Social Security is not “Insurance”

[Vessol]

Perhaps the biggest media story of 2010 was the influence of Tea Party voters on the congressional landscape. The new congress comes to Capitol Hill with a mandate to end profligate spending and restore fiscal sanity, we are told. But when the House and Senate convene in January, the newly elected members will face tremendous pressure to maintain spending levels for entitlement programs. Even the most modest proposals to trim Social Security or Medicare spending will be met with howls of indignation and threats of voter revolt. Legislators who propose any kind of means testing or increased retirement ages can expect angry visits from senior citizen lobbyists ready to fund a candidate back home who supports the status quo.

But millions of Americans now realize that the status quo is an illusion that will not last even another 10 or 20 years. The federal government cannot continue to spend a trillion dollars more than it collects in revenue each year, because we are running out of creditors. Fiscal reality is setting in, and the consequences may be grim even if Congress finds the courage to take decisive action now.

Courage begins with a commitment to see things as they are, rather than how we wish they were. When it comes to Social Security, we must understand that the system does not represent an old age pension, an “insurance” program, or even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits. There is no Social Security trust fund, and you don’t have an “account.” Whether you win or lose the Social Security lottery is a function of when you happened to be born and how long you live to collect benefits. Of course young people today have every reason to believe they will never collect those benefits.

Notice that neither political party proposes letting people opt out of Social Security, which exposes the lie that your contributions are set aside and saved. After all, if your contributions really are put aside for your retirement, the money is there earning interest, right? If your money is in your “account,” what difference would it make if your neighbor chooses not to participate in the program? The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenue to fund the federal government. But no administration will admit that Social Security is nothing more than an accounting ledger with no money. You will collect benefits only if future tax revenues materialize as hoped; the money you paid into the system is long gone.

My hope is that at least some members of the new Congress will cut through the distortions and see Social Security as it really is. The best way to fix the impending Social Security crisis is also the simplest: allow younger individuals to opt out of the program and use their tax savings to invest privately as they see fit. This is the true private solution. Your money has never been safe in the government’s hands, and it never will be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdafLIQfWlY

http://www.infowars.com/social-security-is-not-insurance/

[Vessol]

Bump

[AxisMundi]

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.

[MN Patriot]

I wonder how Bernie Madoff's investors felt when his mutual funds were doing so well? If anybody had told them it was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, they would have ignored the skeptics. Same thing with Social Security, it has done well since its inception, disregarding the increase in the tax rate from 1/2% to 12.5% over the years. So people don't believe it will ever collapse. Denial and delusion. Just keep raising the tax rate, lower benefits, increase retirement age. All will be well. A problem handed to the next generation is a problem solved.

[Vessol]

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.

Why do you say that when you know you're not going to get a dime of it back.

It was not an investment in any means of the words, it was a simple tax.

Honestly, I don't feel bad for anyone who doesn't get their social security. They are the ones whom have accepted it and done nothing about it for so long.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Why do you say that when you know you're not going to get a dime of it back.

It was not an investment in any means of the words, it was a simple tax.

Honestly, I don't feel bad for anyone who doesn't get their social security. They are the ones whom have accepted it and done nothing about it for so long.


Yeah I'm only 24 and I know I'm not going to be getting it. The sooner the gravy train stops, the better.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

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.

I have to ask, in all seriousness, is there a single goddamned government program that you DON'T support? You sure as fuck don't strike me as someone who understands or approves of Dr. Paul's stances.

[cindy25]

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.

regular social security is a tax, forget about these notions about contributions. for small business at least the legal def is "self employment tax"
SSI is pure welfare, not based on taxes or so called contributions

[agitator]

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.

Do you want all your tax back?

[ARealConservative]

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.

sometimes investments lose value.

in this case, you can pretty much be sure of it, so plan for it.

[AxisMundi]

Why do you say that when you know you're not going to get a dime of it back.

It was not an investment in any means of the words, it was a simple tax.

Honestly, I don't feel bad for anyone who doesn't get their social security. They are the ones whom have accepted it and done nothing about it for so long.

1. You make the mistake of assuming I sit on my hands, and dam not an active part of We the People.

2. SSi is fine and in good health, despite the GOP fear mongering.

[AxisMundi]

I have to ask, in all seriousness, is there a single goddamned government program that you DON'T support? You sure as fuck don't strike me as someone who understands or approves of Dr. Paul's stances.

There are plenty of programs and policies I do not support. Perhaps if I manage to post here for a few years without getting banned, you will become familiar with my very complicated political ideology.

SSi is not a welfare program (one of those I do not agree with in it's present form, BTW). The program assists our Nation's disabled and our Elders as well.

[AxisMundi]

sometimes investments lose value.

in this case, you can pretty much be sure of it, so plan for it.

Even if I live for thirty years after I retire, my investment will indeed be made back.

My 401K and other retirement financial plans will merely add to it.

[AxisMundi]

regular social security is a tax, forget about these notions about contributions. for small business at least the legal def is "self employment tax"
SSI is pure welfare, not based on taxes or so called contributions

Welfare was a good idea gone bad. It was intended merely as a parachute for people who had fallen on hard times until they could get back on their feet. The system needs a major overhaul so we do not have three, or more, generations of welfare recipients.

SSi, however, is not a welfare program. It was intended, and is used, as a means of assisting our Elder population and those unable to earn a living due to handicaps.

And before someone else jumps on my ass for my opinions...

Yes, there is gaff and abuses in the SSi system (and Medicaid/Medicare) that need to be weeded out. But one doesn't repair a leaky roof by burning the house down.

BTW, you contradict yourself. You state it is a tax first, and then not a tax. Which is it, in your opinion?

[silverhandorder]

Axis you are an obvious troll. Here is how you make them work right you make them voluntary.

[awake]

When the Ponzi blows social insurance will become poverty assurance.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Welfare was a good idea gone bad. It was intended merely as a parachute for people who had fallen on hard times until they could get back on their feet. The system needs a major overhaul so we do not have three, or more, generations of welfare recipients.

SSi, however, is not a welfare program. It was intended, and is used, as a means of assisting our Elder population and those unable to earn a living due to handicaps.

And before someone else jumps on my ass for my opinions...

Yes, there is gaff and abuses in the SSi system (and Medicaid/Medicare) that need to be weeded out. But one doesn't repair a leaky roof by burning the house down.

BTW, you contradict yourself. You state it is a tax first, and then not a tax. Which is it, in your opinion?

How is thievery ever a good idea no matter how noble the intentions? I will be showing up at your house in a week, armed to the teeth, to confiscate (sorry, your 'social obligation'), your labor and money to give to another individual who I deem is 'needy'. Since people are unable to help these people by themselves (says I - the Government), I will demand this tribute in the name of the troubled, slice off half of it for myself and other petty bureaucrats, and then by my good natured self, give them what is left over of the tribute. After-all, I the Government and the socialist will decry everyone who is against State-Welfare to be against helping people! I presume that only the Government and the State can ever do anything, for I am the quintessential socialist du jour.

Welfare was never a good idea, and it didn't go bad, at least not for the State. It served its purpose. To grow the State, bring in more revenue, and make people dependant. You are mistaken if you even believe for a second that Welfare was ever supposed to help the troubled, seeing as the troubled were all ready being helped by individuals, mutual aid societies, and all sorts of voluntary charitable associations, as well documented here:

http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293748533&sr=8-1

PS: Social Security presumes that as individuals we are too stupid to take care of ourselves (If you believe the motif the Government sells you). Personally, the Government can fuck off.

[rprprs]

Welfare was a good idea gone bad....
No, it was not. Even if you don't accept AED's argument that its purpose was the expansion of the state, it was a naive and utopian idea at best. The fraud, abuse and long-term moral hazards SHOULD have been foreseen. It will be a "good" idea when people stop being people.

[ARealConservative]

Welfare was a good idea gone bad.

some of the the road was paved with good intentions.

still leads us to hell.

[Kylie]

Axis,

I can see you are still learning. So am I. But the difference is I can see these programs for what they are, and you still don't.

BTW, if these programs are good for the people, then why were they not instituted at the founding of our country?

I'll give you a hint, it has to do with the constitution.

[erowe1]

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.

What you paid all those years was paid out to the people who were receiving SS at that time. And what you receive when you retire (assuming you live to see it) will be paid by future taxpayers. It's welfare.

But you're right. It's not an entitlement. Nobody is entitled to other peoples' money.

[AxisMundi]

How is thievery ever a good idea no matter how noble the intentions? I will be showing up at your house in a week, armed to the teeth, to confiscate (sorry, your 'social obligation'), your labor and money to give to another individual who I deem is 'needy'. Since people are unable to help these people by themselves (says I - the Government), I will demand this tribute in the name of the troubled, slice off half of it for myself and other petty bureaucrats, and then by my good natured self, give them what is left over of the tribute. After-all, I the Government and the socialist will decry everyone who is against State-Welfare to be against helping people! I presume that only the Government and the State can ever do anything, for I am the quintessential socialist du jour.

Welfare was never a good idea, and it didn't go bad, at least not for the State. It served its purpose. To grow the State, bring in more revenue, and make people dependant. You are mistaken if you even believe for a second that Welfare was ever supposed to help the troubled, seeing as the troubled were all ready being helped by individuals, mutual aid societies, and all sorts of voluntary charitable associations, as well documented here:

http://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293748533&sr=8-1

PS: Social Security presumes that as individuals we are too stupid to take care of ourselves (If you believe the motif the Government sells you). Personally, the Government can fuck off.

You appear to mistake my stance on Welfare and indulge quite freely in counter-productive and juvenile insulting language.

You also apparently don't fully understand what socialism is either, and also freely indulge in neocon rhetoric.

[silverhandorder]

You appear to mistake my stance on Welfare and indulge quite freely in counter-productive and juvenile insulting language.

You also apparently don't fully understand what socialism is either, and also freely indulge in neocon rhetoric.

Troll more. What is your basis for calling him a neo con?

Your stance on welfare is simple you do not think it is morally revolting. Says enough about you.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

You also apparently don't fully understand what socialism is either

Oh, I gotta hear this. Please, explain to us retard Austrian School people exactly what Socialism is and is not.

[silverhandorder]

Oh, I gotta hear this. Please, explain to us retard Austrian School people exactly what Socialism is and is not.

You see people like axis think that mixed economies are kosher.

[AxisMundi]

What you paid all those years was paid out to the people who were receiving SS at that time. And what you receive when you retire (assuming you live to see it) will be paid by future taxpayers. It's welfare.

But you're right. It's not an entitlement. Nobody is entitled to other peoples' money.

Yes, all the above is fully understood.

Did you have a point?

[silverhandorder]

Yes, all the above is fully understood.

Did you have a point?

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

[AxisMundi]

Troll more. What is your basis for calling him a neo con?

Your stance on welfare is simple you do not think it is morally revolting. Says enough about you.

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.

[AxisMundi]

Oh, I gotta hear this. Please, explain to us retard Austrian School people exactly what Socialism is and is not.

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


You see people like axis think that mixed economies are kosher.

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.

[ARealConservative]

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

what a mealy-mouthed reply.

you didn't call him a neocon, you simply accused him of using neocon talking points.

[AxisMundi]

Axis,

I can see you are still learning. So am I. But the difference is I can see these programs for what they are, and you still don't.

BTW, if these programs are good for the people, then why were they not instituted at the founding of our country?

I'll give you a hint, it has to do with the constitution.

At half a century of life, I am proud to state I am still learning. Even death is but a change in life's curriculum.

However, there were no provisions for a standing army at our inception either, and our Founding Fathers could hardly anticipate that electronic communications would be covered by the 4th Amendment either.

Such programs as SSi, welfare, and even unemployment insurance provide this Nation with important services vital to not only from a moral viewpoint, but an economic one as well. SSi assists our Elders during their latter years, the other programs keep people down on their luck spending.

Unfortunately, as with many other g'ment programs, these are abused heavily and need to be restructured to bring them back in line with their intended and proper original purposes.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

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

Answer the fucking question.

[AxisMundi]

No, it was not. Even if you don't accept AED's argument that its purpose was the expansion of the state, it was a naive and utopian idea at best. The fraud, abuse and long-term moral hazards SHOULD have been foreseen. It will be a "good" idea when people stop being people.

Absolutely agreed, except it's intentions where in the best interest of this Nation.

A homeless person does not contribute to the economy. They do not pay rent, buy groceries, clothing, shoes, etc.

Beef and Brogans, as I like to say, the foundation of Supply and Demand economics.

However it does indeed need a major overhaul, that I certainly agree with, and advocate as well. There is certainly no rhyme or reason to multiple generations of welfare recipients living in the same household.

[AxisMundi]

Answer the fucking question.

Let me know which question to answer.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Let me know which question to answer.

Teflon much, or did you go to professional troll school?

You said:


You also apparently don't fully understand what socialism is either

That implied YOU know what socialism is. So, oh great and powerful Oz, tell us poor shit covered peasants just what Socialism means to YOU.

[AxisMundi]

Teflon much, or did you go to professional troll school?

You said:

That implied YOU know what socialism is. So, oh great and powerful Oz, tell us poor shit covered peasants just what Socialism means to YOU.

Again, which socialism would you like me to explain, the neocon fear mongering version or the real kind of socialism?

[ARealConservative]

someone clearly doesn't know what the term neocon means

[AxisMundi]

someone clearly doesn't know what the term neocon means

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.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Again, which socialism would you like me to explain, the neocon fear mongering version or the real kind of socialism?

Christ, you're going to give me ulcers. The fucking 'real' kind wiseass. I already know what the fucking neocon version is, thank you very much.

[AxisMundi]

Christ, you're going to give me ulcers. The fucking 'real' kind wiseass. I already know what the fucking neocon version is, thank you very much.

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

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.

[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.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/rude/1/pissed.gif (http://www.sherv.net/pissed-emoticon-66.html)

[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.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/rude/1/pissed.gif (http://www.sherv.net/pissed-emoticon-66.html)

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.

[silverhandorder]

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.

Don't matter what you call it the effect will be default on one level or another. They can not afford to pay you what they promised. You will not get the young generation jumping to pay for you. They will either pay you with depreciated dollars or cut benefits.


Like car insurance, even voluntary SSi would require sources from outside the system to fund the program.
Car insurance does not require outside sources.



Please expand on "user fees".
Use a road pay the toll, want fire department to send a car to help you pay for service, subscription based or w.e. Allow for private competition.


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.

Well lets start with balanced budget amendment.


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

Why would I.

And ethics are simply relative.
Ethics are not relative. A thief wants everyone to respect private property rights except him. Same goes for everything else you either have ethics or don't.




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.

So what makes what the government does different from the mafia? How are you morally right for supporting them?

[AxisMundi]

Don't matter what you call it the effect will be default on one level or another. They can not afford to pay you what they promised. You will not get the young generation jumping to pay for you. They will either pay you with depreciated dollars or cut benefits.

Speculation.


Car insurance does not require outside sources.

Indeed they do, in the States mandating car insurance.


Use a road pay the toll, want fire department to send a car to help you pay for service, subscription based or w.e. Allow for private competition.

Buy anything at the store, chances are you are using roads as that item was shipped in.

And if you cannot afford the fore protection subscription, your home, three dogs, and all your belongings go up in smoke.

Do you have any idea how much an ambulance ride will cost you in a city/area that has private ambulance service? The idea of privatizing such services is easily proven more expensive tot he individual.

When we lived downstate, I was a volunteer fire fighter. We charged nothing for ambulance rides and still supplied superior service to paid outfits.


Well lets start with balanced budget amendment.

Political rhetoric.


Ethics are not relative. A thief wants everyone to respect private property rights except him. Same goes for everything else you either have ethics or don't.

What about a father who steals bread to feed his starving children? Against the law certainly, but unethical?


So what makes what the government does different from the mafia? How are you morally right for supporting them?

We the People makes our g'ment "right". Your mafia example is quite poor, I'm afraid, as the costa nostra is out for pure personal gain.

[jclay2]

Just stop feeding the troll. Its clear this guy is a lost cause at this point.

[silverhandorder]

Speculation.

A damn good speculation. I came from a society where this happened and I see no difference between America and former USSR. Same attitudes same radicalization.


Indeed they do, in the States mandating car insurance.
Car insurance would be around even if they did not mandate it.



Buy anything at the store, chances are you are using roads as that item was shipped in.

It only needs to be paid for once and that is by the trucking company. I pay for all those mini charges when I pay at the store.


And if you cannot afford the fore protection subscription, your home, three dogs, and all your belongings go up in smoke.

Then you shouldn't own a home.


Do you have any idea how much an ambulance ride will cost you in a city/area that has private ambulance service? The idea of privatizing such services is easily proven more expensive tot he individual.
Not more than car service.


When we lived downstate, I was a volunteer fire fighter. We charged nothing for ambulance rides and still supplied superior service to paid outfits.

Good then stop giving me doomsday scenarios when you are contradicting your self as you speak.


Political rhetoric.

Ah and asking for hand outs in the form of subsidized college and health care is what exactly? What do you support concretely? I support no deficits. I want a mechanism that will enforce it. What do you want? More hand outs?


What about a father who steals bread to feed his starving children? Against the law certainly, but unethical?

Theft is theft. Fortunately that has been eliminated by capitalism. Your social safety net will have us back at that when million of dependent people realize money has ran out and there is not enough shit to feed them all.


We the People makes our g'ment "right". Your mafia example is quite poor, I'm afraid, as the costa nostra is out for pure personal gain.

You and a mob give power to one mafia. This is what you do. The rest of us have to fucking live with that and pay you blood suckers off. Eventually productive people say fuck it and produce so little that you expand more effort trying to take shit from us. Then you starve.

[silverhandorder]

Just stop feeding the troll. Its clear this guy is a lost cause at this point.

I like feeding trolls as long as he gets called out often enough no one is going to lose nerves over him.

[AxisMundi]

A damn good speculation. I came from a society where this happened and I see no difference between America and former USSR. Same attitudes same radicalization.

In Russia, opinions speculate you!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

In seriousness, however, one cannot compare Soviet Russia, or any other country, to the United States. Not only does our g'mental system tend to be unique, our culture is as well. US Citizens simply would not put up with what you speculate.


Car insurance would be around even if they did not mandate it.

And without g'ment mandating car insurance, do you really think they would be as wealthy and such a powerful lobby group with state legislatures?


It only needs to be paid for once and that is by the trucking company. I pay for all those mini charges when I pay at the store.

Might I suggest you research this a little more? Road taxes are an annual charge, and along with fuel prices are killing many of the smaller owner-operators. Your local taxes pay for the roads and bridges you sue regardless of how you try and twist out of it. Whether you walk, ride a bus, or drive, everyone utilizes public roads. What you pay for in your "mini-charges" go to the company, not the g'ment.


Then you shouldn't own a home.

That sounds a bit like "If you don't like America, move". You apparently do not support taxes, but you are in fact defending taxes in the form of your user fees.

Especially in an urban setting, a fire can spread quickly and get out of hand, involving structures either connected directly with the one of fire, or structures very close by. Say I have my fire "insurance" and the neighbor doesn't. Guess what, my house can burn down because his did because he "shouldn't own a house".


Not more than car service.

The ride alone can cost upwards of $6,000. If you have a life threatening condition and they must utilize a paramedic, the cost can easily soar over $20,000 as you pay for the equipment and materials used to save your life.

Or maybe if we can't afford it, we shouldn't ride in an ambulance, just like we shouldn't own a home?

And what about police?

"911'
"There's a burglar in my home, he's coming up the stairs"
"Sorry ma'am, our records show you haven't paid your user fee".
click.


Good then stop giving me doomsday scenarios when you are contradicting your self as you speak.

Feel free to show what doomsday scenarios and what contradictions.


Ah and asking for hand outs in the form of subsidized college and health care is what exactly? What do you support concretely? I support no deficits. I want a mechanism that will enforce it. What do you want? More hand outs?

Subsidized health care is already in place for our Elders and the infirm. If you are speaking about National Health Care, I do not support that. College loans are loans, repaid by the student. I have returned to school thirty years after graduating high school. I will have to pay back every cent loaned to me by the g'ment after I graduate.

Loans, SSi, Medicaid/Medicare do not contribute to the deficit.


Theft is theft. Fortunately that has been eliminated by capitalism. Your social safety net will have us back at that when million of dependent people realize money has ran out and there is not enough shit to feed them all.

More unfounded speculation.


You and a mob give power to one mafia. This is what you do. The rest of us have to fucking live with that and pay you blood suckers off. Eventually productive people say fuck it and produce so little that you expand more effort trying to take shit from us. Then you starve.

Your reply above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I stick to my personal motto of not trying to convince people over the age of 35-40. It is a waste of precious time and resources, and by the time we can start to reverse the trend and return to a causal-realist approach, they will be dead. In any event, I have to laugh at the supreme idiocy one partakes in when you say we all use public services at some point -- of course we will, it is a monopolist institution! Stop stealing from people and we won't have to use Government monopolies, it's the whole point of what those of us who value property and liberty stand for, and who abhor thievery and malfeasance. Continue on though....

(PS: You are the quintessential socialist. Your thinking is extremely parallel, and Bastiat rightfully saw you for what you were 170 years ago. Ta-ta)

[aGameOfThrones]

1960 Scotus case of Flemming v. Nestor.

It involved Bulgarian-born Ephram Nestor, who was deported in 1956, having been involved in Communist activity in the 1930s. The federal government denied him his Social Security benefits, citing 1954 amendments to the Social Security Act that denied payments to anyone deported for criminal activity after August of that year. Nestor Sued on the grounds that "throughout the history of the Social Security Act, old-age insurance benefits have been referred to as a right of the recipient which he has earned and paid for."

The federal government prepared a legal brief in defense of its position that Nestor was not entitled to his benefits. The brief explained that Social Security was in no sense a federally administered "insurance program" under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement an indefeasible right to receive for life a fixed monthly benefit,irrespective of the conditions which Congress has chosen to impose from time to time.... The "contribution" exacted under the social security plan from an employee...is a True Tax. It is not comparable to a premium under a policy of insurance promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age.

From Thomas Woods JR. 33 questions about American History.

"To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and [363 U.S. 603, 611] has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act.

...

We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)"


*******


"The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical assistance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? It is not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power." Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co, 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935)

BTW, SS is voluntary to get.

[AxisMundi]

I stick to my personal motto of not trying to convince people over the age of 35-40. It is a waste of precious time and resources, and by the time we can start to reverse the trend and return to a causal-realist approach, they will be dead. In any event, I have to laugh at the supreme idiocy one partakes in when you say we all use public services at some point -- of course we will, it is a monopolist institution! Stop stealing from people and we won't have to use Government monopolies, it's the whole point of what those of us who value property and liberty stand for, and who abhor thievery and malfeasance. Continue on though....

(PS: You are the quintessential socialist. Your thinking is extremely parallel, and Bastiat rightfully saw you for what you were 170 years ago. Ta-ta)

Stealing. Violence. Examples o terms of hysteria.

Good thing I'll be dead, because you people wills crew things up so bad I'll be the lucky one.

Don't let the door hitcha, young'un.

[AxisMundi]

1960 Scotus case of Flemming v. Nestor.

It involved Bulgarian-born Ephram Nestor, who was deported in 1956, having been involved in Communist activity in the 1930s. The federal government denied him his Social Security benefits, citing 1954 amendments to the Social Security Act that denied payments to anyone deported for criminal activity after August of that year. Nestor Sued on the grounds that "throughout the history of the Social Security Act, old-age insurance benefits have been referred to as a right of the recipient which he has earned and paid for."

The federal government prepared a legal brief in defense of its position that Nestor was not entitled to his benefits. The brief explained that Social Security was in no sense a federally administered "insurance program" under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement an indefeasible right to receive for life a fixed monthly benefit,irrespective of the conditions which Congress has chosen to impose from time to time.... The "contribution" exacted under the social security plan from an employee...is a True Tax. It is not comparable to a premium under a policy of insurance promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age.

From Thomas Woods JR. 33 questions about American History.

"To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and [363 U.S. 603, 611] has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act.

...

We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)"


*******


"The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical assistance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? It is not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power." Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co, 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935)

BTW, SS is voluntary to get.

I would be very concerned if I was born overseas and deported for criminal activities.

[Vessol]

So Axis, I got to ask, why are you here? This isn't a purity or whatever question, I disagree with plenty of people here, but we agree on many issues. I've found no issues that you've agreed on with me or anyone else on this forum.

[rvkpa]

Getting back to the matter at hand, if I may? There are several problems with Social Security, and these are the ones that stand out to me.

Social Security is "mandatory spending." A government program that is classified as mandatory spending can't be affected by the congressional budget process, and can basically grow infinitely. This is a huge part of the budget. Even defense spending is discretionary and subject to the budget process. If the money isn't there the government has no choice but to raise taxes or borrow the money to pay people.

Social Security is borrowed against by the federal government through treasury bills. No matter how many dollars you borrow from yourself you'll never have more than you had in the first place. When I take money out of the ATM machine I'm not any richer than I was before. The physical dollars continue to be used for other programs making Social Security nothing more than another, horribly regressive, tax.

Since the money isn't there in the first place, current workers are subsidizing current beneficiaries. With the current demographic problem, less workers, more beneficiaries, additional stress is being put on the system.

These 3 simple facts illustrate a system that isn't working. Any change to benefits, retirement ages, etc doesn't impact the systemic issues with the program. The program is essentially holding the federal budget hostage. Medicare works the exact same way.

Until politicians sit on national television have their mea culpa moment and come clean, We'll never be able to move past this. They took your money and borrowed it from themselves for other purposes. There is no trust fund. There needs to be an admission of guilt, an explanation of the problem, and a phase out of the current program. Our current and soon-to-be seniors who are counting on social security do need education on the problem and support in the aftermath, but the country must move forward from this horrible program.

[AxisMundi]

So Axis, I got to ask, why are you here? This isn't a purity or whatever question, I disagree with plenty of people here, but we agree on many issues. I've found no issues that you've agreed on with me or anyone else on this forum.

Obviously you and I have not debated on such issues as illegal aliens or TSA policy, among other concerns.

Unless you agree with unlimited immigration and TSA policies?

[AxisMundi]

Getting back to the matter at hand, if I may? There are several problems with Social Security, and these are the ones that stand out to me.

Social Security is "mandatory spending." A government program that is classified as mandatory spending can't be affected by the congressional budget process, and can basically grow infinitely. This is a huge part of the budget. Even defense spending is discretionary and subject to the budget process. If the money isn't there the government has no choice but to raise taxes or borrow the money to pay people.

Social Security is borrowed against by the federal government through treasury bills. No matter how many dollars you borrow from yourself you'll never have more than you had in the first place. When I take money out of the ATM machine I'm not any richer than I was before. The physical dollars continue to be used for other programs making Social Security nothing more than another, horribly regressive, tax.

Since the money isn't there in the first place, current workers are subsidizing current beneficiaries. With the current demographic problem, less workers, more beneficiaries, additional stress is being put on the system.

These 3 simple facts illustrate a system that isn't working. Any change to benefits, retirement ages, etc doesn't impact the systemic issues with the program. The program is essentially holding the federal budget hostage. Medicare works the exact same way.

Until politicians sit on national television have their mea culpa moment and come clean, We'll never be able to move past this. They took your money and borrowed it from themselves for other purposes. There is no trust fund. There needs to be an admission of guilt, an explanation of the problem, and a phase out of the current program. Our current and soon-to-be seniors who are counting on social security do need education on the problem and support in the aftermath, but the country must move forward from this horrible program.

One thing you forgot to note. For the 30+ years of my working career, I have been supporting those already receiving SSi benefits. When I am receiving benefits, the younger generation will be supporting the system, and when the younger generation is receiving benefits, the next generation after will be supporting the system. So on and so forth.