« First « Previous Comments 166 - 205 of 233 Next » Last » Search these comments
But there will always be people who game the system or try to get something for nothing. Personally, I don’t think you should kill worthwhile programs because there are some people who act unethically.
Would you be in favor of a work fare type program in which able bodied recipients of welfare would be required to perform some type of civic duty in order to collect their entitlement?
I still think it amazing that Ray, confuses Social Security with some sort of “investment†plan into which he has paid money and thus “deserves†money back out. It’s not an investment, it’s an insurance plan. And surely you have planned well enough that you don’t need to fall back on insurance?
You are the one that is confused. I have paid both sides of SS for 30 years being that I have been self employed. Call it what you want, it is money that I earned and paid into the system. Having said that, I am very well situated and quite frankly, never believed it would be there for me when it was time to qualify for payments, so no, I don't need to "fall back" on it, but when the time comes, if MY money is there, I will collect it.
As far as deserving payment after having paid into it, I suggest you go down to the local coffee shop and inform the customers there that they don't "deserve" any money from SS when they reach the age to collect. Report back what their response was. LOL
But there will always be people who game the system or try to get something for nothing. Personally, I don’t think you should kill worthwhile programs because there are some people who act unethically.
Would you be in favor of a work fare type program in which able bodied recipients of welfare would be required to perform some type of civic duty in order to collect their entitlement?
Sure. I think we had this discussion earlier on a different thread. Who will supervise them? Who will organize and set up the work?
You realize that it will increase the cost of the programs, right?
Ray--
I don't think you are really this dense--you are just playing games. Regardless, the point is that everyone plays by the rules that are in place at the time.
I might think government should impose higher taxes on higher income individuals, but I'll pay what I'm required to pay and not more.
You might think government shouldn't be in the business of providing retirement income, but you'll collect it when you're retired.
Same difference. It's not really a difficult concept.
Who will supervise them? Who will organize and set up the work?
You realize that it will increase the cost of the programs, right?
It will DECREASE the cost of the programs because it will force people that want something for nothing OUT of the program! The "work" could be as simple as cleaning public parks, sweeping sidewalks, etc. which would require very little supervision.
It will DECREASE the cost of the programs because it will force people that want something for nothing OUT of the program! The “work†could be as simple as cleaning public parks, sweeping sidewalks, etc. which would require very little supervision.
I doubt it. So, if someone did a poor job sweeping, do you still pay them?
You might think government shouldn’t be in the business of providing retirement income, but you’ll collect it when you’re retired.
How in the world is it possible that you miss the fact that Social Security is not a FREE program provided by the government? WE pay into the system .... or are you denying that fact?
How in the world is it possible that you miss the fact that Social Security is not a FREE program provided by the government? WE pay into the system …. or are you denying that fact?
Of course it's not free. Nothing is free buddy. What's your point?
Of course it’s not free. Nothing is free buddy. What’s your point?
The point is productive people paying into SS and people that have NEVER worked that receive welfare entitlements are not situationally "equal."
The point is productive people paying into SS and people that have NEVER worked that receive welfare entitlements are not situationally “equal.â€
First of all, I'm not sure where you think I said they are "equal". Second, how can you even begin to compare the two--they are completely different programs with entirely different objectives. It's like saying apples and oranges aren't "equal". Again--so what?
First of all, I’m not sure where you think I said they are “equalâ€. Second, how can you even begin to compare the two–they are completely different programs with entirely different objectives.
Obviously you haven't read the posts by your "fellow travelers.' They are the ones that have attempted to illustrate the false point that SS & welfare for nothing are one and the same.
I doubt it. So, if someone did a poor job sweeping, do you still pay them?
So you think the better solution is to pay people that are able to work to do nothing but sit around and get fat off free hand outs?
I have paid both sides of SS for 30 years being that I have been self employed. Call it what you want, it is money that I earned and paid into the system. Having said that, I am very well situated and quite frankly, never believed it would be there for me when it was time to qualify for payments, so no, I don’t need to “fall back†on it, but when the time comes, if MY money is there, I will collect it.
Do you call up your car insurance company RAGING that you need to "collect" on the money they owe you for paying into their fund every year? I think you don't understand how insurance works. There is no "savings". Money paid into it that year, is paid out that year. You have the idea you are owed something from an account, which just indicates your fundamental misunderstanding.
Do you call up your car insurance company RAGING that you need to “collect†on the money they owe you for paying into their fund every year?
Uh, what makes you get "car insurance" and Social Security confused as being the same? SS collects, by force, earned income that it applies to SS with the PROMISE to pay back to you in installments at the time of your retirement. Car insurance, the last I checked, is completely voluntary (you aren't forced to drive a car) and is not part of the government nor is it a supplemental retirement system. Before you post anything further, take a few deep breaths and count to ten. If you are still feeling silly enough to continue to post such dribble, go for it.
Do you call up your car insurance company RAGING that you need to “collect†on the money they owe you for paying into their fund every year?
Uh, what makes you get “car insurance†and Social Security confused as being the same?
Social Security is an INSURANCE program, yet you apparently refer to it as something you invested money in and thus deserve it all back out with interest. In point of fact, there is no investing going on. Are you incapable of comprehending this, or do you just refuse to acknowledge your error?
I have no need to accost the AARP at my coffee shop. If the USA went bankrupt tomorrow, they'd all be sputtering into their coffee, veins popping, and firing up their Medicare-funded scooters to ride on Washington. They'd be as wrong about it as you, as far as being something they are "owed" in my book.
If Mutual of Omaha went totally Tango Uniform, and failed to pay my claim tomorrow, what would be my recourse? Well I can chase after the underwriters and what remains of the company. "What's my 30 years of payments been for??!! This is an outrage!" I would thunder uselessly. Maybe I'd get a slice after lawyering, maybe not. The insurance game is tricky isn't it?
Social Security is an INSURANCE program, yet you keep mistakenly referring to it as something you invested money in and thus deserve it all back out with interest.
I never said I "invested money" in SS. I did say I was forced (in my case paying both sides) to contribute MY money into the system. I never said I deserved "it all back out with interest." I did say that it is not hypocritical at all to collect SS after I've paid into it with MY MONEY. Somehow you got all that confused with car insurance. Apparently you confused your little friend the Duckie Dude too. LOL !!
I did say that it is not hypocritical at all to collect SS after I’ve paid into it with MY MONEY.
If enough civic-minded people like you refuse their SS checks, then they'll be forced to either make the program optional or close it down entirely.
Translation: Liberals support forcing other people to pay for accomplishing their socialist goals…especially if the other people have committed the twin crimes of a) being more rich and b) not supporting those goals in the first place. And Liberals consider themselves ‘ethical’ merely because by doing grand larceny via the powers of government let’s them spin it that way.
Excellent summation of the liberal mind set. I've been saying for years that liberals are the most generous people on planet earth with other people's money.
Translation: Liberals support forcing other people to pay for accomplishing their socialist goals…especially if the other people have committed the twin crimes of a) being more rich and b) not supporting those goals in the first place. And Liberals consider themselves ‘ethical’ merely because by doing grand larceny via the powers of government let’s them spin it that way.
Excellent summation of the liberal mind set. I’ve been saying for years that liberals are the most generous people on planet earth with other people’s money.
Actually, it's really more an excellent example of a strawman argument. Bravo Shrek. Next you should try for an ad hominem argument. Ray will certainly cheer you on again...
he Dumocrats will lose the House and possibly even the Senate.
I think t's good that you enjoy talking about this as much now as possible. You know, just in case it doesn't happen.
Counting your chickens before they are hatched. And those expectations are exactly what I want to hear from everyone before the actual vote takes place.
I seem to remember Liberals going ballistic over Cheney and the evil Halliburton profiteering off the wars in the Middle East. Funny thing. Obama has been el Presidente` for almost two years and guess what? Halliburton is still in full operation over there. And you dupes actually believed all that bunk about "change." LOL
Surprise! Conservatives give more to charities than do liberals!! No wonder the Liberal Government Give Meter still stands at ZERO .... they're just plain cheap.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/
Surprise! Conservatives give more to charities than do liberals!! No wonder the Liberal Government Give Meter still stands at ZERO …. they’re just plain cheap.
Yea, with both ours and other people's money. I do appreciate all that you give, and intend to collect as much of it as possible...
Surprise! Conservatives give more to charities than do liberals!! No wonder the Liberal Government Give Meter still stands at ZERO …. they’re just plain cheap.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/
It's fascinating to me that right-wing expend so VERY much blogosphere patting themselves on the back over this. I've donated time in charitable causes, and don't recall that Limbots particularly dominated. People I suppose were there to GIVE and not to break their arms patting themselves on the back about how "right" their worldview was.
Every article I dig for on this, is in about the same timeframe, and all circle back to John Stossel and Athur Brooks for proof, and naught else. I see no evidence this "fact" has been verified by other researchers. Arthur Brooks, "author and researcher", who does he work for? the American Enterprise Institute. And who are they? A conservative think tank. I'm not surprised he proved exactly what he set out to. He was so good at spinning his book into gold, that in 2009 he was made AEI President.
What you have there, is a circle jerk.
What are you talking about? Everything I just said is FACTUALLY true.
Government can enslave people (draft) or rob people (taxation or worse) with impunity because when government does it, it is seen as ‘legitimate’. Or, to put it another way, government just outlaws those activities when someone(s) OTHER than the government does it. Organized crime mobs don’t like competition, after all.
But whether it is spun or not as ‘legitimate’ doesn’t change the fact that it is still enslaving and robbing people. Please prove otherwise.
What are you talking about?? I made no reference of any post that said anything like that. I'll refresh your memory. Here's an example of Shrek's strawman again:
Liberals support forcing other people to pay for accomplishing their socialist goals…especially if the other people have committed the twin crimes of a) being more rich and b) not supporting those goals in the first place.
And again:
And Liberals consider themselves ‘ethical’ merely because by doing grand larceny via the powers of government let’s them spin it that way
Here's a hint for you--any time that you post what liberals think or what liberals consider, it's probably a strawman.
So yes, I know perfectly what it means.
So, you use strawman arguments on purpose then? Obviously you know what they are, yet you continue to use them. I can draw no other conclusion.
To me that indicates that you don't really have truth on your side. Otherwise you wouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies to make your point...
From Liberals, the charge means, “When you have us on the ropes, we pull a straw man argument via accusing you of doing it.†So yes, I know perfectly what it means.
You're making way too much sense for them to handle. The next silly tactic they'll use is calling you a "troll."
You’re making way too much sense for them to handle. The next silly tactic they’ll use is calling you a “troll.â€
Actually, shrek beat me to it Ray. On another thread he accused me of being a troll. You're right about one thing though--it is a silly tactic.
Uh, no. I just said I know that those arguments are. How on earth does that translate as ’so you use strawman arguments on purpose then’?
Well, it's pretty simple. If you know what strawman arguments are and continue to use them, then you are using them on purpose. Not sure how you can't understand something so simple
if the majority feel the system isn't serving them, they will vote for a new social contract. The only theft is the use of finacial advantage to coerce most folks to accept a system where the revenue they create is skimmed off by those who own the capital, and if we are paid enough to raise our children we should bow and scrape and revere our generous benefactors because of all their virtuous investment and nation building
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin
Very interesting Nomograph. I only recently heard about this program. Where did you find the numbers?
MILLIONS
Total $2,824,256
Wow! Like really really Wow!! Almost $3 MILLION (not counting the 11 cents)! MILLIONS!! Duh, what we need is TRILLIONS. Come on Libtoids .... losen up your dainty little purse strings and GIVE until it HURTS!
I think that amount might just about cover the bailout money that maybe just one of the republican governors has taken after saying they never would do such a thing...
According to all unverifiable sources available to me, the Official Give Meter for the Liberals of Patrick.net officially stands at ZERO. Why am I not surprised?
The difference is simply this: Most Americans love the freedom of donating to any worthy cause they choose. Whereas liberals want to FORCE others to donate to causes THEY deem worthy.
pretty much how I see it too
Liberals however, want to FORCE others to donate to the cause THEY deem worthy…and its not a option.
I don't recall being asked if it was optional for me, to pay for various wars we've engaged in recently. Were those leaders commies? Were those "worthy causes" so worthy? I lose track.
elvis says
The difference is simply this: Most Americans love the freedom of donating to any worthy cause they choose. Whereas liberals want to FORCE others to donate to causes THEY deem worthy.
pretty much how I see it too
As a liberal, relatively speaking (I know of republicans in the 70s that were more liberal than I am), I can try to give you the other point of view. It's this: markets work, matching up supply and demand. But this does not work with charity, or "a thousand points of light." I would say that liberals know themselves well enough to know that if you essentially bill me for things like veterans benefits, food stamps, and all the countless essential services such as police, teachers, care for poor disabled people, I will pay it. But left to my own devices I will not give enough to pay my share of all of these.
Also, I find the risk of dependency, which may be significant, to be much more than offset by the sort of neutral feel of receiving government help, as opposed to charity, in cases such as food stamps.
elvis says
The difference is simply this: Most Americans love the freedom of donating to any worthy cause they choose. Whereas liberals want to FORCE others to donate to causes THEY deem worthy.
pretty much how I see it too
This is nothing more than a transparent justification for selfishness and greed. Liberals are just intelligent enough to understand that.
well ... the base reason for creating a mass governing body is common protection through shared resources (from national level to local level). After protection is complete, then all those fun welfare programs can be started. It just can't be done the other way around. Right?
The bailout thing is welfare. Bush was a liberal spender.
SSI is welfare when accessed by non-payer-iners
free lunch is welfare
Section 8 is welfare
sex change pills for prisoners is welfare
ACLU is unAmerican
NOW hates conservative women
NAACP hates conservative CP's
Nobody ever voted for EPA, IRS, or NEA
« First « Previous Comments 166 - 205 of 233 Next » Last » Search these comments
Finally, there is a site where BIG Government, tax & spend liberals can literally put their money where their mouth is. What a wonderful idea. Why wait for tax increases when you can send in your donation to the Government?
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?n1271991815942&agencyFormId=23779454&source=patrick.net