Social Security is not “Insurance”

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Obviously you know what the neocon fear mongering kind is, since you used their version of socialism in your post.

You know what? I've had it with your bullshit. Welcome to my ignore list. Hope you get banned soon.

 

[silverhandorder]

1. Feel free to show where I call the other poster a neocon.

2. I'm not so locked into a political ideology that it blinds me to simple facts. A rational welfare policy serves this Nation.

Today's style of welfare is hardly rational, however.

Today's style of welfare is what it naturally leads to. You can not design a system that gives only to those that truly need it. Society does not obey your definitions of what is poor and rich. Tell me your solution to welfare and I will poke holes in it in seconds.

Yes, they are. The United States has always been a mixed economic model, that is what drove our Nation to it's former heights. Any well run Constitutional Republic has some level of socialism inherent within it's structure. The Constitution is filled with it.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party leans too far towards socialism, and the Republican Party advocates Supply Side Economics, a failed economic theory based on another failed economic theory, the keynesian model.

I doubt you will find many people here who will agree to the degree if your "minarchism". You are basically a conservative democrat that can not handle bat shit crazy socialists.

Quick and dirty as it pertains to this subject (socialism is a complicated system with many types addressing economic, political, and social concerns), "real socialism" is the collection and redistribution of a limited amount of the accumulated wealth of the US citizenry for the purposes of social programs/institutions crafted for the betterment of society. IE public schools, military, roads, etc.

etc = universal health care, public college, food stamps, medicare & medicaid and ofcourse SSI. Again you are barking up the wrong ideological tree. People here oppose those programs from both a moral and a practical view point. If you support RP you are more then welcome here but as I said you will not find many people agreeing with you here.

 

[Southron]

We need to wean people off social security. Perhaps we could take a greater role in the care for disabled in our families as well as our elderly?

 

[erowe1]

Yes, all the above is fully understood.

Did you have a point?

That was my point.

Since you say you fully understand that Social Security is welfare and that nobody is entitled to it, I must have misunderstood your earlier post.

 

[erowe1]

Neoconservativism. Quick and dirty, someone who holds onto traditional religious/cultural ideals while taking a more leftist approach to economics, ie supporting a limited welfare State. Neocons are also much more willing to go to war to support geopolitical alliances and National policy enforcement.

Not really. Neoconservatives do not characteristically hold to traditional religious/cultural ideals. They often lean to the left on social issues, just as they generally do on economic issues. Their defining feature is their support for military intervention to promote and preserve democratic nation-states.

 

[erowe1]

The United States has always been a mixed economic model, that is what drove our Nation to it's former heights. Any well run Constitutional Republic has some level of socialism inherent within it's structure. The Constitution is filled with it.
ards socialism, and the Republican Party advocates Supply Side Economics, a failed economic theory based on another failed economic theory, the keynesian model.

Even if we pretend for the sake of argument that the Constitution presents us with a good design for a well-run constitutional republic, how could you defend the constitutionality of Social Security? There's no way that it could fit in any of the enumerated powers.

 

[osan]

SSi is not an entitlement program.

I have been paying into the program for over 30 years.

When I retire, I damn well better get that investment back.

Reality does not much care what you think. One cannot fit 10 gallons into a 5-gallon hat. Something has to give, eventually. I beleve "eventually" is pretty much knocking at the door.

 

[osan]

Perhaps if I manage to post here for a few years without getting banned, you will become familiar with my very complicated political ideology.

That's already sounding rather grim.

 

[osan]

For all its worth I support paying those back who paid into SS.

With what?

 

[osan]

Which socialism? The neocon fear mongering version or the real world version?

If you're going to evade answering, at least try to do so with some art. This was pretty weak.

Yes, they are. The United States has always been a mixed economic model, that is what drove our Nation to it's former heights.

Your knowledge of economics seems rather lacking, based on this assertion. It is so utterly and hopelessly wrong, I find myself at some loss to characterize it adequately.

Any well run Constitutional Republic has some level of socialism inherent within it's structure. The Constitution is filled with it.

Please provide references to socialistic elements present in the US Constitution.

This should be interesting.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party leans too far towards socialism, and the Republican Party advocates Supply Side Economics, a failed economic theory based on another failed economic theory, the keynesian model.

Well, at least you wandered partly into the neighborhood of "right".

 

[AxisMundi]

You know what? I've had it with your bullshit. Welcome to my ignore list. Hope you get banned soon.

Don;t let teh door hitcha...

 

[AxisMundi]

Today's style of welfare is what it naturally leads to. You can not design a system that gives only to those that truly need it. Society does not obey your definitions of what is poor and rich. Tell me your solution to welfare and I will poke holes in it in seconds.

Giving up before even starting to debate on how to fix the system?

Also, if you will note, no where have I stated that no government program can be void of graft and abuses. The trick is to design a system that minimizes this.

I doubt you will find many people here who will agree to the degree if your "minarchism". You are basically a conservative democrat that can not handle bat shit crazy socialists.

Again, my political ideology is complicated. I am no Democrat, conservative or otherwise, and I am no Republican either, liberal or otherwise.

And it doesn't surprise me at all that people disagree with my opinions. That's what America is all about, people who disagree coming together to discuss their differences. However, I have made every attempt to keep the insults to a minimum and only in response to other's insults.

etc = universal health care, public college, food stamps, medicare & medicaid and ofcourse SSI. Again you are barking up the wrong ideological tree. People here oppose those programs from both a moral and a practical view point. If you support RP you are more then welcome here but as I said you will not find many people agreeing with you here.

Permitting a mother of three whose waste-of-human-flesh-and-fresh-air husband spawned the kids on her and then boogied to be thrown out into the street, along with the kids, is immoral. Permitting a family whose father got "downsized" to starve is immoral. Forcing an Elder to eat cat food to survive is immoral.

Having a system in place that permits said mother or father to continually suck from the social teat is not "immoral", it is simply undesirable from many viewpoints.

 

[AxisMundi]

We need to wean people off social security. Perhaps we could take a greater role in the care for disabled in our families as well as our elderly?

Ideally that would be highly desirable, for those families who could afford it. But the respect and care for our Elders and society's infirm, more specifically the lack thereof, is partly responsible for the development of these programs in the first place.

 

[silverhandorder]

Giving up before even starting to debate on how to fix the system?

Also, if you will note, no where have I stated that no government program can be void of graft and abuses. The trick is to design a system that minimizes this.

Sure they can be fixed by making them voluntary.

Again, my political ideology is complicated. I am no Democrat, conservative or otherwise, and I am no Republican either, liberal or otherwise.

And it doesn't surprise me at all that people disagree with my opinions. That's what America is all about, people who disagree coming together to discuss their differences. However, I have made every attempt to keep the insults to a minimum and only in response to other's insults.

We can disagree to the point until you start pointing guns my way.

Permitting a mother of three whose waste-of-human-flesh-and-fresh-air husband spawned the kids on her and then boogied to be thrown out into the street, along with the kids, is immoral. Permitting a family whose father got "downsized" to starve is immoral. Forcing an Elder to eat cat food to survive is immoral.

Having a system in place that permits said mother or father to continually suck from the social teat is not "immoral", it is simply undesirable from many viewpoints.

No civilized nation has ever done this. You are grasping at straws. I simply do not want to use violence to enforce morality.

I can see why you would still support Ron Paul even with such an ideological gap. All things considered no one here now actual wants to approach any governance "rationally".

 

[AxisMundi]

Reality does not much care what you think. One cannot fit 10 gallons into a 5-gallon hat. Something has to give, eventually. I beleve "eventually" is pretty much knocking at the door.

We baby boomers will indeed put a strain on the SSi program, IMHO. However, between the younger generations contributions, which will be paid back later as ours is now, and Congress ceasing to borrow out of the SSi kitty, it is quite possible to keep the system financed.

That's already sounding rather grim.

There are forums on the Internets designed for people of differing ideas and opinions to interact and share their ideas and opinions.

There are forums on the Internets designed exclusively for people to share the SAME ideas and opinions for them to slap each other on the back and engage in one huge virtual circle-jerk, forums where other ideas and opinions are unwelcome.

Some RPF members, like the one who just put me on his ignore list (thankfully), appear to act as if RPF is the latter form of forum. Given Dr. Paul's apparent efforts to work past any ideological differences, I would trust a forum named after him would be of a like mind.

If not, it's no skin off my nose. Forums are private entities, and if I happen to be undesirable, well, considering the Anon nature of the
Internets, it would be foolish to take something as a perma-ban personally.

With what?

Eliminate the military-industrial welfare thus freeing up nearly half of the current military budget.

 

[silverhandorder]

Baby boomers will get paid in depreciated dollars a fraction of what they put in. This is Russia all over, they went through their elderly genocide and this is what we will go through here. Large majority of population is apolitical. When you are going to reach the point where the elderly cost too much they will be kicked to the curb while the politicians will continue to promise everything.

 

[AxisMundi]

Sure they can be fixed by making them voluntary.

Voluntary SSi?

Sure, I suppose that would work, but it would still require tax revenue for those unable to work due to a handicap that precludes them from employment.

While I despise the progressive income tax system we have in place currently, mandatory taxes are simply part of being a citizen and are part of our civic duty. Everyone, at one time or another, will utilize public services.

We can disagree to the point until you start pointing guns my way.

The only time I would point one of my guns at you is if you disagreed with the fact your not supposed to be in my house in the middle of the night.

Seriously though, I cannot fathom why some people on the Internets take dialogue so seriously, so personally, as to throw insults at people needlessly. I always try and reserve that pleasurable past time to people who insult me first.

No civilized nation has ever done this. You are grasping at straws. I simply do not want to use violence to enforce morality.

Violence? What violence? Break the law and not pay taxes and face monetary penalties certainly. Continue to do so and face incarceration, a good possibility. But that is hardly "violence". You won't get some IRS worker named Vito showing up at your door with a few of his boys to break your knee caps for not paying your taxes.

I can see why you would still support Ron Paul even with such an ideological gap. All things considered no one here now actual wants to approach any governance "rationally".

I try to. Not always easy, of course, but staying away from media inspired hysterics is a start.

 

[silverhandorder]

Voluntary SSi?

Sure, I suppose that would work, but it would still require tax revenue for those unable to work due to a handicap that precludes them from employment.

While I despise the progressive income tax system we have in place currently, mandatory taxes are simply part of being a citizen and are part of our civic duty. Everyone, at one time or another, will utilize public services.

Make them user fees. Let's first make it voluntary and leave the tax for crippled alone while we work this first step out.

The only time I would point one of my guns at you is if you disagreed with the fact your not supposed to be in my house in the middle of the night.
Seriously though, I cannot fathom why some people on the Internets take dialogue so seriously, so personally, as to throw insults at people needlessly. I always try and reserve that pleasurable past time to people who insult me first.

Then don't ask for mandatory taxes on others. Make them user fees.

I am not insulting you I simply pointed out that you were trolling whether it was intentional or not I don't know. Dialogue gets personal if you understand the ethics behind an argument. Would you not take it personal if I said lets have a genocide on our hands and wipe everyone out but the master race? Well other people take slavery personally. When one is given a choice to either pay up his wages towards government programs or have his life ruined there is little choice given.

Violence? What violence? Break the law and not pay taxes and face monetary penalties certainly. Continue to do so and face incarceration, a good possibility. But that is hardly "violence". You won't get some IRS worker named Vito showing up at your door with a few of his boys to break your knee caps for not paying your taxes.

Uh yes you will get your knee caps broken if you defend your self as you are in your right.

 

[AxisMundi]

Baby boomers will get paid in depreciated dollars a fraction of what they put in. This is Russia all over, they went through their elderly genocide and this is what we will go through here. Large majority of population is apolitical. When you are going to reach the point where the elderly cost too much they will be kicked to the curb while the politicians will continue to promise everything.

SSi is called "insurance" for a reason.

An example.

A person buys car insurance for a brand new Lincoln, pays for a week, and gets plastered by a drunk driver. Said policy included cost of replacement. Does that person's insurance company get to say "Nuh-uh, you didn't pay enough" and opt out of replacing the vehicle.

No, of course not. The vehicle is paid for out of the funds the insurance company has on hand, built up from the payments collected by other customers and that the above customer will add to in the years that follow.

 

[AxisMundi]

Make them user fees. Let's first make it voluntary and leave the tax for crippled alone while we work this first step out.

Like car insurance, even voluntary SSi would require sources from outside the system to fund the program.

Then don't ask for mandatory taxes on others. Make them user fees.

Please expand on "user fees".

There are other systems out there besides the progressive (and quite oppressive) tax system we have in place now, systems that would permit smaller taxation per individual while still delivering enough revenue for the g'ment to operate and function.

Even a lean and svelte government would require some form of taxation to operate.

I am not insulting you I simply pointed out that you were trolling whether it was intentional or not I don't know. Dialogue gets personal if you understand the ethics behind an argument. Would you not take it personal if I said lets have a genocide on our hands and wipe everyone out but the master race? Well other people take slavery personally. When one is given a choice to either pay up his wages towards government programs or have his life ruined there is little choice given.

To be quite frank, no, I would not take it personally at all.

Why would I.

And ethics are simply relative.

Uh yes you will get your knee caps broken if you defend your self as you are in your right.

Life is full of choices. You could choose not to pay taxes and get arrested. You could choose to resist arrest as well. Still your fault for breaking the law. Whether said law should be changed or not, one has to work under current laws while engaging in efforts to change said laws.