i suppose you are referencing whan you said: "The only proper way to fix social security is make the income equal the payout. Let the people decide" which is still not allowing people to manage their own money. taking the money at all, even if you return the exact same amount with interest, is taking away people's right to manage their own money. you say: there shouldnt be any "replacing". there should be nothing but individuals doing whatever they want. "replacing" means there is something. there should be nothing. i dont understand how you claim i am not speaking the truth when i point out you favor taking away people's rights, because unless you favor completely dumping social security entirely, you favor government intervention. the government policy on retirement insurance should be that they have no stance. you save money, or you do not. if you do not, thats tough luck, maybe a church will bail you out of you pretend to love jesus. red, you are basically lying when you claim you do not favor taking choice away from individuals. any system you come up with necessarily takes away freedom of choice and does not allow people to manage their own money. even if your system "allows" personal accounts. there should be no so called "allowing", because the government should have nothing to do with it. it is a private matter. just admit you oppose personal choice, because you do.
martin (and anyone else), how would you feel if there was no SS but the govt mandated long-term investments through private companies? That would be similar to car insurance. It's required for the good of all, but you still have some personal choice as to how much & from who. The problem is that the govt, like it or not, has a duty to the people to support those that can't support themselves. We got this ideal from England wayyy back when the colonies were being formed and it's not going anywhere. This means that the govt will never sit back & watch old people be homeless. There has to be a system. Don't be unreasonable martin, discuss real possibilities.
i do not believe the government (meaning me and you and all of us) have any duty to take care of anyone but ourselves. i believe in voluntary, not forced charity. i believe in collective security from chaos and wars and bombs, because we cannot really do that individually. but i do not feel like it is my responsibilty to buy you anything, ever, even if you are homeless and old and retarded. i am a nice guy and i dont mind helping people, i just dont think is is justified to require it. car insurance is different. you are required to have liability coverage in case you hurt me, but not yourself. you are not required to purchase insurance for your own car or hospital bills or whatever. you are only required to be able to pay for damage you cause on other people's property. social security is not the same. if i caused you to be old and poor, then it would be my responsibility, but it has nothing to do with me. you should insure yourself. social security is like forcing me to have car insurance for you in case you have a one car accident while i am at home sleeping.
I'm not arguing the validity of a SS program. Like I said, there's going to be one whether you like it or not. Also, your looking at the car insurance analogy theoretically & politically. I just meant it as a basic practical comparison. So, would you prefer a govt mandated long-term investment program with private companies, or our current system of Social Security? Or is there some better option you have that meets the same needs?
Why don't you just tell us what you think and quit trying to tell me what I think, ya' kook! Look, you've been taken to school on all of the issues here, so now you're trying your usual tactic of repeating yourself endlessly and foolishly trying to discredit me by making up "Red55 philosophies" that I have not promoted. Do you think anyone is fooled? My statements are right here for anyone to see, as are your distortions of them. You are a fine debater when you state your thesis, back it up with evidence, analyse the issues, and defend your position. Let me give you some advice. Your unfortunate tendency to derail a debate by attacking the credibility of your opponent, making grandiose pronouncements, and getting personally agitated is your limiting factor. Address the comments I state, not who you imagine I am. In fact, didn't you recently lecture TE on this very subject? Checkmate.
i am not making up opinions for you, i quoted you directly. you cant really deny saying things when i quote you: wrong. that means you will have to take money from people to finance your system. this is forced charity, and necessarily takes away people's freedom to manage their own money. government money does not magically appear. it is taken by force from citizens. forced charity is not freedom. when i said : how exactly is that wrong? are whatever SS type programs you favor magically unfunded by anyone? do they magically do not mandate anything at all? because if they exist, they are necessarily telling people what to do with their money! and that means less individual choice and freedom. you seem to be pretty terrified of me misrepresenting you, so i will use your exact words again: ok, was the money collected voluntarily? no? ok so it was the governemnt taking individual choice from people and not allowing them to manage thier own money. ridiculous, you dont even want people to be free to manage their own savings. but you deny that when it is put this directly. and i oppose it because it takes away freedom of choice. and since it is not magic, it has to be paid for. who pays for it? i dont want to pay for it, can i opt out and manage my own money (or not manage it and waste it) in any way i choose? i like personal freedom. you favor social security, i just quoted you saying it 3 times. unless you oppose social security entirely, you cannot claim you favor freedom for people to manage their own savings. that is a fact. if you would like to me to repeat your quotes more than three times in order to pin you down as making an actual statement, i can. i am aware you like to make statements, but then deny the necessary conclusions of those statements.
Nonsense. This is typical of you. I have never said I don't want people to manage their own savings and I even gave my 7-point savings philosophy in post 9. You are making up things because you have exhausted your logic. I manage my own savings and I don't care if you do the same! SS is not a savings plan, Scooter, it is a tax! Everybody knows this. Are you daft or do you just have attention deficit disorder? Yes, and I gave you my reasons. So what? I noticed you never quoted me saying that I "oppose personal choice" or that I "dont even want people to be free". This is your imagination at work. Bullchit. Ray Charles could find Waldo before anybody would buy your pretzel logic. This is a perfect example of one of your grand pronouncements and trying to tell me what I can or cannot think. SS and personal savings are not mutually exclusive! Can you understand, can you comprehend, can you . . . grok this? I can favor anything I want for any reasons I care to. If it bothers you, that's fine with me. Live with it. You are just restating your tired old arguments and are starting to bore me. Everybody else bailed out long ago. I'm going to ignore you now, too. Why? Because you've earned it.
they are EXACTLY mutually exclusive. you are now calling SS a TAX. how is money taken from you as a tax available for personal savings? yes you have. see: so you favor this program, which you describe as a tax, and somehow also you are claiming you favor people having the freedom to manage their own savings? (by the way, a tax is when the government takes your money, and it isnt voluntary) well, i have exposed the inherent dishonesty of your position, so the smart thing for you to do would be to keep silent.
red, in order to teach some extra condescending lessons, i will tell you a couple things. pay attention, because you are inferior to me in these sort of arguments and you could use help. all government functions because people concede individual power to it. every government program takes decisions out of people's hands. you should have accepted this and admitted it. of course social security takes away our rights to manage our own money. this is obvious. the correct position for you to argue is that you are aware of this but believe the loss of personal freedom is worth it for security. i might make this argument in favor of the patriot act. there is always a trade off, and shades of gray as you like to say, and often the trade-off of freedom for security is a small price to pay. i dont think in this case it is, but you could argue it is, and make points as to why. but you foolishly deny it, which is ludicrous. you cannot favor SS and personal management of money at the same time. had you realized this, i wouldnt have so thoroughly shredded you when we discussed it. by favoring any form of SS and denying that it takes any freedom from people, you only lose your credibility. i hope you have learned something and maybe next time i will not trounce you like a third rate chump.
