|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 31, 2011 11:51:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by theman on Jan 31, 2011 18:02:12 GMT -8
I suppose if you paid into the social security system you can justify getting your money back in later life and still keep your principles.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 31, 2011 18:31:03 GMT -8
I've heard this argument before, but in a general sense rather than with respect to a particular person. Here's the deal, and it's really not more than 4th grade stuff. There is a difference between stealing $100.00 from a neighborhood store and getting back $100.00 from a thief who stole it from you in the first place.
Some on the Left have a strange yardstick for those who oppose collectivist government. They demand that any such person, a taxpayer (i.e. involuntary donor to the government) don't forget, must reject any benefits from the government or face the consequence of being called a hypocrite. Even when the individual in question was forced, through taxation, to give money to the government in the first place. That's nonsense. Of course, the Left also sees nothing wrong with people taking from the government (in this case correctly identified as those who actually pay taxes) when they did not contribute in the first place.
As I have declared and maintained for many a year, the key battle facing mankind always has been and always will be the struggle between collectivism and libertarianism. Ayn Rand, who was herself not without shortcomings (a deficient sense of humor, for instance), brilliantly presented the case for individual freedom. The Left, who caricatures anyone who opposes collectivism, takes the opposite position. Take your choice.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 31, 2011 20:52:09 GMT -8
One of the many things we seem to have a hard time expressing in terms that liberals can understand is the difference between a program that uses unfunded future liability to fund future benefits and a program that is self owned, self funded with contributions from an employer from current revenue.
It is the difference between taking care of yourself and having future debt take care of you.
It is a difference in keeping your own money and current contributions working to fund your retirement and letting your current taxes and the taxes on your employer be skimmed by an incredibly inefficient bureaucratic bunch of politicians and other bureaucrats to the point that it resembles a giant ponzi scheme.
Care people catch on that their contributions and taxes will be much more valuable if they exist in owned accounts that are will-able than if they are wasted as low earning iou's that can never be repaid?
I see nothing hypocritical in taking full advantage of a program that you have no way of opting out from.
|
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Jan 31, 2011 22:41:30 GMT -8
It was just typical of the osama administration...my great grandpa who made a nickel a day during the Great Depression was forced to pay fifteen percent of this nickel to the U. S. government so he could earn taxable income when he turned 71 years old, and pay the State of California a ten percent Use Tax, ta-boot. Having had 25 percent of his earned income TAKEN by the governments who then started the war...he lived to collect nothing.
Scam.
Hai.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 1, 2011 8:12:23 GMT -8
One of the many things we seem to have a hard time expressing in terms that liberals can understand is the difference between a program that uses unfunded future liability to fund future benefits and a program that is self owned, self funded with contributions from an employer from current revenue. It is the difference between taking care of yourself and having future debt take care of you. It is a difference in keeping your own money and current contributions working to fund your retirement and letting your current taxes and the taxes on your employer be skimmed by an incredibly inefficient bureaucratic bunch of politicians and other bureaucrats to the point that it resembles a giant ponzi scheme. Care people catch on that their contributions and taxes will be much more valuable if they exist in owned accounts that are will-able than if they are wasted as low earning iou's that can never be repaid? I see nothing hypocritical in taking full advantage of a program that you have no way of opting out from. For example someone like me who has been self-employed for 30 years, who saves for his own retirement, versus someone like you who sucked off government tit for forty some years and is now a double dipper? I am sure you know all about inefficient government employees.  The article did give examples of her contemporarys, who believed as she did, but did not go against their principles. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Feb 1, 2011 9:57:31 GMT -8
First and foremost she's a hack
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 1, 2011 12:20:51 GMT -8
One of the many things we seem to have a hard time expressing in terms that liberals can understand is the difference between a program that uses unfunded future liability to fund future benefits and a program that is self owned, self funded with contributions from an employer from current revenue. It is the difference between taking care of yourself and having future debt take care of you. It is a difference in keeping your own money and current contributions working to fund your retirement and letting your current taxes and the taxes on your employer be skimmed by an incredibly inefficient bureaucratic bunch of politicians and other bureaucrats to the point that it resembles a giant ponzi scheme. Care people catch on that their contributions and taxes will be much more valuable if they exist in owned accounts that are will-able than if they are wasted as low earning iou's that can never be repaid? I see nothing hypocritical in taking full advantage of a program that you have no way of opting out from. For example someone like me who has been self-employed for 30 years, who saves for his own retirement, versus someone like you who sucked off government tit for forty some years and is now a double dipper? I am sure you know all about inefficient government employees. The article did give examples of her contemporarys, who believed as she did, but did not go against their principles. We are at least quadruple dippers, but it is not the larger part of our retirement. Now make a real comment on the subject.  |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 1, 2011 14:01:35 GMT -8
|
|
