So these “liars” are actually having the nerve to invest some additional money into investments, while being able to rely on the safety of social security? [/quote]
Safety??!!
Seriously??!!
No money given to any government program is safe. Ever. But theirin lies the ideological differences between “liberals” and “Conservatives”. Liberals view the government as a benevelant benefactor, best suited to take care of the masses (sound alot like socialism?). Conservatives know that a government governs best when it governs least, ie: rugged individualism.
Heres what social insecurity does for me:
-Takes money from me every pay period and then dictates to me when and how much “benefit” I might get back.
-The money taken from me will grow at an extremely paltry rate (I think it is somewhere around 2.5%). That’s money I could put into my mutual fund and get a return rate that will blow social insecurity right out of the damn water!
-If someone legalizes as an American citizen at the age of let’s say 60 and retires at 69, that retiree will get the same benefit that someone who has paid into SS their entire life! WTF!
Some services are best provided by government. Military, fire, police, providing for a currency, etc. Retirement is not one of those things. This is what bothers me about liberal ideoligy, the idea that government could possibly protect people from themselves. Like I’m too stupid to prepare for my own retirement.
Why shouldn’t I have the option to invest MY money wherever I want? Why is the government afraid to compete with the private sector?
So these “liars” are actually having the nerve to invest some additional money into investments, while being able to rely on the safety of social security?
Safety??!!
Seriously??!!
No money given to any government program is safe. Ever. But theirin lies the ideological differences between “liberals” and “Conservatives”. Liberals view the government as a benevelant benefactor, best suited to take care of the masses (sound alot like socialism?). Conservatives know that a government governs best when it governs least, ie: rugged individualism.
Heres what social insecurity does for me:
-Takes money from me every pay period and then dictates to me when and how much “benefit” I might get back.
-The money taken from me will grow at an extremely paltry rate (I think it is somewhere around 2.5%). That’s money I could put into my mutual fund and get a return rate that will blow social insecurity right out of the damn water!
-If someone legalizes as an American citizen at the age of let’s say 60 and retires at 69, that retiree will get the same benefit that someone who has paid into SS their entire life! WTF!
Some services are best provided by government. Military, fire, police, providing for a currency, etc. Retirement is not one of those things. This is what bothers me about liberal ideoligy, the idea that government could possibly protect people from themselves. Like I’m too stupid to prepare for my own retirement.
Why shouldn’t I have the option to invest MY money wherever I want? Why is the government afraid to compete with the private sector?
No money given to any government program is safe. Ever. But theirin lies the ideological differences between “liberals” and “Conservatives”. Liberals view the government as a benevelant benefactor, best suited to take care of the masses (sound alot like socialism?). Conservatives know that a government governs best when it governs least, ie: rugged individualism.
[/quote]
Yadda yadda yadda. As you point out, some things the government has to do, and social security is one of them.
Your entire view on the issue is as if social security was a service, a retirement vehicle. It’s not. It’s a subsistance vehicle.
What you may not have seen yet in your own life is the role that fortune can play. This is after all possible preparations have been made.
For most of your lifetime, times have been pretty good here in America. It hasn’t always been that way, and it’s not always going to be that way. Very likely, more and more people are going to be finding out about the role that luck plays.
The point is, it’s not good for us lucky bastards to have hordes of indigent old people on the street. If it must be put to you in a purely selfish perspective. As evidently it must.
Others would say it’s simply the more humane thing to provide subsistence to the total losers of the game.
Now the so-called demographic transition is what it is, and no doubt there are hard choices ahead to be made, about what level of subsistence can be guaranteed. But talking about how we don’t need social security because it’s all a matter of personal responsibility is a bunch of total piffle.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
I know enough about each of them to know that they would be quite comfortable and commanding debating the typical message board participant on T-Nation.
No slam against you, they are pro’s, don’t let the negative press on either of them fool you. They know the issues of the day and as I stated…would crush you!
[/quote]
If I had the time and resources to prepare for the debate as they do, I would do quite nicely, thanks. You see, they aren’t professionals either. Those debates were not debates.
The thing about crushing is, it only works if everybody in the debate has the same stakes. Since I wouldn’t be running for office, or trying to justify stupid positions to appeal to my ‘base’, just debating on the basis of facts, in fact I would have a considerable advantage.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
I know enough about each of them to know that they would be quite comfortable and commanding debating the typical message board participant on T-Nation.
No slam against you, they are pro’s, don’t let the negative press on either of them fool you. They know the issues of the day and as I stated…would crush you!
If I had the time and resources to prepare for the debate as they do, I would do quite nicely, thanks. You see, they aren’t professionals either. Those debates were not debates.
The thing about crushing is, it only works if everybody in the debate has the same stakes. Since I wouldn’t be running for office, or trying to justify stupid positions to appeal to my ‘base’, just debating on the basis of facts, in fact I would have a considerable advantage.
[/quote]
Have you met many of this men face to face? Have you ever been on the inside? Do you have plenty of experience and knowledge of world affairs?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
There is nothing as foolish as youthful hubris!
… as aged hubris.
Damn it, I was going to write “old”. Always have to be the first on line in the morning, huh?[/quote]
Hubris, schmubris. Anybody who can do arithmetic can turn GWB into a pile of quivering jello. That’s why when the guy holds a town meeting it’s by invitation only and there are bouncers at the door.
Have you met many of this men face to face? Have you ever been on the inside? Do you have plenty of experience and knowledge of world affairs?
Yes, I’m sure you would just do a bang up job!
There is nothing as foolish as youthful hubris!
[/quote]
Zeb, this is classic ad hominem argumentation. But what the hell, fuel to the fire.
Like I said, you don’t even know me. I’m 55 this year, and where I went to school, neither of those dimwits could possibly get in.
Not that it really matters, there are many different kinds of intelligence, many different kind of talents. It’s really not about how smart they are. It’s about the positions they are forced to take.
Have you met many of this men face to face? Have you ever been on the inside? Do you have plenty of experience and knowledge of world affairs?
Yes, I’m sure you would just do a bang up job!
There is nothing as foolish as youthful hubris!
Zeb, this is classic ad hominem argumentation. But what the hell, fuel to the fire.
Like I said, you don’t even know me. I’m 55 this year, and where I went to school, neither of those dimwits could possibly get in.
Not that it really matters, there are many different kinds of intelligence, many different kind of talents. It’s really not about how smart they are. It’s about the positions they are forced to take.
[/quote]
Please forgive me.
I don’t know what I was thinking. Naturally you would easily defeat both Kerry and Bush in a debate on world affairs. In fact, after rereading your previous posts I am convinced of it!
You are the best!
I honestly don’t know what I was thinking. Hey…come on be kind forgive me you made mistakes in the past…
I’m with you man! They are idiots and you sir are brilliant! (no I really think you are after all you are 55).
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
There is nothing as foolish as youthful hubris!
… as aged hubris.
Damn it, I was going to write “old”. Always have to be the first on line in the morning, huh?
Hubris, schmubris. Anybody who can do arithmetic can turn GWB into a pile of quivering jello. That’s why when the guy holds a town meeting it’s by invitation only and there are bouncers at the door.[/quote]
I agree, you are right again!
(It must be true I read it on an Internet message board from an anonymous author).
