The myth of Entitlements and Freeloaders

[NotNow]

Faye,

I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you.  Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line.  As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk.   I don't think you want to do that with me.  So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you.  I hope that you understand and agree.

As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Of course you don't want to answer those questions just like you don't disclose your age, or if you are male or female. That's all too close for comfort.

We are talking about domestic safety............economic security.............the hallmark of a civilized society.

Civilization and security is not a temporary thing, it is what we have when we are truly free from the threat of economic destruction due to illness, age or disability.

(Sigh) I don't see what my age or sex has to do with anything.  I will say that when President Johnson opened the SS funds to be raided, I was alive but too young to know anything about it.  I would bet that is true of most of us.  I think "social security" is not the responsibility of the Federal government but the responsibility of state governments.  As it stands, I believe that SS funds should be separated from the federal budget and that individual "accounts" should be set up.  Deductions for SSI and other programs would then be visible to every FICA taxpayer.  I did not support Mr. Gore for a variety of his policies.  I support an elderly family member (in my own house with my own funds), but I have provided for my and Mrs. NotNow's retirement and elderly care, as well as our final arrangements. I am male.  I have never been arrested.   I am the sole provider for my family and I make a working man's wage.  Without the details I had what many would consider a "hard childhood".  Part of that I suppose was that there was very little money or other basic needs.  Through the grace of a couple of wonderful people (not the government) I graduated from high school.  Through the GI Bill I completed a B.S. degree at a major state university (while working two jobs and raising a baby).  I have been employed (by others, meaning paying FICA and other taxes) every day of my life since I turned fifteen years old and I worked "off the books" well before that.  I hope to retire by sixty five or so.  I started defending this nation at eighteen and I have been sent to a lot of %&$# holes on this planet.  It was in those places that I met some of the finest Americans I'll ever know and I learned not to belittle the political or religious beliefs of others and that people who appear very different from me aren't.  I have served in law enforcement since leaving active duty and once again found that most of  those who choose to put themselves in a position to defend others are some of the finest people on the planet.   I am thankful to GOD for all of his blessings and I consider myself to be a lucky man. 

I hope this answers some of your personal quesions about me. I hope that I have answered your questions.  I am entitled to my opinions and I have done the hard things, the things that others WOULD NOT in developing them. 

While there are some who belittle the occupations that I have been honored to have, this has been MY way and I am proud of it.  I assume that others here are good people who are seeking truth and other opinions.  I appreciate it when others assume the same about me.  When some posters don't, and want to belittle me, any further discussion with that person becomes...difficult.

What on earth does this have to do with why you only notice spending when it actually goes to people who are poor?

That is what Faye asked you, in her own way, after all.

If you have a question about my opinion on any governmental spending, then ask it.  To just be an insulting presence here is only a minor irritation to me, but it makes you look like quite the little...appendage.

My post and its contents were directed to Faye.  If you think you know better what she asked, or if you have some question of your own, then perhaps you should ask me in a normal and respectful manner.  If you cannot, then just make some smartass comment for the sake of the other readers and let's be done with it.

[FayeforCure]

Faye,

I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you.  Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line.  As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk.   I don't think you want to do that with me.  So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you.  I hope that you understand and agree.

As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Of course you don't want to answer those questions just like you don't disclose your age, or if you are male or female. That's all too close for comfort.

We are talking about domestic safety............economic security.............the hallmark of a civilized society.

Civilization and security is not a temporary thing, it is what we have when we are truly free from the threat of economic destruction due to illness, age or disability.

(Sigh) I don't see what my age or sex has to do with anything.  I will say that when President Johnson opened the SS funds to be raided, I was alive but too young to know anything about it.  I would bet that is true of most of us.  I think "social security" is not the responsibility of the Federal government but the responsibility of state governments.  As it stands, I believe that SS funds should be separated from the federal budget and that individual "accounts" should be set up.  Deductions for SSI and other programs would then be visible to every FICA taxpayer.  I did not support Mr. Gore for a variety of his policies.  I support an elderly family member (in my own house with my own funds), but I have provided for my and Mrs. NotNow's retirement and elderly care, as well as our final arrangements. I am male.  I have never been arrested.   I am the sole provider for my family and I make a working man's wage.  Without the details I had what many would consider a "hard childhood".  Part of that I suppose was that there was very little money or other basic needs.  Through the grace of a couple of wonderful people (not the government) I graduated from high school.  Through the GI Bill I completed a B.S. degree at a major state university (while working two jobs and raising a baby).  I have been employed (by others, meaning paying FICA and other taxes) every day of my life since I turned fifteen years old and I worked "off the books" well before that.  I hope to retire by sixty five or so.  I started defending this nation at eighteen and I have been sent to a lot of %&$# holes on this planet.  It was in those places that I met some of the finest Americans I'll ever know and I learned not to belittle the political or religious beliefs of others and that people who appear very different from me aren't.  I have served in law enforcement since leaving active duty and once again found that most of  those who choose to put themselves in a position to defend others are some of the finest people on the planet.   I am thankful to GOD for all of his blessings and I consider myself to be a lucky man. 

I hope this answers some of your personal quesions about me. I hope that I have answered your questions.  I am entitled to my opinions and I have done the hard things, the things that others WOULD NOT in developing them. 

While there are some who belittle the occupations that I have been honored to have, this has been MY way and I am proud of it.  I assume that others here are good people who are seeking truth and other opinions.  I appreciate it when others assume the same about me.  When some posters don't, and want to belittle me, any further discussion with that person becomes...difficult.

What on earth does this have to do with why you only notice spending when it actually goes to people who are poor?

That is what Faye asked you, in her own way, after all.

Thanks Stephen. That is exactly right.

"Setting up individual accounts" in social security, won't do the job of providing social security for all, since that requires us to rise above our selfish needs to help those that weren't as fortunate. That is what we do in a civilized society.

[NotNow]

I have posted extensively about confining the Federal government to its Constitutional limits.  Doing so would reduce Federal spending on a grand scale.  I have repeatedly endorsed spending by STATE governments on various forms of aid to the disabled and mentally infirm.  I'm not sure how you have missed those, since you have argued with me for pages on the subjects. 

Perhaps if you actually read what people are posting and tried to understand them by asking questions, rather than formulating arguments in the interest of "winning", you might help provide a better experience here for all of us StephenDare!.

[NotNow]

Faye,

I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you.  Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line.  As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk.   I don't think you want to do that with me.  So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you.  I hope that you understand and agree.

As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Of course you don't want to answer those questions just like you don't disclose your age, or if you are male or female. That's all too close for comfort.

We are talking about domestic safety............economic security.............the hallmark of a civilized society.

Civilization and security is not a temporary thing, it is what we have when we are truly free from the threat of economic destruction due to illness, age or disability.

(Sigh) I don't see what my age or sex has to do with anything.  I will say that when President Johnson opened the SS funds to be raided, I was alive but too young to know anything about it.  I would bet that is true of most of us.  I think "social security" is not the responsibility of the Federal government but the responsibility of state governments.  As it stands, I believe that SS funds should be separated from the federal budget and that individual "accounts" should be set up.  Deductions for SSI and other programs would then be visible to every FICA taxpayer.  I did not support Mr. Gore for a variety of his policies.  I support an elderly family member (in my own house with my own funds), but I have provided for my and Mrs. NotNow's retirement and elderly care, as well as our final arrangements. I am male.  I have never been arrested.   I am the sole provider for my family and I make a working man's wage.  Without the details I had what many would consider a "hard childhood".  Part of that I suppose was that there was very little money or other basic needs.  Through the grace of a couple of wonderful people (not the government) I graduated from high school.  Through the GI Bill I completed a B.S. degree at a major state university (while working two jobs and raising a baby).  I have been employed (by others, meaning paying FICA and other taxes) every day of my life since I turned fifteen years old and I worked "off the books" well before that.  I hope to retire by sixty five or so.  I started defending this nation at eighteen and I have been sent to a lot of %&$# holes on this planet.  It was in those places that I met some of the finest Americans I'll ever know and I learned not to belittle the political or religious beliefs of others and that people who appear very different from me aren't.  I have served in law enforcement since leaving active duty and once again found that most of  those who choose to put themselves in a position to defend others are some of the finest people on the planet.   I am thankful to GOD for all of his blessings and I consider myself to be a lucky man. 

I hope this answers some of your personal quesions about me. I hope that I have answered your questions.  I am entitled to my opinions and I have done the hard things, the things that others WOULD NOT in developing them. 

While there are some who belittle the occupations that I have been honored to have, this has been MY way and I am proud of it.  I assume that others here are good people who are seeking truth and other opinions.  I appreciate it when others assume the same about me.  When some posters don't, and want to belittle me, any further discussion with that person becomes...difficult.

What on earth does this have to do with why you only notice spending when it actually goes to people who are poor?

That is what Faye asked you, in her own way, after all.

Thanks Stephen. That is exactly right.

"Setting up individual accounts" in social security, won't do the job of providing social security for all, since that requires us to rise above our selfish needs to help those that weren't as fortunate. That is what we do in a civilized society.

So you want SS taxes spent only in the way that YOU want to see them spent, right?  The government shouldn't be able to use the funds, but you don't want the individual taxpayers to have any say or even be reminded in how the funds are spent, right Faye?   Deductions for SSI and other "benefit" SS programs would allow the individual taxpayer to see where "their" government retirement funds were going.  Can't have that, can we?  In a "civilized" society, we encourage the free flow of information. 

You keep saying "civilized" when what you really mean is "socialized".

[FayeforCure]

  I have repeatedly endorsed spending by STATE governments on various forms of aid to the disabled and mentally infirm. 

Yeah the kind of spending that Rick Scott proposes for the disabled and sick? Like NOTHING at all?

Americans should have the same rights to protection from bankruptcies regardless of where they live in the US or what medical conditions they suffer. The majority of personal economic destruction ie bankruptcies are due to medical conditions.

This doesn't occur in the member states of Europe..........at least not in western europe and the scandinavian countries. It's a much more civilized mind-set.

And no, I mean a civilized society, as in NOT "Third World" where the weak perish.

Europe has Economic Democracies based on a capitalist system. None of the european members states have socialism vs capitalism.

They are mixed economies, just as the US is.

[Ralph W]

The notion of making Social Security the provenance of any particular state falls apart when you consider that todays society is extremely mobile, making accountability and record keeping problematic if not impossible. The centrality of the federal government at least keeps the books all in one place.

We already have individual retirement accounts. They are administered by Uncle Sam and the funds distributed according to an earnings formula. What is bothering some is that the money deposited in the SS bank is not invested as is the money controlled directly by the depositor or his/her financial planner. That is a good thing because all too many people are just not competent enough to control their own investments.

[NotNow]

What you are both really calling for is for our children and grandchildren to be the slaves of the government.  While you complain about "slavery to corporations" individuals can still avoid corporate life and (compared to most countries) live a free and prosperous life unfettered by exterior demands.  Yet you both call for a nanny state that would suck up the majority of EVERY citizens income and STATUTORILY REQUIRE every citizen to accept the crappy services that governments generally provide.  The government decides what you get based on ?(well, in the past we have seen age, income, race, sex, and any other currently PC reason). 

No thanks.  That is not my kind of "security". 

[NotNow]

I have posted extensively about confining the Federal government to its Constitutional limits.  Doing so would reduce Federal spending on a grand scale.  I have repeatedly endorsed spending by STATE governments on various forms of aid to the disabled and mentally infirm.  I'm not sure how you have missed those, since you have argued with me for pages on the subjects. 

Perhaps if you actually read what people are posting and tried to understand them by asking questions, rather than formulating arguments in the interest of "winning", you might help provide a better experience here for all of us StephenDare!.

But you don't really believe your first statement, notnow.  That would take out Homeland Security, The Air Force and the USDA.  Not to mention the CIA, the FBI, the OSS, and most of the surveillance systems that you support.  It would also take away federal participation in any kind of interstate crime databases.

Are you for that?

I am "for" what I said I am for.  I have argued in the past based on what exists in the real world.  You DO understand the difference, don't you?

Now, tell me how you would reduce Federal spending StephenDare!?  How about you, Faye?  And Faye, while you compained about Rick Scott, how would you have brought the state budget into balance?

[NotNow]

ah. now we are calling faye a 'socialist', because thats a bad word, right?

Are you of the opinion that socialized policies are the opposite of civilized policies?

I am of the opinion that Faye is misusing the word "civilized".  I don't think that "socialist" is bad, but I wish that you guys woudl at least be honest about it and say the word.

[FayeforCure]

What you are both really calling for is for our children and grandchildren to be the slaves of the government.  While you complain about "slavery to corporations" individuals can still avoid corporate life and (compared to most countries) live a free and prosperous life unfettered by exterior demands.  Yet you both call for a nanny state that would suck up the majority of EVERY citizens income and STATUTORILY REQUIRE every citizen to accept the crappy services that governments generally provide.  The government decides what you get based on ?(well, in the past we have seen age, income, race, sex, and any other currently PC reason). 

No thanks.  That is not my kind of "security".

Yeah the only security you want to provide is the one for yourself. All I can say is I hope you stay able-bodied far into old age, because people like you do not care to pitch in to help people who through no fault of their own can no longer provide "security" for themselves. Let the weak perish 

That is your motto based on what you've said, even though you've not dared to directly say so.

I'm out of here. Since I guess you don't have family members either that through no fault of their own ie age, disability or sickness aren't able to provide for their own security.

You are on the margin of American society. The word society implies a social contract, but the type of "social contract" you suggest can only be found in third world countries.

[NotNow]

  I have repeatedly endorsed spending by STATE governments on various forms of aid to the disabled and mentally infirm. 

Yeah the kind of spending that Rick Scott proposes for the disabled and sick? Like NOTHING at all?

Americans should have the same rights to protection from bankruptcies regardless of where they live in the US or what medical conditions they suffer. The majority of personal economic destruction ie bankruptcies are due to medical conditions.

This doesn't occur in the member states of Europe..........at least not in western europe and the scandinavian countries. It's a much more civilized mind-set.

And no, I mean a civilized society, as in NOT "Third World" where the weak perish.

Europe has Economic Democracies based on a capitalist system. None of the european members states have socialism vs capitalism.

They are mixed economies, just as the US is.

Faye,

You have acquired StephenDare!'s habit of telling me what I think.  I ask again that you participate in discussion with me on a basis of mutual respect.  The idea is to exchange ideas, not to yell at each other.

You are right that both the US and most of Europe have "mixed" economies.  I am arguing for a government based on the US Constitution, which limits federal power to certain enumerated powers, and a society less dependent on government and maximizing individual freedom. I believe in the individual, much more than I will ever believe in any government.  It really is that simple.

[NotNow]

The notion of making Social Security the provenance of any particular state falls apart when you consider that todays society is extremely mobile, making accountability and record keeping problematic if not impossible. The centrality of the federal government at least keeps the books all in one place.

We already have individual retirement accounts. They are administered by Uncle Sam and the funds distributed according to an earnings formula. What is bothering some is that the money deposited in the SS bank is not invested as is the money controlled directly by the depositor or his/her financial planner. That is a good thing because all too many people are just not competent enough to control their own investments.

Ralph,

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.  But are you aware of the international cooperation in social retirements?  The same cooperation is quite easy among states.  I think we might all be safer in the "books" weren't all kept in one place.

As for IRA's, they are not "administered" by the government but are regulated.  I think what is bothering most people is that the money deposited in the SS trust fund has been spent by the Federal government.  That money has been replaced with special Treasury paper.  So what the government has done is placed all of the SS Trust retirement fund in one pot.  Sound like good advice to you?  As for the "most people are too incompetent" argument, I...just.....disagree.  I have faith in most people.  And the government could provide advice or provide limited investment avenues in necessary or voluntarily.  And of course, statements would remind and show folks where they stand.

[NotNow]

What you are both really calling for is for our children and grandchildren to be the slaves of the government.  While you complain about "slavery to corporations" individuals can still avoid corporate life and (compared to most countries) live a free and prosperous life unfettered by exterior demands.  Yet you both call for a nanny state that would suck up the majority of EVERY citizens income and STATUTORILY REQUIRE every citizen to accept the crappy services that governments generally provide.  The government decides what you get based on ?(well, in the past we have seen age, income, race, sex, and any other currently PC reason). 

No thanks.  That is not my kind of "security".

huh?

more accusations, no answers to the questions asked.

I seem to be the only one here answering questions.

[NotNow]

I have posted extensively about confining the Federal government to its Constitutional limits.  Doing so would reduce Federal spending on a grand scale.  I have repeatedly endorsed spending by STATE governments on various forms of aid to the disabled and mentally infirm.  I'm not sure how you have missed those, since you have argued with me for pages on the subjects. 

Perhaps if you actually read what people are posting and tried to understand them by asking questions, rather than formulating arguments in the interest of "winning", you might help provide a better experience here for all of us StephenDare!.

But you don't really believe your first statement, notnow.  That would take out Homeland Security, The Air Force and the USDA.  Not to mention the CIA, the FBI, the OSS, and most of the surveillance systems that you support.  It would also take away federal participation in any kind of interstate crime databases.

Are you for that?

I am "for" what I said I am for.  I have argued in the past based on what exists in the real world.  You DO understand the difference, don't you?

Now, tell me how you would reduce Federal spending StephenDare!?  How about you, Faye?  And Faye, while you compained about Rick Scott, how would you have brought the state budget into balance?

Perhaps you can clear it up with a single yes or no.

Are you for abolishing Homeland Security, The Air Force and the USDA, the CIA, the FBI, the OSS, and most of the surveillance systems that you support, as well as federal participation in any kind of interstate crime databases, in the name of our government working within it strict constitutional limits?

I am for a return to Constitutional government and ALL of the machinations that would go with it.  Much of the services you describe are not only reserved to the states, but would be better served at that level.

Now, can you answer my questions?  As previously asked?

[NotNow]

What you are both really calling for is for our children and grandchildren to be the slaves of the government.  While you complain about "slavery to corporations" individuals can still avoid corporate life and (compared to most countries) live a free and prosperous life unfettered by exterior demands.  Yet you both call for a nanny state that would suck up the majority of EVERY citizens income and STATUTORILY REQUIRE every citizen to accept the crappy services that governments generally provide.  The government decides what you get based on ?(well, in the past we have seen age, income, race, sex, and any other currently PC reason). 

No thanks.  That is not my kind of "security".

Yeah the only security you want to provide is the one for yourself. All I can say is I hope you stay able-bodied far into old age, because people like you do not care to pitch in to help people who through no fault of their own can no longer provide "security" for themselves. Let the weak perish 

That is your motto based on what you've said, even though you've not dared to directly say so.

I'm out of here. Since I guess you don't have family members either that through no fault of their own ie age, disability or sickness aren't able to provide for their own security.

You are on the margin of American society. The word society implies a social contract, but the type of "social contract" you suggest can only be found in third world countries.

I am sorry that you have chosen to be confrontational and to name call.  I have already told you that I am supporting an elderly member of my own family.  I am no more "able bodied" than you are.  I am simply apparently better prepared. 

With that said, it is obvious that you simply wish to state your own opinion, and don't wish to acknowledge any other view.  That appears to be a common condition on this forum, and I will leave you to it.