The BEST parts of the Government Shut down

[Gravitymaster 0]

rickjump1

***>You don't remember what Turtlespeed said?

Oh, I do - and he is no different from you. Any GOPer deserves his entitlements, anyone else doesn't. You are both quite predictable.

I take that as a complement. Gopers? They view entitlements as temporary financial help, and not a life long dependence on the US Government. This is in contrast to moochers who have been on the take as a normal way of life for generations.

I just laugh and laugh every time I hear a left winger suggest that when the government forces you to pay into something and then gives your money back to you at a rate it deems acceptable, that means you are some how accepting of socialism. It really does demonstrate a lack of either intellect or honesty.

[kallend 2,150]

rickjump1

***>You don't remember what Turtlespeed said?

Oh, I do - and he is no different from you. Any GOPer deserves his entitlements, anyone else doesn't. You are both quite predictable.

I take that as a complement. Gopers? They view entitlements as temporary financial help, and not a life long dependence on the US Government..

So every elderly Republican on Social Security and Medicare is a moocher in your eyes. Got it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

kallend

So every elderly Republican on Social Security and Medicare is a moocher in your eyes. Got it.

I'd like to introduce a mandatory participation program where once a week a guy comes by and decks you in the face and gives you a dollar.

Don't like it? No problem, don't take the dollar.

[rickjump1 0]

kallend

******>You don't remember what Turtlespeed said?

Oh, I do - and he is no different from you. Any GOPer deserves his entitlements, anyone else doesn't. You are both quite predictable.

I take that as a complement. Gopers? They view entitlements as temporary financial help, and not a life long dependence on the US Government..

So every elderly Republican on Social Security and Medicare is a moocher in your eyes. Got it. That's the problem, Professor, liberals view Social Security and Medicare as an entitlement. For the people who worked all their lives contributing, it is not exactly an entitlement. It's a return on their own money. The freeloaders view it, among other social handouts, as an entitlement; merely something the government owes them.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Bignugget 0]

rickjump1

*********>You don't remember what Turtlespeed said?

Oh, I do - and he is no different from you. Any GOPer deserves his entitlements, anyone else doesn't. You are both quite predictable.

I take that as a complement. Gopers? They view entitlements as temporary financial help, and not a life long dependence on the US Government..


So every elderly Republican on Social Security and Medicare is a moocher in your eyes. Got it. That's the problem, Professor, liberals view Social Security and Medicare as an entitlement. For the people who worked all their lives contributing, it is not exactly an entitlement. It's a return on their own money. The freeloaders view it, among other social handouts, as an entitlement; merely something the government owes them.


Lol huh?

How many people do you think actually go through their entire life with no job?

Excluding those people, everyone has paid into SS, and medicare, so are they freeloaders? Or just getting paid back?

[turtlespeed 226]

kallend

******>You don't remember what Turtlespeed said?

Oh, I do - and he is no different from you. Any GOPer deserves his entitlements, anyone else doesn't. You are both quite predictable.

I take that as a complement. Gopers? They view entitlements as temporary financial help, and not a life long dependence on the US Government..

So every elderly Republican on Social Security and Medicare is a moocher in your eyes. Got it.

If they paid nothing into it, yes.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,150]

turtlespeed

*********>You don't remember what Turtlespeed said?

Oh, I do - and he is no different from you. Any GOPer deserves his entitlements, anyone else doesn't. You are both quite predictable.

I take that as a complement. Gopers? They view entitlements as temporary financial help, and not a life long dependence on the US Government..

So every elderly Republican on Social Security and Medicare is a moocher in your eyes. Got it.

If they paid nothing into it, yes.

What part of "every" is it that you are unable to comprehend?

How much SocSec do you get if you never made a contribution?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

kallend

************>You don't remember what Turtlespeed said?

Oh, I do - and he is no different from you. Any GOPer deserves his entitlements, anyone else doesn't. You are both quite predictable.

I take that as a complement. Gopers? They view entitlements as temporary financial help, and not a life long dependence on the US Government..

So every elderly Republican on Social Security and Medicare is a moocher in your eyes. Got it.

If they paid nothing into it, yes.

What part of "every" is it that you are unable to comprehend?

How much SocSec do you get if you never made a contribution?

Do your own homework.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rickjump1 0]

Bignugget

************>You don't remember what Turtlespeed said?

Oh, I do - and he is no different from you. Any GOPer deserves his entitlements, anyone else doesn't. You are both quite predictable.

I take that as a complement. Gopers? They view entitlements as temporary financial help, and not a life long dependence on the US Government..


So every elderly Republican on Social Security and Medicare is a moocher in your eyes. Got it. That's the problem, Professor, liberals view Social Security and Medicare as an entitlement. For the people who worked all their lives contributing, it is not exactly an entitlement. It's a return on their own money. The freeloaders view it, among other social handouts, as an entitlement; merely something the government owes them.


Lol huh?

How many people do you think actually go through their entire life with no job?

Excluding those people, everyone has paid into SS, and medicare, so are they freeloaders? Or just getting paid back?How many people do you think actually go through their entire life with no job? Did I say there are people who go through their entire life no job?

Freeloaders are the people who find it easier to get food stamps, a roof over their head, income tax credits, free internet service, free cellphone service, and free healthcare because they are not willing to actively seek employment. They don't believe "any job is better than no job". They are not willing to go where the work is, nor spend extended periods of time away from their loved ones. The only move they would make would be to a state that has more benefits.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[champu 1]

rickjump1

That's the problem, Professor, liberals view Social Security and Medicare as an entitlement.

The problem with Social Security is not that liberals view it as an entitlement, or that conservatives view it as a return on their investment. The problem with Social Security is that's it's ill-concieved, fundamentally broken, and we can't get rid of it. People bitch about defense spending, and that's fine, but even defense programs, wars, and standing forces come and go over the years. Social Security is just there now in all it's hulking terribleness.

If it were only "SDI" and not "OASDI" it could maybe work, but as a retirement plan it's horrible. It's one of the few government programs where it's plain to see how horrible it is because it's dollars in and dollars out. There's no, "well we all use the roads directly and indirectly" or, "you can't put a price on national security" here. I know how much is going to go in and I know how much is going to come out*, and I'm going to get a <= 0% return.

If I look at the money I have going into retirement plans right now including what I'm paying into my 401(k) and what I'm paying in SS as well as what my employer contributes to my 401(k) and SS, my 401(k) gets about 60% of the dollars and SS gets 40%. If the markets are kinda average / not particularly great over the course of my career and I retire at 65, my 401(k) will be providing 88% of my retirement income and Social Security will be* providing 12%.

*really, I only know the most I'm promised as of today. It is only going to be less than that, because even they acknowledge there won't be enough money coming in to pay what they're promising.

[billvon 3,120]

>They view entitlements as temporary financial help

Ron has been taking his entitlements for a long time - and from what he has said has no intention of giving them up.

>This is in contrast to moochers

You'd have to take that up with Ron.

[billvon 3,120]

> liberals view Social Security and Medicare as an entitlement.

So do conservatives. In fact, many conservatives simultaneously rail against entitlements while grabbing all they can. For many it's simple hypocrisy, but for others it's ignorance. That's one reason that conservatives rely on misinformation - many conservatives do not remain conservatives after they get a little education.

From a NYT article on the Tea Party:

==================
Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
==================

[rickjump1 0]

billvon

>They view entitlements as temporary financial help

Ron has been taking his entitlements for a long time - and from what he has said has no intention of giving them up.

>This is in contrast to moochers

You'd have to take that up with Ron.

You must know more than I do about that excellent conservative contributor, Ron. Sorry, I don't know much about his personal life. Could it be he's 62 and drawing Social Security for retirement, or does he have a disability from the Veterans Administration. No moocher here.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

billvon

> liberals view Social Security and Medicare as an entitlement.

So do conservatives. In fact, many conservatives simultaneously rail against entitlements while grabbing all they can. For many it's simple hypocrisy, but for others it's ignorance. That's one reason that conservatives rely on misinformation - many conservatives do not remain conservatives after they get a little education.

From a NYT article on the Tea Party:

==================
Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
==================

What is the conundrum or ignorance here? They paid in, and they expect to be paid out. Democrats started robbing Social Security years ago, and now they would like to see hardworking people walk away from what they put in? Get real. Maybe the US Government should give people a choice in the beginning: invest their own money or rely on Social Security that's not there.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[kallend 2,150]

turtlespeed

***************>You don't remember what Turtlespeed said?

Oh, I do - and he is no different from you. Any GOPer deserves his entitlements, anyone else doesn't. You are both quite predictable.

I take that as a complement. Gopers? They view entitlements as temporary financial help, and not a life long dependence on the US Government..

So every elderly Republican on Social Security and Medicare is a moocher in your eyes. Got it.

If they paid nothing into it, yes.

What part of "every" is it that you are unable to comprehend?

How much SocSec do you get if you never made a contribution?

Do your own homework.

Ha ha - all you can come up with is a spouse's benefit which has been paid for already by the other partner.

"Family Values" doesn't mean much to you, does it?

What part of "every" is it that you are unable to comprehend?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

rickjump1

***>They view entitlements as temporary financial help

Ron has been taking his entitlements for a long time - and from what he has said has no intention of giving them up.

>This is in contrast to moochers

You'd have to take that up with Ron.

You must know more than I do about that excellent conservative contributor, Ron. Sorry, I don't know much about his personal life. Could it be he's 62 and drawing Social Security for retirement, or does he have a disability from the Veterans Administration. No moocher here.

I don't know about Billvon, but I have contributed continuously for 37 years and I am a liberal. In fact I know a lot of liberals and every one, without exception, has been gainfully employed all their adult life. I don't know any who whine as much as conservatives about paying their taxes, either.

The biggest moochers I know are the rubes who support the Tea Party and who don't even know they are benefiting from government programs on account of ignorance.

Wasn't long ago that the conservatives were whining that their return from Social Security was too small.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

You asked a question, "How much SocSec do you get if you never made a contribution?" I showed you one example of what you asked for.

THEN

you asked me what part of every . . .

EVERY one of the people that DID NOT CONTRIBUTE to Social Security is a moocher and sucking on the government tit.

EVERY other person that DID contribute, deserves a return on their investment.

Personally I would like to be able to invest my money where I want as opposed to having some politicians take it and spend it on something unrelated so that all the money that I have given is lost to me.

But hey, at least we can look forward to the same politicians doing the same thing with Obamacare.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[champu 1]

kallend

...benefiting from government programs...

Wasn't long ago that the conservatives were whining that their return from Social Security was too small.

Benefitting? Too small? Are you mad?

I think the tea party is as nutty as the next person, but if the government let me invest the extra 6.2 percent instead of taking it, and took the 6.2 percent they were making my employer pay and set it on fire in the street and did a little dance around it telling me to go fuck myself then the government and I would both be on better financial grounds when I retire.

[kallend 2,150]

turtlespeed

You asked a question, "How much SocSec do you get if you never made a contribution?" I showed you one example of what you asked for.

THEN

you asked me what part of every . . .

EVERY one of the people that DID NOT CONTRIBUTE to Social Security is a moocher and sucking on the government tit.

EVERY other person that DID contribute, deserves a return on their investment.

Personally I would like to be able to invest my money where I want as opposed to having some politicians take it and spend it on something unrelated so that all the money that I have given is lost to me.

But hey, at least we can look forward to the same politicians doing the same thing with Obamacare.

So you clearly believe that every widow who stayed home to raise a family is a moocher. Nice example of "family values".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

champu

***...benefiting from government programs...

Wasn't long ago that the conservatives were whining that their return from Social Security was too small.

Benefitting? Too small? Are you mad?




No. Is your memory failing?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

kallend

***You asked a question, "How much SocSec do you get if you never made a contribution?" I showed you one example of what you asked for.

THEN

you asked me what part of every . . .

EVERY one of the people that DID NOT CONTRIBUTE to Social Security is a moocher and sucking on the government tit.

EVERY other person that DID contribute, deserves a return on their investment.

Personally I would like to be able to invest my money where I want as opposed to having some politicians take it and spend it on something unrelated so that all the money that I have given is lost to me.

But hey, at least we can look forward to the same politicians doing the same thing with Obamacare.

So you clearly believe that every widow who stayed home to raise a family is a moocher. Nice example of "family values".

Just trying to be more liberal.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[champu 1]

kallend

***Benefitting? Too small? Are you mad?

No. Is your memory failing?

When I wrote, "Are you mad?" I didn't mean, "Does that make you angry?" I meant it's crazy to talk about the pension aspect of social security as being beneficial.

Unfortunately, not enough people do the math on social security to realize in the big picture that it doesn't do them any good. It's a system that just cheats everyone and the only reason it has support is because everyone is trying to minimize the damage it has done to them. I don't blame individuals for that, but please don't try and tell me they're benefitting.

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

So you clearly believe that every widow who stayed home to raise a family is a moocher. Nice example of "family values".

Isn't it clear, that the widow (or widower) that leveraged their spouse's benefits certainly is a moocher. But not off of the taxpayer, but off of their spouse.

But this is a private agreement/arrangement between them, so you could call it a contract rather than mooching. The earner had zero choice in the use of his money, so the aspect of the widow inheriting the benefit is just equivalent had the earner the original right to plan without the interference of the government.

Trying to understand how the above reads to those with a fanatically lefty mindset. I'll attempt understanding below to enter the mind......

Read as follows: But this is a fluffy between them, so you could call it a fluffy rather than mooching. The earner had zero choice in the use of fluffy , so the aspect of the widow fluffy the benefit is just equivalent had the earner the original right to plan garbled white noise here the government.




Thus, I am not sure how one enters this conversation since, philosophically, many consider that ALL of society's members are, by definition, moochers off of the government which owns all resources and all incomes from all members and subjectively gets to dole it out as gov sees fit.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,150]

rehmwa

***So you clearly believe that every widow who stayed home to raise a family is a moocher. Nice example of "family values".

Isn't it clear, that the widow (or widower) that leveraged their spouse's benefits certainly is a moocher. But not off of the taxpayer, but off of their spouse.



I am generally amused by your inclination to parody. The fact remains, however, that 2 of our right wing "Family Values (TM)" friends have made posts in this thread that indicate that they think widows who stayed home to raise families are moochers off the taxpayer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>What is the conundrum or ignorance here?

That she was trying to cancel the programs she relied on - and once she realized that, she no longer wanted smaller government or fewer entitlement programs. As she said, she changed her mind.

That's what a lot of ideologues forget. Most people who use government benefits HAVE paid into them at one point or another. Even most of those evil welfare queens held jobs at some point.

Do some get out more than they put in? Definitely. And some put in more than they get out. That's how the program is supposed to work.

>Maybe the US Government should give people a choice in the beginning: invest their
>own money or rely on Social Security that's not there.

Everyone out there already has that choice.