factual and logical, or do you just have feelings that what is mine should be yours?

 

[dragonslayer]

No brainer............401k

No Brainer.......................leave it the way it is. This is planning toward retirement not making that idiot, Bush and his rich buddies happy.

Or put it in 401k package that does not allow one to access it until retirement. Other wise you will have a lot of homeless and starving seniors.
Bush and his rich buddies, will make sure that there are a lot starving seniors.

Bush and his Neocon buddies are working hard to steal the funds in the Social Security and the Medicare funds which is the property of retired folk. Bush wants to waste it in Iraq and in Haliburton.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

well. "No Brainer" is right.

 

[Iriemon]

You seem to be missing the point.
YOU have not allowed for this idea. All of your complaints reviolve around all this money that will be spent and all the increase in deficits this will cause. You NEVER ONCE advocate cutting benifits as a possible solution

Why is that?

Because you don't read my posts?

I have statement my position on numerous occassions I think SS benefits should be means tested.

"Most of us wnt/don't want" isnt a sound argument when someone's freedom to choose hangs in the balance. Right?

How do these people you complain about have a right to my money?

It's the price you pay for living in this society.

Yes - as I said, you know you have to force people to 'contribute;' because otherwise it will fail -- when people are given the choice, they will do what's best for themselves and keep their own money.

That's the sure sign of a flawed program, and what liberals really think about "choice".

It's not just the liberals that support SS. If it was the conservative Republicans who control the government would vote it out of existance.

I never said you did. The question is how happily you accepted the decision.

True, the question of whether the Govt has the power to tax is not something I lose a lot of sleep over.

 

[Iriemon]

Funny, you don't name one.

I thought I named several industries -- Standard Oil is a classic example.

The legal system is the way it is because the lowest class of society has been allowed to define and interpret the law, the lawyers. It's pretty plain that simple laws can be written to enforce simple contracts without complications induced by ambulance chasers.

Generally, more litigation is definitely preferable to more government.

Jeez don't we have enough litigaiton in this society?

Only those issues that are to applied to the people as a whole. There's a whole list of such things in the Constitution. In fact, that's the only legitimate list out there. That list doesn't include stealing money from Bob to pay for Pat's grandmother's retirement expenses.

If you think SS is unconstitutional, bring a lawsuit and have it thown out.

The market always provides options.

The market isn't required to provide options you like.

Jane gets felt up by her boss. Being a bull dyke, she objects, since her boss has an outy, not an inny. She quits, then gets her friends together to protest in front of her former employer's business, driving sales down and towards another shop across town, who doesn't harass women.

We can certainly see your attitude towards women. If they object your your sexual advances they must be bull dykes.

What really happens is that Jane, who is raising a kid on her own, trying to make ends meet, can't afford to lose her job when her boss Akhbar tells her to put out or get out. If she quits she won't be able to pay her rent and there are no equivalent paying jobs available. So she submits, even tho' the concept of sex with Akhbar is about the most awful thing she can imagine. Akhbar loves it however, because it strokes his ego to be able to have power over and control and manipulate women.

All names used in the above example are fictional and any resemblance to actual posters on this BB is purley coincidental.

 

[Iriemon]

Ummm....on which point do you find error? In other words, is your disagreement factual and logical, or do you just have feelings that what is mine should be yours?

It's the price of living in this society.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I thought I named several industries -- Standard Oil is a classic example.

Yes, Standard Oil is a classic example of how coercive monopolies have to have government in their pocket to exist:

Standard Oil

From the center of his web at 26 Broadway in New York City, Rockefeller bought oilfields as well as refineries as the industry moved from Pennsylvania to Ohio, to Kansas, and on to California. Standard Oil's income was larger than most states and it "bought" federal and state politicians to enhance its position. With its huge profits, Standard could finance its own expansion, remaining free from bankers, whom Rockefeller resented. Standard Oil was now exporting oil to the Middle East, the Far East, and Europe. By 1885, 70% of Standard's business was overseas. Standard now had its own network of agents throughout the world, its own intelligence service which provided information about its competitors and about political leaders in all the target market countries.[/quote]

That's gotta hurt.

Jeez don't we have enough litigaiton in this society?

The problem isn't that we have to much litigation, it's that we have too many socialists winning the lawsuits. Seems like half the law in the country is decided by postal workers in juries.

If you think SS is unconstitutional, bring a lawsuit and have it thown out.

Duh. The losers always drag this one out. It seems they're incapable of reading the Constitution themselves and pointing to the place where the Constitution allows it (it doesn't), and it seems they're incapable of understanding that the National Ponzi Scheme was permitted by the courts after FDR threatened to pack the USSC with a bunch of pinko traitors who'd be glad to rule the way the boss ordered them too.

We can certainly see your attitude towards women. If they object your your sexual advances they must be bull dykes.

No, just missing out on one hell of a good time. But I'm not one to brag. Just the facts, ma'am.

What really happens is that Jane, who is raising a kid on her own, trying to make ends meet, can't afford to lose her job when her boss Akhbar tells her to put out or get out. If she quits she won't be able to pay her rent and there are no equivalent paying jobs available. So she submits, even tho' the concept of sex with Akhbar is about the most awful thing she can imagine. Akhbar loves it however, because it strokes his ego to be able to have power over and control and manipulate women.

Why is she raising a kid on her own? Took a sperm donation from a random sample of the population and didn't choose a winner? Not the boss's problem.

Read what I said about how the job belongs to the employer and not the body filling it. That's the fact, and try to stick to the facts. If there are no other jobs available, tough. That's life.

She should be glad she ain't the broad in Germany who lost her lifetime free ride on unemployment because they passed a law requiring applicants to takes jobs their qualified for and they passed a law legalizing bordellos. Yep, she was sent off to the whorehouse, refused the position she was qualified for, and lost her place on the hammock. What a shame.

Maybe she should have spent her time in the hammock dressed and reading books instead of naked and on her back?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

It's the price of living in this society.

The price of living in this society is self-reliance. The corruption of this society is the invention of the hammock. Let the old farts and the free loaders pay the price or leave.

 

[Goobieman]

I have statement my position on numerous occassions I think SS benefits should be means tested.

You're dodging again.
I didn't say anything about means testing, I said benefits could and should be cut to the levels supportable by available revenue.

Do you or do you not support this idea as a means to solve the 'problems' you've been whining about?

It's not just the liberals that support SS. If it was the conservative Republicans who control the government would vote it out of existance.

As usual, you;re completely avoiding the point.
You do not want to give people the choice because you know that if they do, they will not support what you think is a good idea.

True, the question of whether the Govt has the power to tax is not something I lose a lot of sleep over.

Another dodge.
I didn't ask about the power to tax, I asked ab9ut the power to create programs likw SocSec.

You still haven't pointed out the part of the Constitution that gives that power to the government.

 

[earthworm]

No brainer. 401(k) or IRA plainly is the only way to go.No, it is not, I have both lost and gained on the "market". It is too volutile for my tases

Socialist security returns less than 1% of you investment, when you die your spouse gets a pittance of a "survivor's benefit", and when she dies, it's gone.Totally wrong; socialist it may be, but it is an utter lie that my return will be 1%, if fact , even using inflated figures, it will be 100% by the time it hit 80 !
Of course this figure varies a ton, some will not recieve a penny.
Social Security is a tax.

401(k)'s match up to fifty-percent up front, the fund accrues interest and rises on the values of the stocks in the portfolio, AND it's all yours when you retire. When you die, you're spouse's income changes not one whit, and when she dies, your heirs get to claim the rest, except for that bit the government steals for no reason at all.
The government does NOT "steal".
As for Socialist Security "providing" for your survivor's when you die, don't be stupid, buy term life insurance. IMO, the worst possible investment a man can make. You'll get better coverage and have more control over what your family gets.

Socialist Security was a vast Ponzi scheme put over on the American people by con artists seeking votes. It was immoral when it was implemented, and it's immoral today. Not to mention the fact that like all Ponzi schemes the pyramid is collapsing.

All male bovine feces !:rofl

 

[Iriemon]

You're dodging again.
I didn't say anything about means testing, I said benefits could and should be cut to the levels supportable by available revenue.

Do you or do you not support this idea as a means to solve the 'problems' you've been whining about?

Means testing is cutting benefits.

As usual, you;re completely avoiding the point.
You do not want to give people the choice because you know that if they do, they will not support what you think is a good idea.

I doubt anybody would voluntarily pay into a system that everyone else freeboards off.

What do you end up with? Nobody will do it. And we'll have cripples, the infirm, and the aged living in the streets and begging for food.

I know that is fine with you. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree. sorry.

Another dodge. I didn't ask about the power to tax, I asked ab9ut the power to create programs likw SocSec.

You still haven't pointed out the part of the Constitution that gives that power to the government.

Don't know, don't care. But you can give us your consitutional analysis explaining why SS is unconstitutional if you want.

 

[Iriemon]

The price of living in this society is self-reliance. The corruption of this society is the invention of the hammock. Let the old farts and the free loaders pay the price or leave.

Your new plan is to deport everyone who is too crippled, sick or old to work who don't have sufficient savings to support themselves. Why not euthanize them?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What do you end up with? Nobody will do it. And we'll have cripples, the infirm, and the aged living in the streets and begging for food.

I know that is fine with you. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree. sorry.

Well, is there any law forbidding you from using your own money in charitable donations to support them?

'Cuz right now, there's some Nazi with a gun forcing me to finance your feelings. So it's not just a matter of opinion, is it?

You don't like the fact that many of us wouldn't do what you think is the right thing, so you think it's acceptable to use Stalinist tactics to make us do what you wish.

No, you can't be sorry. No person can point a gun at someone's head, order them to do the macarena, and be sorry when they're efforts to better the common good aren't appreciated. That "sorry" is purest hypocrisy.

Don't know, don't care. But you can give us your consitutional analysis explaining why SS is unconstitutional if you want.

Easy, it's not in the Constitution.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Your new plan is to deport everyone who is too crippled, sick or old to work who don't have sufficient savings to support themselves. Why not euthanize them?

I have no intention of deporting them, unless they crawled in here illegally. I don't care about them.

I have no desire to euthanize them. I don't care about them.

What part of "I don't care" did you not understand?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

All male bovine feces !:rofl

You mean those parts in red. Yes, you should get a colonoscopy. Request they do it dry.

 

[Iriemon]

I have no intention of deporting them, unless they crawled in here illegally. I don't care about them.

I have no desire to euthanize them. I don't care about them.

What part of "I don't care" did you not understand?

LOL the part where you didn't say that.

 

[earthworm]

You mean those parts in red. Yes, you should get a colonoscopy. Request they do it dry.

Nasty, Scarecrow, but typical for a misanthrope.
And I am "an old fart" who has had two of these procedures.
Perhaps when you grow up and age as I have, you will change your opinion...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Nasty, Scarecrow, but typical for a misanthrope.
And I am "an old fart" who has had two of these procedures.
Perhaps when you grow up and age as I have, you will change your opinion...

No, doubtful that I will. I see no reason to sell my morals out for free colonoscopies.