Another rat caught

[Wacka]

4 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

No, you-- ie, self-described "conservatives" --  talk about "freedom" but you don't practice it.  Wannabe Dictator Trump repeatedly threatened to use federal forces against protestors in various cities this past summer; he actually did use federal forces to clear peaceful protestors from in front of the White House so he could stage a photo-op; he's repeatedly called for arresting his political opponents.   How many prominent supposed "conservatives" challenged the Fascist in Chief on any of those actions?    About the same number that have challenged him on his continuing attempts to steal the presidential election that he lost by 7 million popular votes and 36 electoral votes.  

 

Lie to yourself about your devotion to "American freedoms" and "the Constitution" , but don't come here blathering about it when you support destroying American democratic institutions and processes in blind devotion to a would-be dictator and expect nobody to call you on your hypocrisy.

 

Not a single truth in those two paragraphs.

[Warcodered]

5 hours ago, JaCrispy said:

A well balanced society requires both conservatives and liberals to work together in order to succeed...

 

You need liberals to be innovative, and to reveal possible new fixes to societal problems...and you need conservatives to make sure society doesn’t go off a cliff, and holds onto traditions that have proven effective.

 

The hard part is finding and maintaining that balance...but it starts with civil discourse, not mutually assured destruction...

This is exactly it. I feel I probably line up somewhat liberal in wanting the government to help people out more but at the same time I'm well aware that there should be a voice tempering how we can afford to do it/how we can do it without damaging our growth. What's sad to me is how this isn't the actual debate that's going on these days.

[SoCal Deek]

11 hours ago, Warcodered said:

This is exactly it. I feel I probably line up somewhat liberal in wanting the government to help people out more but at the same time I'm well aware that there should be a voice tempering how we can afford to do it/how we can do it without damaging our growth. What's sad to me is how this isn't the actual debate that's going on these days.

All excellent points. But....once the federal government is allowed to spend beyond their annual revenue you get an absolute mess! You’ll notice we don’t debate these topics at the state level. It’s amazing what balancing a budget does to the level of discourse. It’s no different around the average family’s kitchen table. 

[T master]

On 12/10/2020 at 9:13 AM, SoTier said:

 

 Both Social Security and Medicare are "socialistic" programs that have been around for more than half a century.  How do they infringe on any "individual liberty" except for preventing the elderly from the "individual liberty" to starve or die from lack of medical care?  

 

 

A lot of programs started like SS and Medicare when thought of in there original form were absolutely great programs and if you are given the right to decide if you want to make the decision to join or not was awesome but in true Washington DC form if it works really well some dip s**t has to come along and try to improve it when it doesn't need it !!

 

Who ever that dip S**T was that opened SS to every one no matter if you are a citizen or not, if you paid in or not was not how it was suppose to originally work . It was originally for those that if "they wanted" to put in for their retirement they decided to put their money in so it would be there for them when they retired and it was their personal decision .

 

Politicians saw all that money sitting there that they couldn't get there hands and they had to screw things up and open SS to every body no matter who you were weather you put into it or not and that's probably why SS is closer to being broke than being available for those in the future who actually pay in to it .

 

In the beginning it was totally voluntary and it was made to be mandatory so the gov't IMHO had more access to the money from We the People that they could use for their political projects .

 

Some things are just better left alone or in there original form and that's the one thing politicians in the US just can't do or see they just don't know how to stop trying to build the perfect mouse trap when there isn't one !! Stupid is as stupid does ...

[SoTier]

2 hours ago, T master said:

 

A lot of programs started like SS and Medicare when thought of in there original form were absolutely great programs and if you are given the right to decide if you want to make the decision to join or not was awesome but in true Washington DC form if it works really well some dip s**t has to come along and try to improve it when it doesn't need it !!

 

Who ever that dip S**T was that opened SS to every one no matter if you are a citizen or not, if you paid in or not was not how it was suppose to originally work . It was originally for those that if "they wanted" to put in for their retirement they decided to put their money in so it would be there for them when they retired and it was their personal decision .

 

Politicians saw all that money sitting there that they couldn't get there hands and they had to screw things up and open SS to every body no matter who you were weather you put into it or not and that's probably why SS is closer to being broke than being available for those in the future who actually pay in to it .

 

In the beginning it was totally voluntary and it was made to be mandatory so the gov't IMHO had more access to the money from We the People that they could use for their political projects .

 

Some things are just better left alone or in there original form and that's the one thing politicians in the US just can't do or see they just don't know how to stop trying to build the perfect mouse trap when there isn't one !! Stupid is as stupid does ...

 

Your points are wrong.   You should get your facts from actual sources rather than from ignorant individuals and/or posters on social media or from websites deliberately spreading lies for their own agendas.    Instead of assuming what you hear or read on the web to be true, use the search engine of your choice to find out if it is true or not.

 

Social Security (SS) is a program for retired or disabled workers who have worked and contributed to SS for at least 40 calendar quarters (about 10 years) or their children under specific conditions.   Social Security was never voluntary.   In the beginning, many types of  employment weren't covered by Social Security.  Today almost all employment is covered.   Social security is NOT the same as Supplement Security Income (SSI), which is a welfare program which began in 1972, and which is open to people ineligible for Social Security, including some immigrants.

 

 Social Security Myths 1

 

Social Security Myths 2   Question #5 deals with the question of immigrants.

 

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

Social Security (SS) is a program for retired or disabled workers who have worked and contributed to SS for at least 40 calendar quarters (about 10 years) or their children under specific conditions.   Social Security was never voluntary.   In the beginning, many types of  employment weren't covered by Social Security.  Today almost all employment is covered.   Social security is NOT the same as Supplement Security Income (SSI), which is a welfare program which began in 1972, and which is open to people ineligible for Social Security, including some immigrants.

 

 Social Security Myths 1

 

Social Security Myths 2   Question #5 deals with the question of immigrants.

 

Wouldn't the biggest myth be that you're taking out money that you personally put into the system?  You aren't!

[Warcodered]

18 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Wouldn't the biggest myth be that you're taking out money that you personally put into the system?  You aren't!

You have to put money into social security to get money from social security.

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

You have to put money into social security to get money from social security.

Yes, but it isn't 'your' money that you're taking out.  

[SoTier]

44 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Wouldn't the biggest myth be that you're taking out money that you personally put into the system?  You aren't!

 

That might be true, but it wasn't T master's complaint.  He complained specifically about SS participation changing from voluntary to mandatory and about people who didn't contribute to SS receiving SS benefits.   Both of those are untrue with the exception that widows and/or minor children of deceased workers who were eligible for SS may receive SS benefits under certain conditions.

 

Your myth is answered here:  How SS works 

[Teddy KGB]

If the Chinese are going to take us over using these dimwitted Dems as a Trojan horse will we get mistresses too ? 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Teddy KGB

[SoCal Deek]

13 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

That might be true, but it wasn't T master's complaint.  He complained specifically about SS participation changing from voluntary to mandatory and about people who didn't contribute to SS receiving SS benefits.   Both of those are untrue with the exception that widows and/or minor children of deceased workers who were eligible for SS may receive SS benefits under certain conditions.

 

Your myth is answered here:  How SS works 

I know how SS works. Relax. I was just rolling with the ‘myth’ theme.