Government Programs Are Scams

[PoliticalChic]

Poorly thought out feel-good agendas that are designed for something altogether different than what they are claimed to be for.
This thread exposes one of the greatest scams.




When government entitlements, such as Social Security, fail….who ya’ gonna call, ghost busters???

1.So very many have bought the line that government can and will take care of you from cradle to grave. It’s the central promise of all six:
Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Fascism, Progressivism, and Nazism.

And, in truth, the collectivists have been pretty perceptive about picking at whom they aim their sales pitch:

Liberals, in my experience, are fearful folks who need the bodyguard of big government because they are vulnerable, battered emotional hypochondriacs....they need to insure themselves against every societal misadventure that could occur. They call that 'empathy,' but it's actually neurosis. They have some sort of metaphorical bullet lodged near their heart, just waiting for a slight move which will end it all! Thus, the overwhelming feeling of incipient failure, and apprehension. And, recognizing their own weakness, they lash out at those willing to depend on themselves.




2. Funny, putting your trust in the folks who run the post office and the DMV.


"It is a great irony of communism that those who did not believe in God believed that godlike knowledge could be concentrated at a central point. It was believed that government could be omnipotent and omniscient. And in order to justify the idea that all lives should be determined by a single plan, the concomitant tendency of communist regimes was to deify the leader- whether Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung."
Tom Bethell, "The Noblest Triumph," p. 144



3.So, insinuated into the minds of the believers is the idea that, if you turn over your political power to the collective, you need have no responsibility for your own life. All the vicissitudes are covered.




4. But….

Social Security has a limited future….and was a bad idea from the start.

. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”

When the 32nd President created Social Security:

No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?




5. The scam is that the Social Security payments are simply used the way taxes are….they’re not saved for you.
The politicians simply confiscate the funds and use them as they wish.....and let you wish they will be there when you retire, and in a quantity that will take care of your retirement.
There are better ways.

“…Al Gore, he campaigned for president in 2000 advocating the placement of Social Security taxes in the Social Security “lock box” to benefit future generations.” The Social Security Lock Box Hoax and the National Debt | HuffPost
There is no Social Security lock box.


Did you know this about Social Security: Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, , and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”




Sooo…..ya’ want ghost busters’ number?

 

[ColonelAngus]

The left need as many people as possible on the government dole. It gives them a guaranteed base and expands government.

These assholes use the expansion of food stamp programs as a good thing.

This tells you all you need to know.

 

[midcan5]

Child labor laws, minimum wage, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights legislation, have done more good than all the talk of the right wing talking heads and continue to do so. While some may need correction, no one said life was simple. For the open minded reader check out the book quoted below and see the links on government and what conservatism really is about.

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla's Strategy And Tactics

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I'm The Queen of England

"With engaging wit and subtle irony, Albert Hirschman maps the diffuse and treacherous world of reactionary rhetoric in which conservative public figures, thinkers, and polemicists have been arguing against progressive agendas and reforms for the past two hundred years.

"Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used: (1) the perversity thesis, whereby any action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order is alleged to result in the exact opposite of what was intended; (2) the futility thesis, which predicts that attempts at social transformation will produce no effects whatever—will simply be incapable of making a dent in the status quo; (3) the jeopardy thesis, holding that the cost of the proposed reform is unacceptable because it will endanger previous hard-won accomplishments. He illustrates these propositions by citing writers across the centuries from Alexis de Tocqueville to George Stigler, Herbert Spencer to Jay Forrester, Edmund Burke to Charles Murray. Finally, in a lightning turnabout, he shows that progressives are frequently apt to employ closely related rhetorical postures, which are as biased as their reactionary counterparts. For those who aspire to the genuine dialogue that characterizes a truly democratic society, Hirschman points out that both types of rhetoric function, in effect, as contraptions designed to make debate impossible. In the process, his book makes an original contribution to democratic thought."

The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy by Albert O. Hirschman

"Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this — in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything — even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." President Dwight Eisenhower

 

[PoliticalChic]

Child labor laws, minimum wage, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights legislation, have done more good than all the talk of the right wing talking heads and continue to do so. While some may need correction, no one said life was simple. For the open minded reader check out the book quoted below and see the links on government and what conservatism really is about.

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla's Strategy And Tactics

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I'm The Queen of England

"With engaging wit and subtle irony, Albert Hirschman maps the diffuse and treacherous world of reactionary rhetoric in which conservative public figures, thinkers, and polemicists have been arguing against progressive agendas and reforms for the past two hundred years.

"Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used: (1) the perversity thesis, whereby any action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order is alleged to result in the exact opposite of what was intended; (2) the futility thesis, which predicts that attempts at social transformation will produce no effects whatever—will simply be incapable of making a dent in the status quo; (3) the jeopardy thesis, holding that the cost of the proposed reform is unacceptable because it will endanger previous hard-won accomplishments. He illustrates these propositions by citing writers across the centuries from Alexis de Tocqueville to George Stigler, Herbert Spencer to Jay Forrester, Edmund Burke to Charles Murray. Finally, in a lightning turnabout, he shows that progressives are frequently apt to employ closely related rhetorical postures, which are as biased as their reactionary counterparts. For those who aspire to the genuine dialogue that characterizes a truly democratic society, Hirschman points out that both types of rhetoric function, in effect, as contraptions designed to make debate impossible. In the process, his book makes an original contribution to democratic thought."

The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy by Albert O. Hirschman

"Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this — in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything — even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." President Dwight Eisenhower

No comment on the OP that brought you here, today?

You must be still sulking over my comments yesterday, pointing out that Obama was a failure by every metric, domestic and foreign policy.

And....my labeling you as the quintessential hit-and-run poster....the male Jillian.



So.....we on for tomorrow?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. “Social Security takes a whopping 12.4 percent of American workers’ [and employers'] paychecks, but a new backgrounder by The Heritage Foundation shows that workers are getting a bad deal from the program.

… Social Security typically provides very low—and in many cases, negative—rates of return.

The Heritage Foundation analysis shows that younger workers—even low-wage ones—would receive at least three times greater rates of return from private savings than Social Security will provide.”
3 Examples of How Social Security Robs Americans of Greater Income Before, During Retirement





7. “Heritage’s analysis compares what workers would receive if their payroll taxes were invested in personal accounts compared with what Social Security will provide under two scenarios:
1) current law, with roughly 20 percent benefit cuts beginning around 2034;
and 2) a scenario whereby payroll taxes rise immediately to a level necessary to pay the program’s prescribed benefits.

While virtually all workers—across income levels, both genders, and generations—would be far better off with personal savings than Social Security, younger workers get the worst deal from the government program.”
DailySignal, Op. Cit.


Details next.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's where we get into exactly who Social Security actually helps.....and why it's a scam.



8. “The average young male worker is virtually guaranteed a negative rate of return from Social Security.”

A 23-yr-old with a salary of $60,000 “He will pay $547,088 in Social Security taxes (excluding disability insurance taxes) throughout his lifetime. In return, he will receive a monthly benefit of $2,209 in retirement.

If he instead invested that same amount—$547,088—in a conservative mix of stocks and bonds, he would accumulate more than $1.5 million in a retirement account and could use that to purchase a lifetime annuity that would pay him $6,185 per month, or nearly three times what Social Security will provide.”
3 Examples of How Social Security Robs Americans of Greater Income Before, During Retirement



But….if he had that control of the money, politicians would not be able to syphon off the money, and pretend that it goes into some ‘lock box’ reserved to pay him when he retires.

Who gets all the Social Security money.....

....and who gets a promise?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did I mention that Government Programs Are, Largely, Scams?

Consider it mentioned.





9. Now, the results of a ‘controlled experiment’…..Social Security vs private investments.



"THE TEXAS TRIBUNE
How Privatized Social Security Works in Galveston
By BECCA AARONSON
Published: September 17, 2011

.... see how a privatized Social Security plan might work. Government employees in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties have controlled their private retirement plan for 30 years. They opted out of Social Security before Congress changed the law in 1983 to prevent others from withdrawing.


Though the private program has its critics — and some say it does not provide all of the important benefits many destitute Americans claim through Social Security —many in these counties consider their system superior.


Almost everyone agrees Social Security will need to be changed in some way to remain solvent.

In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account.

First Financial Benefits invests the accounts conservatively, ... The company guarantees a minimum rate of return of 3.75 percent to 4 percent on the accounts to safeguard employees’ benefits against inflation and severe drops in market rates."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0




What????

A possible non-lock-step, one-size-fits all, my way or else, plan?????

And you'd control your own money???????

Oh...noooozzzzzz!

 

[rightwinger]

Social Security is not an entitlement

Both the employee and employer pay in to it. SS has been a backbone security net for hundreds of millions of Americans

Try taking it away

 

[Skull Pilot]

Social Security is not an entitlement

Both the employee and employer pay in to it. SS has been a backbone security net for hundreds of millions of Americans

Try taking it away

And you can't admit that this backbone is suffering from arthritis, scoliosis, stenosis, and every other back malady in the books

It's a shitty program

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Now….how about a low income worker…..would a private retirement plan be better than the government Social Security plan?

You betcha’!!!

Age 23- annual income $19,768….

“She will pay an estimated $119,426 in Social Security taxes toward a program that will provide her with a $902 monthly benefit in retirement.

If she instead invested that same amount—$119,426—in her own retirement account, she would accumulate $354,731 in savings. That would be enough to purchase an annuity that would provide her with $1,262 per month, or 40 percent more than Social Security can provide.” Daily Signal, Op. Cit.




Yup...politicians are only looking out for the best interests of the American people...and Attila was just sightseeing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

10. Now….how about a low income worker…..would a private retirement plan be better than the government Social Security plan?

You betcha’!!!

Age 23- annual income $19,768….

“She will pay an estimated $119,426 in Social Security taxes toward a program that will provide her with a $902 monthly benefit in retirement.

If she instead invested that same amount—$119,426—in her own retirement account, she would accumulate $354,731 in savings. That would be enough to purchase an annuity that would provide her with $1,262 per month, or 40 percent more than Social Security can provide.” Daily Signal, Op. Cit.




Yup...politicians are only looking out for the best interests of the American people...and Attila was just sightseeing.

I've done the math for these people many times over

Even with the ups and downs and occasional stock market crashes it always works out better than social insecurity

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Now….how about a low income worker…..would a private retirement plan be better than the government Social Security plan?

You betcha’!!!

Age 23- annual income $19,768….

“She will pay an estimated $119,426 in Social Security taxes toward a program that will provide her with a $902 monthly benefit in retirement.

If she instead invested that same amount—$119,426—in her own retirement account, she would accumulate $354,731 in savings. That would be enough to purchase an annuity that would provide her with $1,262 per month, or 40 percent more than Social Security can provide.” Daily Signal, Op. Cit.




Yup...politicians are only looking out for the best interests of the American people...and Attila was just sightseeing.

I've done the math for these people many times over

Even with the ups and downs and occasional stock market crashes it always works out better than social insecurity

But....but....government.....the children....minorities.....something.....



Liberals are trained seals, trained never to question.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. Now another reason Social Security is for the government.....not for you….if the money was actually yours….not take away by that benevolent politician, with promises of a hamburger tomorrow if you’d give your money today…..

…well, then you could give the money away to a beneficiary (other than government).




“If workers did not use their personal savings to purchase annuities, but instead drew down on them as needed in retirement, they would be able to leave sizable bequests to their heirs.

In contrast, workers who die before reaching Social Security’s retirement age or shortly thereafter often receive little to nothing in return for their hundreds of thousands of dollars in payroll taxes.



The ability to leave bequests would be especially meaningful for lower-income workers. Not only do lower-income workers tend to have lower life expectancies, and therefore receive less in Social Security benefits than higher-income counterparts, but their families do not receive the same leg up from bequests that middle- and upper-income families often receive from their elders to pay for a grandchild’s education or to purchase a home.” 3 Examples of How Social Security Robs Americans of Greater Income Before, During Retirement




Can you imagine that????

Your money would be……what’s the word?

Oh…yeah….”yours.”

 

[Siete]

pc doesnt pay SS tax or get SS in Canada.

take her bs threads for what they're worth

0

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. A review of the thread from the brilliant Donald J. Boudreaux.



“An easy case for government intervention requires just one mistaken assumption: Ordinary people cannot take care of themselves as well as government officials will take care of them.



…Social Security really isn't what Uncle Sam advertises it to be. For example, …the Social Security Trust Fund “is a myth.”



The typical janitor in America today is paid $26,586 annually. Because even janitors must pay to Social Security 6.2 percent of their incomes, this janitor pays every year to Social Security $1,648.33. On top of this sum, this janitor's employer kicks in to Social Security another 6.2 percent of the janitor's salary.

If a janitor works from age 18 until the full Social Security retirement age of 66, he will, upon retirement, begin receiving from Social Security a monthly check for $1,108. He'll receive such a check until he dies.

(Note: when he dies — even if he dies just one minute after retiring — his heirs get nothing from Social Security.)




But suppose that this janitor is relieved of having to pay 6.2 percent of his wages to Social Security and, instead, he invests each year this sum into financial instruments that pay, on average, a real annual return of 5 percent, compounded monthly.

Saving and investing no more than this sum each year during his work life, this janitor, when he retires at age 66, will own a pension worth $337,591.


Even assuming (unrealistically) that these funds earn no further returns for the rest of the retired janitor's life, if he lives for another 15 years, every month he can take from his retirement fund $1,875.51 — or 69 percent more than the monthly amount that he would instead have received from Social Security.


It's untrue that if Social Security were abolished, janitors and other low-paid workers would be unable to adequately save for their retirements. Quite the contrary.” Social insecurity




BUT....if politician couldn't steal the Social Security taxes from all the janitors, etc., they couldn't do this:

"Feds Spend $548,459 Studying Male Students’ ‘Microaggressions’ Towards Women"
Feds Spend $548K Studying Males’ Microaggressions Towards Women

 

[Timmy]

The left need as many people as possible on the government dole. It gives them a guaranteed base and expands government.

These assholes use the expansion of food stamp programs as a good thing.

This tells you all you need to know.

Aren’t righties pro military? Who have everything covered by the taxpayers ?

 

[Timmy]

12. A review of the thread from the brilliant Donald J. Boudreaux.



“An easy case for government intervention requires just one mistaken assumption: Ordinary people cannot take care of themselves as well as government officials will take care of them.



…Social Security really isn't what Uncle Sam advertises it to be. For example, …the Social Security Trust Fund “is a myth.”



The typical janitor in America today is paid $26,586 annually. Because even janitors must pay to Social Security 6.2 percent of their incomes, this janitor pays every year to Social Security $1,648.33. On top of this sum, this janitor's employer kicks in to Social Security another 6.2 percent of the janitor's salary.

If a janitor works from age 18 until the full Social Security retirement age of 66, he will, upon retirement, begin receiving from Social Security a monthly check for $1,108. He'll receive such a check until he dies.

(Note: when he dies — even if he dies just one minute after retiring — his heirs get nothing from Social Security.)




But suppose that this janitor is relieved of having to pay 6.2 percent of his wages to Social Security and, instead, he invests each year this sum into financial instruments that pay, on average, a real annual return of 5 percent, compounded monthly.

Saving and investing no more than this sum each year during his work life, this janitor, when he retires at age 66, will own a pension worth $337,591.


Even assuming (unrealistically) that these funds earn no further returns for the rest of the retired janitor's life, if he lives for another 15 years, every month he can take from his retirement fund $1,875.51 — or 69 percent more than the monthly amount that he would instead have received from Social Security.


It's untrue that if Social Security were abolished, janitors and other low-paid workers would be unable to adequately save for their retirements. Quite the contrary.” Social insecurity




BUT....if politician couldn't steal the Social Security taxes from all the janitors, etc., they couldn't do this:

"Feds Spend $548,459 Studying Male Students’ ‘Microaggressions’ Towards Women"
Feds Spend $548K Studying Males’ Microaggressions Towards Women

What if. 10 years into his job, he is badly injured and can no longer work . What happens to your janitor ?

 

[Timmy]

Poorly thought out feel-good agendas that are designed for something altogether different than what they are claimed to be for.
This thread exposes one of the greatest scams.




When government entitlements, such as Social Security, fail….who ya’ gonna call, ghost busters???

1.So very many have bought the line that government can and will take care of you from cradle to grave. It’s the central promise of all six:
Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Fascism, Progressivism, and Nazism.

And, in truth, the collectivists have been pretty perceptive about picking at whom they aim their sales pitch:

Liberals, in my experience, are fearful folks who need the bodyguard of big government because they are vulnerable, battered emotional hypochondriacs....they need to insure themselves against every societal misadventure that could occur. They call that 'empathy,' but it's actually neurosis. They have some sort of metaphorical bullet lodged near their heart, just waiting for a slight move which will end it all! Thus, the overwhelming feeling of incipient failure, and apprehension. And, recognizing their own weakness, they lash out at those willing to depend on themselves.




2. Funny, putting your trust in the folks who run the post office and the DMV.


"It is a great irony of communism that those who did not believe in God believed that godlike knowledge could be concentrated at a central point. It was believed that government could be omnipotent and omniscient. And in order to justify the idea that all lives should be determined by a single plan, the concomitant tendency of communist regimes was to deify the leader- whether Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung."
Tom Bethell, "The Noblest Triumph," p. 144



3.So, insinuated into the minds of the believers is the idea that, if you turn over your political power to the collective, you need have no responsibility for your own life. All the vicissitudes are covered.




4. But….

Social Security has a limited future….and was a bad idea from the start.

. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”

When the 32nd President created Social Security:

No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?




5. The scam is that the Social Security payments are simply used the way taxes are….they’re not saved for you.
The politicians simply confiscate the funds and use them as they wish.....and let you wish they will be there when you retire, and in a quantity that will take care of your retirement.
There are better ways.

“…Al Gore, he campaigned for president in 2000 advocating the placement of Social Security taxes in the Social Security “lock box” to benefit future generations.” The Social Security Lock Box Hoax and the National Debt | HuffPost
There is no Social Security lock box.


Did you know this about Social Security: Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, , and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”




Sooo…..ya’ want ghost busters’ number?

Righties talk a big game . Until a hurricane hits and they line up for fema funds.

Or they use fed insurance for their beach house .

Or they use farm aid .

Or they put grandma in a home .

Or any number of programs they hate until they need it .

 

[Timmy]

10. Now….how about a low income worker…..would a private retirement plan be better than the government Social Security plan?

You betcha’!!!

Age 23- annual income $19,768….

“She will pay an estimated $119,426 in Social Security taxes toward a program that will provide her with a $902 monthly benefit in retirement.

If she instead invested that same amount—$119,426—in her own retirement account, she would accumulate $354,731 in savings. That would be enough to purchase an annuity that would provide her with $1,262 per month, or 40 percent more than Social Security can provide.” Daily Signal, Op. Cit.




Yup...politicians are only looking out for the best interests of the American people...and Attila was just sightseeing.

I've done the math for these people many times over

Even with the ups and downs and occasional stock market crashes it always works out better than social insecurity

You make some big assumptions.

1- they are able to maintain investment and not touch it

2- no health issues for them or family .

Very small % would that work for.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Social Security is not an entitlement

Both the employee and employer pay in to it. SS has been a backbone security net for hundreds of millions of Americans

Try taking it away

I agree that SS is not an entitlement just because both workers and employers have paid into the fund.