Say Anything Blog

I’m willing to do my part to help by electing to opt-out once they give us the chance.  They can keep their 12% of everything that I’ve ever made up to this point in my life in exchange for my getting to keep an additional 12% of my remaining life…

I suppose that taking care of myself would run against the democrat philosophy that I need THEM to tell me what to do with my money.

I forget didn’t the Demoncrats talk about this during the election?

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

I don’t remember anything during the election, but I’m pretty sure that during early ‘05 when Bush was pushing for SS reform, the democrats pretty much said that there was no problem with the current system and Bush was making it up because he really just wanted to take money away from little old ladies…

It’s amazing to me how much better the economy is and how much worse Social Security is after we elect Democrats.

"Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards in emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.”
- Dave James

The Demoncrats did have a platform last month, right?

The press did tell us what they stood for, right?

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

I forget didn’t the Demoncrats talk about this during the election?

Remember they said no one is talking about raising taxes. They were talking about tax cuts for the middle class. I don’t think most of us can afford to pay anymore taxes.

[I don’t remember anything during the election, but I’m pretty sure that during early ‘05 when Bush was pushing for SS reform, the democrats pretty much said that there was no problem with the current system and Bush was making it up because he really just wanted to take money away from little old ladies… /quote]
They said that too. Nothing wrong with the system.

---

check out Goon’s World

http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

http://redneckndgoon.blogspot.com/

This is part and parcel of the"We will punish you, and your little dog, too” mentality of leftards. They care not at all about old people and sick people, only about punishing everyone who did not vote for them since 1994. And everyone who has ever disagreed with them. And everyone who voted for them this time, because they are evil,hate-filled Americans and deserve to be punished because Democrats say so.

Did I cover all the bases there?

Oh, yea, the draft. Because everyone should be drafted so they can be punished because Democrats say they should be punished.

That covers it all.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

This is part and parcel of the"We will punish you, and your little dog, too” mentality of leftards. They care not at all about old people and sick people, only about punishing everyone who did not vote for them since 1994. And everyone who has ever disagreed with them. And everyone who voted for them this time, because they are evil,hate-filled Americans and deserve to be punished because Democrats say so.

Did I cover all the bases there?

Oh, yea, the draft. Because everyone should be drafted so they can be punished because Democrats say they should be punished.

That covers it all.

I like what you said there. Very true. If they go through with this they are going to have to get the conservative to go with them. They can’t probably get a tax hike through because of Presidential veto. Rangle, let him talk he already digging a hole for his party. The left really are socialist, they are for big government and social programs they want to redistibute wealth and tie up everything in the courts. Too bad the courts tends to lean conservative right now.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

I meant to say that too bad for the dems they have supreme court that leads to the right. I predict nothing but grid lock the next few years.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

Gridlock is our friend!

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Amid all the hate mongering from left and right,( the Democrats have nothing on you guys!) does anyone have a workable solution to the problem of people reaching old age with nothing to fall back on besides, “tough. They had their chance.”? Anything besides negative input and explainations about how free enterprise is supposed to work? No system we adopt is going to answer the question of what becomes of uneducated, unskilled people when they reach old age , you know, the ones without the resources, the intelligence, the head start to do better, the ones you guys seem to want to punish for not being more than they are by natures decree. Social Security is not much, but it keeps people alive.

Amid all the hate mongering from left and right,( the Democrats have nothing on you guys!) does anyone have a workable solution to the problem of people reaching old age with nothing to fall back on besides, “tough. They had their chance.”? Anything besides negative input and explainations about how free enterprise is supposed to work? No system we adopt is going to answer the question of what becomes of uneducated, unskilled people when they reach old age , you know, the ones without the resources, the intelligence, the head start to do better, the ones you guys seem to want to punish for not being more than they are by natures decree. Social Security is not much, but it keeps people alive.

Your taking money out of my pocket that I can’t afford to pay for.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

( the Democrats have nothing on you guys!)

Do you want to give examples Margie?

does anyone have a workable solution to the problem of people reaching old age with nothing to fall back on besides, “tough.

If you look at the Social Security reform that President Bush proposed with an open mind you’d find that that kind of reform would fix the problem nicely.

“tough. They had their chance.”?

I think a case can be made that they didn’t have their chance because the government confiscated 14% of their earnings supposedly for their retirement, but the government spent the money as it came in rather than invest it.

Why don’t you want people to be able to save their money Margie?

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Sorry, had to leave for awhile.

Goon, you honestly don’t have any sociatal responsibility toward the weak and helpless old folks in this country? Are you saying they can all perish for all you care? We can not afford not to care.

Whistler, surely you jest! The bitterness and hatred toward anyone not feeling as ya’ll do is downright staggering. From the phrase, “leftard” and much worse name calling to absolutly refusing to entertain for a moment any other point of view and always ascribing the worse possible motivation to anyone disagreeing begins to resemble a personal attack to anyone trying to engage in a civil debate with some of you rather than a difference in philosophies. Others of you seem genuinely interested in exchanging ideas. The disdain and arogance of some Republicans mirrors our leaders refusal to see or hear anything that might interfere with set-in-stone ideas and plans. This path leads to irreconcialable differences between the parties and two wasted years of stalemate.

I’d love for people to save their money, that’s assuming they have any left over to save from a low wage job after they pay their rent and take care of their families. You don’t want to raise minimum wages, yet there is no place in your old age scenario for these families, therefor they don’t exist. I’d love to see every American successful, able to care for themselves, prepared to face retirement. However theis utopian existence will never be, because all men are not created equal and up to the task by nature and such will never be the case. We cannot legislate that equallity, all we can do is compensate for it as a society as best we can. All citizens bear equal responsibility for that civilized measure.

I am woefully ignorant of proposals for mending Social Security, but I am definitely not in favor of privatizing it or disbanding it. I am very much in favor of protecting funding from maurauders using it for something else. I am not in favor of allowing people to opt out, thus effectively destroying it. Should people who don’t drive be excused from paying taxes for roads? Should childless couples not have to help pay for education? It has to be a national effort to succeed.

That’s where charity comes in and the USA is the most charitable nation on Earth, but personal responsibility should not be ignored. Most poor people are poor due to poor choices.

The day the government quits confiscating funds for SS will be a great day for our future generations. We could use an emergency opt out program to help the problem. SS is a big mess and the longer we wait the worse it gets…

SS is a big mess and the longer we wait the worse it gets…

...a partisan lie. Some people just want to rob the existing funds that are there and others want to make money of ‘private’ accounts that contain risks that cannot be rationalized for this type of program.

That’s where charity comes in and the USA is the most charitable nation on Earth

True that Kevin! Just look at Iraq! So much generosity.

Still no options offered to the very real problems Social Security was meant to solve except look after myself and devil take the hindmost or the voluntary generosity of charity, undependable, unsustainable, impractical as it is? Solutions, people. Let’s hear alternatives. Ya’ll are too bright as a group to just say you brought it on yourself for the most part, now die with it. Or worse still, this segment of the population doesn’t really exist.  How about a second chance for the young school drop out with a baby to rear on her own? Job training instead of condemnation. How about mandatory military service and higher education for the punk on the corner who just got arrested for selling drugs? These are the people who will be using Social Security in the future without making significant contributions. Do you believe that people should pay for the rest of their lives for a mistake which has cost them the oppertunity to bounce back and correct it without help? Ya’ll can do better than just a defensive posture.

I am very much in favor of protecting funding from maurauders using it for something else.

Too late.

Should people who don’t drive be excused from paying taxes for roads?

Our roads are largely funded by gasoline taxes, so people who don’t buy gas already pay less for roads than those who do

Should childless couples not have to help pay for education?

Perhaps, but we’ve taken it to an extreme: not only are the childless forced to subsidize education, but they also subsidize the rearing of the children in the form of child tax credits.

Too many “woefully ignorant” people are making decisions and voting for the party of tax and spend.  That’s what got us in the mess we are now.

I am not in favor of allowing people to opt out, thus effectively destroying it. Should people who don’t drive be excused from paying taxes for roads? Should childless couples not have to help pay for education? It has to be a national effort to succeed.

In a country that has become great, wealthy and powerful by being an nation of independent individuals, the only way to deal with this problem is by a coercive collectivist scheme?  It is obviously unjust to make people pay for something they don’t use; if we lose our freedom to “opt out” of something, isn’t that a big clue that something is wrong?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

’--the only way to deal with this problem is by a coercive collectivist scheme?”

Your solution? You don’t feel that it is your national responsibility to have one? Sorrowfully, I can only conclude that the “nation of independent individuals” you refer to is simply another way of saying “ I don’t give a damn about anyone except myself and my family, unless I choose to give to charity, and the fact of this inadaquacy does not concern me”

Still no options offered to the very real problems

Here’s one:  Who says that you should get to retire at 65 even though you never worked & saved throughout your life.  I figure those who worked and saved and lived withine their means get to retire and those who didn’t can work until they are too old to do so.  If 65 years is not long enough to recover from “a mistake which has cost them the oppertunity to bounce back and correct it”, then perhaps 75 would be.

What happens when they get too old to do so? Do they just crawl away and die then?

“ I don’t give a damn about anyone except myself and my family, unless I choose to give to charity, and the fact of this inadaquacy does not concern me”

If more people chose this attitude instead of relying on others to fill their needs, perhaps we’d have less people sucking on the teet of social programs and more people working to support themselves and contributing taxes like the rest of use.

Instead, we encourage reliance on others for handouts.

Margie:

Your solution? You don’t feel that it is your national responsibility to have one? I certainly do; a real one, as opposed to this pyramid scheme which rips off both the participants and those who pay the bills. Sorrowfully, I can only conclude that the “nation of independent individuals” you refer to is simply another way of saying “ I don’t give a damn about anyone except myself and my family, unless I choose to give to charity, and the fact of this inadaquacy does not concern me”
In your ignorance, you draw a wrong, if predictable, conclusion.  I know you don’t know this, but I am in favor of, and have been for over forty years, a real govt-administered investment plan for retirement.  I favor one which would not discourage independent investment(not such a big tax bite), but that would return more than the present SS rate.  SS currently returns about 2%; that isn’t enough to ensure adequate funds, so increasing taxes are built into the system to maintain even its modest rate of return.  A very safe investment returns around 6%, which would both raise the return to the retirees(much needed) and would strengthen the economy.  It’s not rocket science; it’s just been a political football for so long, that it is very hard to do the right thing here, mostly due to Dem politics.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

All plilosophies have consequences. Ignoring them is irresponsible. Imagine that you have everything you want. All social programs have vanished, poof! How many bodies would it take to convince you that maybe you should take another look at solutions other than absolute philosophies?

Margie: Good point; look at the consequences of collectivist philosophies in world history. Slavery, misery and death.  Great!

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

At last, Robert, something that makes sense! A real suggestion rather than just negative condemnation that the problem exists at all. Thank you.

Got to go. Thanks all, for letting me vent here. I know we seldom agree, but what fun is it if everyone agrees?

Margie: These remedies are not mine alone.  The President’s plan had them, along with a reasonable way to make the transition from the pyramid scheme to one that paid for itself. You just never heard the truth before.  Imagine what other things you might have missed!

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

What happens when they get too old to do so? Do they just crawl away and die then?

What happens to those who don’t live long enough to ever collect from social security?  Instead of leaving 12% of their net worth for their progeny, they’ve donated it to those who outlive them.  Face it, social security descriminates against anyone else who contributes but never benefits (primarily males).  Sounds a lot like welfare.

Margie, you are a good example of what is wrong with the Socialist mentality. You can see no other way than for the government to supply your home and food and medicine. It never occurs to you to consider any option other than government.

The party you have spent your life voting for has totally screwed the elderly and needy, and instead of making them repay all the money they have stolen from Social Security you want to steal more money from everyone else.

And yes, Margie, I will never recieve a penny from Social Security. All the money stolen from me during my working lifetime is gone, and I will never get it back. Our oldage will be financed by my wife and I, and our son. And that is how it is supposed to be.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Here’s a solution to the Social Security problem:

1) End all the tax shelter programs (401k, IRA, 529, etc.) and use the windfall to cash people out of Social Security.  Payouts are based on how much you paid in plus a healthy amount of interest (to mirror the stock market).  The interest will automatically skew the payouts in favor of older recipients.

2) Force everyone to buy disability insurance.  Private disability insurance with 100% income replacement costs about 2.74% of your income.  This is a much better deal the Social Security.

3) Establish mandatory personal retirement savings to the tune of 5%.  The money goes in to an S&P 500 index fund.  This ensures everyone gets the (same) average return of the stock market.  Over 49 years (age 18-67), this will provide a minimum wage worker with an expected nest egg of $374K. 

4) Scrap the pathetic patchwork of national, state and local welfare programs and replace them with a simple, unified welfare program.  The program provides cash for families below the poverty line.  The program is funded out of general revenues.  Income taxes will probably have to be raised to pay for it, but no one will care because they’re no longer paying FICA.

Do you believe that people should pay for the rest of their lives for a mistake which has cost them the oppertunity to bounce back and correct it without help?

Margie, what are you talking about?  Everyday people turn around.  It sounds to me that you’re proposing just putting these individuals on some kind of welfare program that they’ll never leave.

Frankly enabling someone to remain on the dole is evil.

Margie have you heard of welfare reform?  That was a Republican bill that Clinton vetoed twice.  It’s worked because it’s given people a chance to get off of welfare.

From the phrase, “leftard” and much worse name calling

If you notice that name calling goes to a certain group that in my opinion are stiring the pot.

refusing to entertain for a moment any other point of view and always ascribing the worse possible motivation to anyone disagreeing begins to resemble a personal attack to anyone trying to engage in a civil debate

Margie, we’re very specific about our philosophy and argue from it daily.  We’ve patiently explained why the other political philosophy is wrong.

By the way, it seems like you are ascribing the worst possible motivation to us conservatives.  You seem to give the left a total break for the damage they do because they claim that they care.  It doesn’t matter that their policies make things worse for the poeple they claim to want to help.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

1) End all the tax shelter programs (401k, IRA, 529, etc.) and use the windfall to cash people out of Social Security. Tax shelter programs exist to protect us from excessive taxation and to give us some control over our money; your suggestion amounts to a large tax increase.  Not the right direction to go. Payouts are based on how much you paid in plus a healthy amount of interest (to mirror the stock market).What is the source of this interest? The interest will automatically skew the payouts in favor of older recipients.

2) Force everyone to buy disability insurance.In a free country, no one should be “forced” to do anything like this. Private disability insurance with 100% income replacement costs about 2.74% of your income.  This is a much better deal the Social Security.

3) Establish mandatory personal retirement savings to the tune of 5%. Once again, the “mandatory” part is wrong. The money goes in to an S&P 500 index fund.  This ensures everyone gets the (same) average return of the stock market.  Over 49 years (age 18-67), this will provide a minimum wage worker with an expected nest egg of $374K.

4) Scrap the pathetic patchwork of national, state and local welfare programs and replace them with a simple, unified welfare program. The collectivist dream.  If a large program doesn’t work, make it larger.  That’s the ticket! The program provides cash for families below the poverty line.  The program is funded out of general revenues.  Income taxes will probably have to be raised to pay for it, but no one will care because they’re no longer paying FICA.Raising taxes is a sign that the program doesn’t work.  If a program lowers taxes, it is a success.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

I am very much in favor of protecting funding from maurauders using it for something else.

I bet that if you took a poll:

The leftards and ignorants would say that the ‘marauders’ are those who want to partially privatize SS in order to give the investors a respectable return. 

The rest of us would say that they are the senators & representative who already spent our contributions on social programs.

Who do you think is more correct?  Which group is working in the best interest of future retirees?

And yes, Margie, I will never recieve a penny from Social Security. All the money stolen from me during my working lifetime is gone, and I will never get it back. Our oldage will be financed by my wife and I, and our son. And that is how it is supposed to be.

Amen.We will never see a dime so why should I have to pay into it.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

The leftards and ignorants would say that the ‘marauders’ are those who want to partially privatize SS in order to give the investors a respectable return.

They want to protect it from the “investors” so that they can blow it on feel-good programs to stay in power.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Goon, you honestly don’t have any sociatal responsibility toward the weak and helpless old folks in this country? Are you saying they can all perish for all you care? We can not afford not to care.

At what price? How much more should I be expected to pay, I already lose enough of my paycheck to others. I have given enough and do not want to give anymore. Like someone said we don’t need to just throw more money at the problem.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

Tax shelter programs exist to protect us from excessive taxation and to give us some control over our money; your suggestion amounts to a large tax increase.  Not the right direction to go.

You wouldn’t give up your tax shelters in exchange for not having to pay FICA?  The net result would be a tax decrease (and a huge one at that).  Besides which, the data show that tax shelters are seriously abused by the wealthy.

What is the source of this interest?

The interest is only conceptual.  It’s used to determine the lump sum payouts.  All of the money is paid out of the windfall tax from the tax shelters.

In a free country, no one should be “forced” to do anything like this. ... Once again, the “mandatory” part is wrong.

The idea, here, was to replace Social Security with something better.  In a perfect world, everyone would plan for their own retirement and possible disability.  But in the real world, there are large numbers of people who don’t.  So unless we, as a society, are comfortable with having large numbers of impoverished seniors and disabled people, we have to do something about it.

The collectivist dream.  If a large program doesn’t work, make it larger.  That’s the ticket!

I won’t dispute the necessity of welfare with you.  You obviously believe it isn’t necessary.  But I believe that will never fly in the real world.  So instead of having lots of smaller programs that don’t communicate, can’t share resources, and have overlapping goals, I think it would be far better to have a single program.  Actually, that net result would be shrinking of the overall size of our welfare system by a significant factor.  It’s the same idea as corporate consolidation.

Raising taxes is a sign that the program doesn’t work.  If a program lowers taxes, it is a success.

Like I said, the net result would be a lowering of taxes.  Something like 80% of Americans pay more in FICA than federal income taxes.  Eliminating FICA would be a tax cut, the likes of which have never been seen before.

R108 writes:  In a country that has become great, wealthy and powerful by being an nation of independent individuals, the only way to deal with this problem is by a coercive collectivist scheme? That is where you are wrong. 

We don’t get anywhere in this county without the collective work of all and our government working for both individuals and society.

Prosperity is not based on the privilege of the few, but the well-being of the many.  That’s why government and democracy are fundamental--they can ensure that all citizens enjoy basic economic security and educational opportunity. America is founded on the revolutionary idea that government should enable each of us as a society and as individuals, to strive for ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ Only a democratic government can ensure that opportunity, with a foundation of education for all children, health coverage for all citizens and security in old age for all retirees.  Now that would be a civil society.  John Burbank, Economic Opportunity Institute.

That’s why government and democracy are fundamental--they can ensure that all citizens enjoy basic economic security and educational opportunity. America is founded on the revolutionary idea that government should enable each of us as a society and as individuals, to strive for ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’

This is the lying leftie propaganda version of America.  Govt can never “ensure that all citizens enjoy basic economic security and educational opportunity”.  All prosperity is generated in this country from the cooperation between capital and labor, and the govt feeds off of productive citizens.  All govt can do it rearrange the pieces on the chessboard to benefit one group over another.  If you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you will see that, in this country, all rights and privileges flow from the Creator; our govt is there to ensure that all citizens enjoy the rights that are God-given, not govt given.  Your totalitarian vision of a “civil” society has been proven a dismal failure by history.  You have to allow people to succeed and fail by their own choices; when you insulate people from the consequences of their actions, you get a dysfunctional society.  No govt can ever provide equality of outcome, because input is never equal.  Duh.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Only a democratic government can ensure that opportunity, with a foundation of education for all children, health coverage for all citizens and security in old age for all retirees.  Now that would be a civil society.

What a load of socialist crap.

What he is saying is that only a democratic government can confiscate wages for the purpose of distribution.  This injustice is said to be acceptable because society as a whole is said to benefit from the education, health care, and retirement some subsequently recieve at the expense of others. 

Why stop there?  Shouldn’t this socialism also provide food and shelter?  Wouldn’t we have an even better society if we added clothing and transportation as well? 

That’s right folks, socialism is pure injustice cloaked in philanthropy.  Private property goes out the window when one’s belongings can be confiscated and given to someone else.  It is no longer your property but society’s property, in other words communal property. 

Justice is not determined by the benefit of the whole at the expense of the injustice to the individual.

Sounds a lot like from each according to their means to each according to their needs.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

BW: What you actually wrote: ”Income taxes will probably have to be raised to pay for it...”

A tax increase is not a tax decrease.  I am in a tax bracket where FICA is a drop in the bucket.  Even in lower brackets, FICA is 7.5%, which is lower than withholding for most people.  Increasing withholding any more than 7.5% will be a net tax increase.  Your numbers don’t work out.  One of the probs with SS is the bureaucratic overhead.  You don’t address that in your plan.  Will it have any less overhead?  If not, you are just changing the name, but the money is still the same.  Only a real investment program will save us.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

BW: Forgot to mention the worst part of your plan-the theft of money from the savers to give to the spenders.  It is immoral and should be illegal.  Your “windfall” is confiscated from the fiscally responsible people who, in spite of confiscatory taxes, manage to put away money for their future.  You would steal that to give to those who haven’t been fiscally responsible.  Shame on you!

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Marxist/Socialist dogma, dressed up in shiny new clothes. The same shit we hear from puzzledfuck and ellinas all the time.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

The dems stealing from the rich to give to the poor all in the name of socialism. I am sick and tired of having to pay for the misfortunes of others all in the name of income distribution.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

goon: In a free society like the US, the govt has no business “redistributing” anyone’s income.  The only excuse for taxation is paying for the Constitutional duties of govt, not social engineering.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Puzzle:  “ the collective work of all and our government working for both individuals and society.” What is this?  Communism.  Here is a simple question to you:  What percentage of the US population have even tried to give blood?

This does not cost anything and does not involve our federal government physically forcing people to have a needle stuck into their veins.  I will wait here, or you can leave the answer at my email address or my blog.  Type blood on the search section.

Communism is evil

Margie--- People can have plenty of money left to be happy and pay their rent if they didn’t:  smoke cigarettes, drink beer and alcohol, use illegal drugs, obey the laws, stay out of jail, tell The Truth, get married and stay married, work, get to work on time, study in school, stay out of gangs, abstain from pre-marital sex, and… I could go on, but people have choices in life and there are consequences to those choices.  Period.  I will be glad to discuss this with you.

Communism is evil

Margie said,The bitterness and hatred toward anyone not feeling as ya’ll do is downright staggering. From the phrase, “leftard” and much worse name calling to absolutly refusing to entertain for a moment any other point of view and always ascribing the worse possible motivation to anyone disagreeing

Right after you said that, you say this:

You don’t feel that it is your national responsibility to have one? Sorrowfully, I can only conclude that the “nation of independent individuals” you refer to is simply another way of saying “ I don’t give a damn about anyone except myself and my family, unless I choose to give to charity, and the fact of this inadaquacy does not concern me”

Why, how hypocritical of you Margie!

First of all, “national responsibility” doesn’t have to equal a government program. Secondly, all you’re doing is blowing hot air. Liberals like you just talk the talk. Conservatives walk the walk.

Those of you who are against privatizing measures - why? It historically returns higher than the Social “Security” scheme. That’s a fact. If the stock market collapses, can you guess what is also in major trouble? Here’s a hint: the first word is “Social” and the last word is “Security”.

You see, Margie, we have considered your views. Where you’re wrong is that you believe that we have refused to listen, whereas the reality is that we have listened and come to realize that your ideas simply do not work.

I would ask you why you refuse to privatize (at least 6% return) versus the government Ponzi scheme (around 2% return). It seems that you are projecting when you say that some of us have a “refusal to see or hear anything that might interfere with set-in-stone ideas and plans.”

Margie: I think you owe all the conservatives on this blog an abject apology.  Most of us have addressed you with kindness and respect, even while disagreeing with you.  It’s the lefties who tend to use hateful personal attack, not us.  We usually give you chapter and verse why we hold to the values we espouse. Shame on you!
In a curious reversal, you fail to realize that it is SS that is “set in stone"(since the “New Deal"), and that is the precise reason it is failing.  Whoever is feeding you ideas isn’t doing you any favors.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

...the collective work of all and our government working for both individuals and society.

This is the epitome of Marxist leftiespeak.  It sounds good on the surface; how could anyone be against such idealistic goals?  When you look at the reality, though, it starts to reveal its ugliness.  Isn’t the good of individuals, taken together, the good of society?  Your statement separates the two, but what is the nature of that separation?  Here’s a hint: “society” means “the State”, and is something that is entirely separate from individuals, who are interested in their own well-being.  It is a Marxist fiction that somehow what is good for the individual is bad for society, unless by that you mean an all-powerful and all-controlling govt, and then you see the conflict.  Marxism, and American lefties, cannot abide or permit individual independence; that is their dirty little secret.  They want to redistribute you money “for the good of society”, because they don’t believe you should have any say, as an individual, about what to do with your earnings or your property, so we will all be better off, in their view, when the State controls everything, including individual citizens.  This is the ugliness behind the flowery words.  What happens to those who might disagree with even one piece of that ideology?  Ask Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.  As long as you submit(for the good of society) you can live on what they decide for you, but if you disagree…

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Robert, I do apoligize if you took my comments to mean the way, I , personally, have been treated on this blog.You have all treated me with respect and courtesy, not to mention put a lot of time and effort into giving me information and the benefit of your wider reading and knowledge. If I can not agree with your opinions and ideas, it is not for lack of your patience, but due to my own inability to change my basic outlook and emotions. I have a very recent interest in politics and am scrambling to catch up with what has been going on. I have only opinion, emotional reactions to issues and a gut instinct to offer and you have been kind to accept that about me. Reluctantly, I must admit that even gender plays a role in my core beliefs. However---

All that said, I stand by my assertion that hard-core, especially fiscal, conservatives are absolutely set-in-stone in their belifs, with a bit of arrogant paranoia thrown in. Phrases such as; “This is the lying lefty propaganda version of America” is standard response to any disagreement. Refusing to give to your oponent at least the dubious respect of not calling every thing they say lying propaganda, rather than a sincere belief and independly arrived at conclusion is unfair. Implying that all liberal beliefs spring from the MSM rather than being heart-felt conclusions based of inate feelings and reputable facts and that all opposition is caused by a giant media conspiricy is somewhat rediculous, and demeaaning. It allows no room for any opinion other than your own having even the possibility of veracity. You are entitled to your opinions, yet you should recognize that honorable people may not share them.

Lik: Not bitterness or hatred on my part, more like out rage, and I believe that my conclusions are valid. What else can I think, given statements like, “ --I am sick and tired of having to pay for the misfortunes of others--”

After being given the facts of returns on investments by Robert, which I thanked him for, I would not be against privitizing , at least partly, Social Security, if the future old age survival of low income people, without the means to secure their own retirement was taken care of by regular Social Security. Its called compromise. Turn the concept over in your mind for possible common sense. And yes, that was a rude comment you deserve for calling me a hypocrite. There is a difference in listening to and giving serious consideration to an idea or concept. I’m as guilty as anyone else in clinging to my own ideas of the way things should be. But I hope I don’t feel that arrogant disdain for everyone else’s ideas.

Chief: You show me this perfect person with no vices, no mistakes in their past to overcome and this well-thought-out pattern for their lives that has been in place since birth into the perfect family and I will agree that they certainly don’t need any help. Ever heard of humanity and our doggone propensity to be self-destructive at various times in our lives? Is there no room in your philosophy for the hand up for a down on your hiny imperfect human who would, given the right tools, become a self-reliant tax-payer? Would it matter to you if they were then required to repay this second chance? Or must everything be a matter of principle? You don’t have to love, like, approve of people to want to help them, even in a long term self-interest way.

“We usually give you chapter and verse of why we hold to the values we espouse”
While refering to everyone else’s as “--the epitome of Marxist leftiespeak--” Allowing others the legitimacy of their opinions and respect for them that you demand for yours is only fair.

Obviously all you righties forgot that part of the Constitution that states “promote the general welfare”.  My god, Communism and socialism in our U.S. Constitution

“promote the general welfare”.

Through freedom and limited government.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Health. happiness, or well being. That does not mean the Government is responsible for each individual. That means each citizen is free to pursue their own welfare (well being)

goon: In a free society like the US, the govt has no business “redistributing” anyone’s income.  The only excuse for taxation is paying for the Constitutional duties of govt, not social engineering.

Ok, so we agree. I don’t think we need to take money out of peoples pockets (income confiscation or redistributing wealth) or social engineering either or for the purpose of buying votes and entrenching politicians in office because they are giving free handouts. The worse things the democratics do is they make people dependent on government. That is not the job of the Federal Government.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

Puzzle, Certainly you don’t believe promoting the general welfare means Promote Welfare? IF that is really what the left believes??? I understand why Welfare has been abused for so long. Welfare is the most corrupt social program ever! There are so many families that have been on welfare for generations. Able bodied people who are living off the American tax payers…

Obviously all you righties forgot that part of the Constitution that states “promote the general welfare”.

Obviously, you lefties don’t understand individuals being free to pursue their own self-interest and that of their families, which is what it means.  Duh.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Margie: I call someone a liar when I know them to be lying.  I call people Marxists when they parrot the ideology of Karl Marx.  I can do nothing else, in all honesty.  If you want to refute me, you will either have to prove that those I call liars are actually telling the truth, and/or prove that someone is not following Marxist ideology.  Facts, please.  Emotions are not facts, so when your beliefs are emotion-based, expect to be met with facts in return, to your disadvantage.  In truth, it is the emotionals who are bound to their ideas, and who will not budge, even when the facts go against them.  As far as the Marxists are concerned, you might give a logical argument that the benefit of surrendering our individual independence is worth the cost of losing our freedom.  Good luck.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

“promote the general welfare”.

Sparkie,

Do you know the difference between “promote” and ‘provide’?