Texas is still at it

The program was forced upon me, therefore I am simply reclaiming what I could have put to much better use on my own had I been given the choice. If I live long enough to capture the principle entirely, I will then calculate the lost interest and try and capture that as well.

 

It serves to show that intent and interpretation are not always the same.

 

Nobody's forcing you to take those checks. If you really find the program repugnant, you're a hypocrite for taking the money.

Is everything in life a "quid pro quo" for you? Trying to "settle scores" and make life "come out even" are fruitless endeavors, not to mention selfish; definitely not what I want to spend my "Golden Years" doing.

You sound just like Ebenezer Scrooge.

.

 

Of course I'm not being forced to take the checks, I demand them as they represent the goods I was forced to purchase with money I could have otherwise invested wisely. There's no hypocrisy in believing you should receive something of value in return for your labor. The money I earned would have been invested per my choices had it not been taken prior to my receiving my paycheck. The money I am now receiving is now being recovered in the only way possible. And I hope to be able to equal or exceed the interest I could have earned in addition to the principal. I would even still be willing for the government to just pay the remaining principal in a lump sum and avoid the possibility of my exceeding that amount in periodic payments, and in addition give up any and all entitlement to Medicare as well.

It's selfish to not want someone else to decide who receives your charity? I can make that decision myself, and be certain that it is put to good use and not be subject to any form of corruption. I don't need the government services as a middleman. When living in the states I've seen many people who needed charity, yet received none from the government, while at the same time others on government programs were as well off or even better off than I, who was working to provide their source of income. When I give I actually see the results, and in addition it brings people closer together when they get support from individuals instead of from a government agency.

You know that you can send the government more than what you owe in taxes if you wish. Do you give them an extra lump of cash every April?

 

So, are you going to be buried with paper currency, gold or silver?

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your fetish for money. My most cherished memories cost nothing, and would bring nothing in the market place. Today, the saddest moments of my life are watching some of my friends suffer because they cannot get the medical care they need. The reason for this is people like you who can't part with some of your precious money in order to have a more compassionate society.

.

 

If you really care that much about social security and the like, it would make a much bolder statement to refuse it out of principle, than to grub for every penny taken from you.

 

Neither, what remains after I'm gone goes to my family, wife, son, and daughter. Although we are four individuals, we comprise a family or a social unit in which we share our property, and you might even call it an exercise in consensual communism.
What fetish for money? I retired early, once I felt I had accumulated enough to support my family and myself adequately, not lavishly. We live where we can, if necessary be totally self sufficient in providing our basic needs. I am capable of creating income at any time necessary, and constantly refuse employment as I prefer to spend time at home and with my family. Money is a necessity only to pay for telephone, Internet, LP gas and the electric bill monthly. I have no other recurring bills other than school supplies for my son and daughter, and the occasional Doctors visit.
I think most people on welfare have a greater amount of money to spend monthly than my family and I, and get other benefits in addition. I receive nothing at all from anyone else, and S.S. is put into accounts for my wife, son and daughter to use when I am deceased.
When I retired and left the states, I had a large house, 30' sailboat, Chrysler convertible, XKE Jaguar, MGB, tools, many collectible guns, TV's, household appliances, etc. I gave everything I owned to friends and only sold my Chrysler for $500. I had zero source of income until I reached S.S. age, and lived entirely off my meager, but adequate, savings. Other than that, to start life fresh I brought with me 3 shirts, 3 pair of pants, a voltmeter, and a pocket calculator. Ask my stateside friends and ex-neighbors if they think I am selfish, greedy, or have a fetish for money. And the same would go for my current friends and neighbors. Of course not knowing me you can form an opinion, but it remains only an opinion.
We don't bury the dead here, we prefer cremation.

 

Compulsion for equity. You put a dollar in the pot and you make sure you get your dollar back with interest.

Social programs are not about equity, they're about security, for everyone. It's compared to an insurance policy. Part of your tax money goes to a program, such as food assistance. If you loose your job (income) you can get help feeding yourself and your family. And you certainly don't go to the insurance company and say, "I haven't wrecked my car in 20 years , so I want my money back that I paid for this insurance policy, with the interest I would have made had I kept it.

You had a good life and didn't need the social programs (insurance). There are many people who are not so lucky, or rather not so privileged. Part of the "good life" that had was on the backs of many who were paid a pitiful salary.

The culmination of everything you have expressed here is paying some so little they cannot have the necessities of life so some can have the excesses of everything in life. In other words, the workers eat gruel and suffer from gout while the bosses eat caviar, lobster and T-bone and get to see a doctor for their pimples.

While some had to work until their death because your class would not pay them enough to accumulate a nest egg.

Yet you complain about the few dollars you may be short from S.S. and take money that could be given to someone who is not so privileged.

All the while begrudging those who work their bodies into ill health for a salary that barely feeds the family, and have no extra for doctors.

Is this your attempt at humor, or are you serious? If you're serious, it would explain why you've made some pretty ludicrous statements. Just to clarify.... Adults with no children can only qualify for food stamps Period. The proper term for "welfare" is "Aid to Families With Dependent Children, AFDC." The fat check they get provides a run down roach infested apartment in a crime infested neighborhood. They can pay the power bill, if they don't turn on too many lights; the kids get medical care, but, if mom gets sick the state will put them in an orphanage after she dies; and, if there was a father, he had to move to a refrigerator box in an alley in order for his family to qualify for help.

While people who worked at very difficult and dangerous jobs had to decide between food and medical care.

.

 

Hm, since SS came up in this thread, doing some quick math, I'm willing to say most people actually take more than they put in period, or at least have an actual safety net vs what they'd have otherwise. I use my grandmother as my base since her life story is typical lower class American. She took partial retirement at 63 to add on to her work income to help pay the bills. Now assuming she lived to 75 years past that, at around $620 a month, she would take almost $100,000 from the system. Now considering most people take full retirement, live longer than 10 years after they retire at 65,(and is social security a varied payment going by your average life income?), but the point is, even if they didn't have to pay SS tax on their paychecks, I'd like to see how many Americans would actually have say $180,000(going with what people do save up and what they'd get out of SS put into the number) saved up for retirement at 65.

Essentially we would be back to how it was in 1910 with three options:
1. Old people work till they die on the floor of the office
2. Kids are forced to look after their parents as much as they are their own kids.
3. The elderly live in extreme poverty.(hint, this one was a popular option pre SS and medicare)

Uh, you realize this alone makes up at the very upper end of upper middle class and is not how most Americans are currently living their lives right?

 

As I wipe the tears from my eyes, I still prefer Freedom to Marxist Socialism.

 

The 30' sailboat is worth more than most of the homes around me; the guy who collected his garbage is likely just now buying that Chrysler and couldn't afford the XKE Jaguar after it's sent to the scrap yard.

On income: One $50 million CEO bonus will pay 1,000 $50,000 salaries. Can anyone really justify that kind of income?

.

 

I'll justify it as long as they're willing to share. The problem is trickle down economics showed rich people are not intrinsically generous, so sometimes society pushes on them some forced sharing to make sure some their wealth is in fact benefiting society.

 

You were free, but most people in America are not. The degree of freedom one enjoys is directly proportional to their income in this capitalist society. I prefer freedom for everyone, not just a chosen few.

What Marxist Socialism?

.

 

The thing is to be free and truly have rights some form of basic equality must be guaranteed, and that includes economic.

 

Maybe if you and others would put effort into earning a living, instead of complaining about what others who do, have you would prosper more. Just because you weren't aborted before birth does not mean that you are entitled to live off others. Societies only make available a greater abundance of materials, goods and services to which you may or may not partake of, depending on YOU not me. I constantly hear that liberal thinkers are the more educated, and the conservatives less so while at the same time I hear the rich are the conservatives and the poor the liberals. If that is true, perhaps we should end higher education as it would appear that lack of education ensures greater achievement than a higher education.
Even a little common sense should be adequate to understand that Social Security, entitlement programs, and insurance of any kind needs to take in as much as it pays out, including administration costs or it eventually becomes unsustainable. Government borrowing which increases the national debt does maintain the solvency of these programs, but only prolongs the inevitable failure.

 

Hahaha, you fucking prick, telling people to work harder for a lving, that's like telling sick and uninsured to get over it. My grandmother worked full time her entire life for shit.

Also the rich tend to be more conservative because they want their money. No matter how educated you are, you probably will not be making millions. Also America's social mobility is ranked among the lowest in the first world, so many of those rich people did nothing to earn their fortunes except be born.

 

You are tying freedom to wealth, and I don't. Money is only a representation of one's labors, and if we were to eliminate currency and only barter with one another, would you be willing to put in a couple of days work each week to provide for the needs of those who now receive monetary assistance?
Since retiring I've had much less money, but much greater freedom. You can be as free as you make yourself, it only takes some effort.
Read some of Marx's works, although the image represents Marxist Socialism quite well.

 

That's life, if you can't handle it, end it. A chains only as strong as its weakest link, and it's a waste of time trying to pull a load when the chain keeps breaking. Shorten the chain, removing all the weak links, then you can get some use out of it.

 

Wealth is not something that occurs naturally, although much of what exists in nature can be put to use to acquire it. Wealth may be earned, or inherited, but it should never be seen as a guaranteed right. While you may view government as a charitable organization, there's nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that allows it to be, and don't give me the "general welfare" clause as a source of justification.

 

You're full of shit. I worked at a profession (electronics technician) for 45 years and did quite well. My wife was diagnosed with cancer and health insurance was canceled. I spent every resource I had for treatment and went into deep debt. Then, my profession died and I was too old to be given an opportunity to train for another. Even my degree is useless because it's over 20 years old and I never worked in that field.

I have friends who work hard every day, one who works for a grave service lifting heavy loads, despite the hernia he cannot afford to have repaired. Health insurance for him and his wife would cost more than he makes. His wife broke her wrist a few years ago and now does not have full use of it because she could not afford the operation to repair the damage. I guess you would say it's her own fault for falling.

Don't hand me that bullshit about working hard. The people who work the hardest make the least.

I'm not complaining about what you have, I'm pissed about your stingy attitude that some people are better than others. You're a snob.

It's not dependent on the individual who is working, it depends on the rich bastard who refuses to pay a decent wage. It's an elitist attitude, such as your's, that causes so much suffering. Most of the poor do work, very hard, probably much harder than you have ever worked.

.