History Is Clear: Socialism Isn't the Cure. So Why Do Millennials Like It?

[Ray From Cleveland]

May I ask any of you? If we had no Social Security and Medicare for the aged do you believe we would have all of the other social programs? At least at the levels we do. I believe when people get a certain age and start collecting maybe they do not want to rock the boat. I know. Paying that 15% nut every payday or every quarter for others turns it into something earned and not an entitlement. But our politicians have had other plans for that 15% which was a bit lower in earlier years since it was put into the general fund. Now the pay ins are becoming more and more pay outs as the shortsightedness of the political class to live for the present when elected becomes more and more apparent. And the feds need resources with the millenials wanting socialism but not wanting to pay for it even though we have a different form of socialism going on now.

Social programs are fine as long as it's run by the state, and not the federal government. As for SS, it's mandatory and the federal government runs it. What we should have done decades ago is what Bush wanted to do, and that is allow it to at least be partly privatized where you could earn some real interest on the investment. Then if you pass on at a younger retirement age, or not make it to retirement at all, you can will that money to your family like any of your personal property. Right now, if you die on your 65th birthday, all that money you and your employers contributed, your family doesn't see dime one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Madison was a genius in that he foreseen what our country could become by making our federal government into a charity instead of a governing body. It's what we Republicans refer to as the cart theory.

The people of a town build a cart. They are able to pull it effortlessly as it flies down the road. After a while, some people get tired of pulling the cart, and jump inside the cart instead. Before you know it, half of the people are in the cart and the other half pulling it. At that point the cart stops.

View attachment 289194

Madison was a genius for 1780. Didn’t help when he almost lost the country on 1812

No politicians of that era understood modern societies
Shit, Madison even supported slavery

A lot of people supported slavery at the time because it was the norm. Perhaps in 100 years from now, we will be looked on as inhumane because we have animals for pets. But today, it's quite normal.

Politicians didn't have to understand modern societies to realize government dependency is destructive. They could have easily developed programs like government log cabins. They could have given vouchers to people so they could buy farmed goods. They could have had programs like Cash for Carriages. But they didn't, because they realized that government providing for people makes them less inclined to provide for themselves.

The federal government was not created to support the people, except what was outlined in the US Constitution. Charity came from religions or at the most, state governments. But the federal government was not supposed to be a charity.

Yes
Slavery was the norm
So was ignoring the needs of the poor, child labor, no public education, no public infrastructure

It was a different time......a time we have moved on from

And that wasn't the point. The point was you criticize people for participating in something that was taking place in every country around the world, and still is in some countries today.

It's like if a state executed a prisoner with a public hanging. Unacceptable by todays standards, but it was the way we executed people years ago. It helped to act as a deterrent.

The point was Madison having the opinion that government should not become involved in social programs

May have been appropriate for 1780, but not 2019

Why not 2019? Because people got lazy and didn't bother to invest for their later years in life. Without those programs, people would be forced to put money away for their later years in life.

 

[Nosmo King]

Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail.

Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos.

Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Venezuela are unfree, poor and failed states. Baathism -- a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism -- ruined the postwar Middle East.


(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...

-----------'

Because Work is hard and doesn’t leave enough time to smoke weed, play video games and jack off with their buddies.....and FREE is a word that the socialist educators have inbeded into their heads without explaining that NOTHING IS FREE, whether you pay for it now or down the road!

You didn't mention Canada, Great Britain, any Scandinavian nation, Japan, Austrailia, Germany, Switzerland or Israel.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Madison was a genius in that he foreseen what our country could become by making our federal government into a charity instead of a governing body. It's what we Republicans refer to as the cart theory.

The people of a town build a cart. They are able to pull it effortlessly as it flies down the road. After a while, some people get tired of pulling the cart, and jump inside the cart instead. Before you know it, half of the people are in the cart and the other half pulling it. At that point the cart stops.

View attachment 289194

Madison was a genius for 1780. Didn’t help when he almost lost the country on 1812

No politicians of that era understood modern societies
Shit, Madison even supported slavery

A lot of people supported slavery at the time because it was the norm. Perhaps in 100 years from now, we will be looked on as inhumane because we have animals for pets. But today, it's quite normal.

Politicians didn't have to understand modern societies to realize government dependency is destructive. They could have easily developed programs like government log cabins. They could have given vouchers to people so they could buy farmed goods. They could have had programs like Cash for Carriages. But they didn't, because they realized that government providing for people makes them less inclined to provide for themselves.

The federal government was not created to support the people, except what was outlined in the US Constitution. Charity came from religions or at the most, state governments. But the federal government was not supposed to be a charity.

Yes
Slavery was the norm
So was ignoring the needs of the poor, child labor, no public education, no public infrastructure

It was a different time......a time we have moved on from

And that wasn't the point. The point was you criticize people for participating in something that was taking place in every country around the world, and still is in some countries today.

It's like if a state executed a prisoner with a public hanging. Unacceptable by todays standards, but it was the way we executed people years ago. It helped to act as a deterrent.

"And that wasn't the point. The point was you criticize people for participating in something that was taking place in every country around the world, and still is in some countries today."

according to Politicalchic and rush limbaugh DEMOCRATS gave us slavery......

In Ripon, Wisconsin, former members of the Whig Party meet to establish a new party to oppose the spread of slavery into the western territories. The Whig Party, which was formed in 1834 to oppose the “tyranny” of President Andrew Jackson, had shown itself incapable of coping with the national crisis over slavery.

With the successful introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854, an act that dissolved the terms of the Missouri Compromise and allowed slave or free status to be decided in the territories by popular sovereignty, the Whigs disintegrated. By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded

 

[rightwinger]

Madison was a genius for 1780. Didn’t help when he almost lost the country on 1812

No politicians of that era understood modern societies
Shit, Madison even supported slavery

A lot of people supported slavery at the time because it was the norm. Perhaps in 100 years from now, we will be looked on as inhumane because we have animals for pets. But today, it's quite normal.

Politicians didn't have to understand modern societies to realize government dependency is destructive. They could have easily developed programs like government log cabins. They could have given vouchers to people so they could buy farmed goods. They could have had programs like Cash for Carriages. But they didn't, because they realized that government providing for people makes them less inclined to provide for themselves.

The federal government was not created to support the people, except what was outlined in the US Constitution. Charity came from religions or at the most, state governments. But the federal government was not supposed to be a charity.

Yes
Slavery was the norm
So was ignoring the needs of the poor, child labor, no public education, no public infrastructure

It was a different time......a time we have moved on from

And that wasn't the point. The point was you criticize people for participating in something that was taking place in every country around the world, and still is in some countries today.

It's like if a state executed a prisoner with a public hanging. Unacceptable by todays standards, but it was the way we executed people years ago. It helped to act as a deterrent.

The point was Madison having the opinion that government should not become involved in social programs

May have been appropriate for 1780, but not 2019

Why not 2019? Because people got lazy and didn't bother to invest for their later years in life. Without those programs, people would be forced to put money away for their later years in life.

Because great societies look out for their people

 

[rightwinger]

May I ask any of you? If we had no Social Security and Medicare for the aged do you believe we would have all of the other social programs? At least at the levels we do. I believe when people get a certain age and start collecting maybe they do not want to rock the boat. I know. Paying that 15% nut every payday or every quarter for others turns it into something earned and not an entitlement. But our politicians have had other plans for that 15% which was a bit lower in earlier years since it was put into the general fund. Now the pay ins are becoming more and more pay outs as the shortsightedness of the political class to live for the present when elected becomes more and more apparent. And the feds need resources with the millenials wanting socialism but not wanting to pay for it even though we have a different form of socialism going on now.

Social programs are fine as long as it's run by the state, and not the federal government. As for SS, it's mandatory and the federal government runs it. What we should have done decades ago is what Bush wanted to do, and that is allow it to at least be partly privatized where you could earn some real interest on the investment. Then if you pass on at a younger retirement age, or not make it to retirement at all, you can will that money to your family like any of your personal property. Right now, if you die on your 65th birthday, all that money you and your employers contributed, your family doesn't see dime one.

Social Programs should be run where they are most efficient and make the most sense
That may be the federal, state or local level

Retirement is available to workers through both SS and tax free investment often with employer matching
Workers should take advantage of both

 

[anynameyouwish]

A lot of people supported slavery at the time because it was the norm. Perhaps in 100 years from now, we will be looked on as inhumane because we have animals for pets. But today, it's quite normal.

Politicians didn't have to understand modern societies to realize government dependency is destructive. They could have easily developed programs like government log cabins. They could have given vouchers to people so they could buy farmed goods. They could have had programs like Cash for Carriages. But they didn't, because they realized that government providing for people makes them less inclined to provide for themselves.

The federal government was not created to support the people, except what was outlined in the US Constitution. Charity came from religions or at the most, state governments. But the federal government was not supposed to be a charity.

Yes
Slavery was the norm
So was ignoring the needs of the poor, child labor, no public education, no public infrastructure

It was a different time......a time we have moved on from

And that wasn't the point. The point was you criticize people for participating in something that was taking place in every country around the world, and still is in some countries today.

It's like if a state executed a prisoner with a public hanging. Unacceptable by todays standards, but it was the way we executed people years ago. It helped to act as a deterrent.

The point was Madison having the opinion that government should not become involved in social programs

May have been appropriate for 1780, but not 2019

Why not 2019? Because people got lazy and didn't bother to invest for their later years in life. Without those programs, people would be forced to put money away for their later years in life.

Because great societies look out for their people

May I ask any of you? If we had no Social Security and Medicare for the aged do you believe we would have all of the other social programs? At least at the levels we do. I believe when people get a certain age and start collecting maybe they do not want to rock the boat. I know. Paying that 15% nut every payday or every quarter for others turns it into something earned and not an entitlement. But our politicians have had other plans for that 15% which was a bit lower in earlier years since it was put into the general fund. Now the pay ins are becoming more and more pay outs as the shortsightedness of the political class to live for the present when elected becomes more and more apparent. And the feds need resources with the millenials wanting socialism but not wanting to pay for it even though we have a different form of socialism going on now.

Social programs are fine as long as it's run by the state, and not the federal government. As for SS, it's mandatory and the federal government runs it. What we should have done decades ago is what Bush wanted to do, and that is allow it to at least be partly privatized where you could earn some real interest on the investment. Then if you pass on at a younger retirement age, or not make it to retirement at all, you can will that money to your family like any of your personal property. Right now, if you die on your 65th birthday, all that money you and your employers contributed, your family doesn't see dime one.

Ya know, Ray....

compared to all the other conservatives on this board you are rational and reasonable.

I appreciate that and thank you.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes
Slavery was the norm
So was ignoring the needs of the poor, child labor, no public education, no public infrastructure

It was a different time......a time we have moved on from

And that wasn't the point. The point was you criticize people for participating in something that was taking place in every country around the world, and still is in some countries today.

It's like if a state executed a prisoner with a public hanging. Unacceptable by todays standards, but it was the way we executed people years ago. It helped to act as a deterrent.

The point was Madison having the opinion that government should not become involved in social programs

May have been appropriate for 1780, but not 2019

Why not 2019? Because people got lazy and didn't bother to invest for their later years in life. Without those programs, people would be forced to put money away for their later years in life.

Because great societies look out for their people

May I ask any of you? If we had no Social Security and Medicare for the aged do you believe we would have all of the other social programs? At least at the levels we do. I believe when people get a certain age and start collecting maybe they do not want to rock the boat. I know. Paying that 15% nut every payday or every quarter for others turns it into something earned and not an entitlement. But our politicians have had other plans for that 15% which was a bit lower in earlier years since it was put into the general fund. Now the pay ins are becoming more and more pay outs as the shortsightedness of the political class to live for the present when elected becomes more and more apparent. And the feds need resources with the millenials wanting socialism but not wanting to pay for it even though we have a different form of socialism going on now.

Social programs are fine as long as it's run by the state, and not the federal government. As for SS, it's mandatory and the federal government runs it. What we should have done decades ago is what Bush wanted to do, and that is allow it to at least be partly privatized where you could earn some real interest on the investment. Then if you pass on at a younger retirement age, or not make it to retirement at all, you can will that money to your family like any of your personal property. Right now, if you die on your 65th birthday, all that money you and your employers contributed, your family doesn't see dime one.

Ya know, Ray....

compared to all the other conservatives on this board you are rational and reasonable.

I appreciate that and thank you.

Ray is OK

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

May I ask any of you? If we had no Social Security and Medicare for the aged do you believe we would have all of the other social programs? At least at the levels we do. I believe when people get a certain age and start collecting maybe they do not want to rock the boat. I know. Paying that 15% nut every payday or every quarter for others turns it into something earned and not an entitlement. But our politicians have had other plans for that 15% which was a bit lower in earlier years since it was put into the general fund. Now the pay ins are becoming more and more pay outs as the shortsightedness of the political class to live for the present when elected becomes more and more apparent. And the feds need resources with the millenials wanting socialism but not wanting to pay for it even though we have a different form of socialism going on now.

Social programs are fine as long as it's run by the state, and not the federal government. As for SS, it's mandatory and the federal government runs it. What we should have done decades ago is what Bush wanted to do, and that is allow it to at least be partly privatized where you could earn some real interest on the investment. Then if you pass on at a younger retirement age, or not make it to retirement at all, you can will that money to your family like any of your personal property. Right now, if you die on your 65th birthday, all that money you and your employers contributed, your family doesn't see dime one.

Social Programs should be run where they are most efficient and make the most sense
That may be the federal, state or local level

Retirement is available to workers through both SS and tax free investment often with employer matching
Workers should take advantage of both

I'm confused as how you think the federal government is efficient. How much interest did your money make on SS? How secure are the funds? What about Medicare? How is it every insurance company in the country increased premium rates for medical care, yet Medicare hasn't increased their contributions in decades?

SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They display what you and your employers contributed, and what the payout will be depending on when you wish to retire. Now take one of those pamphlets to a reputable investment company, and ask them what you'd be worth today had all that money for all those years been invested in a conservative growth account. I think you will be shocked.

Mediare is broke, SS is going broke, Medicaid is usually the largest expenditure draining most states. I just don't understand how you consider that efficient.

 

[rightwinger]

May I ask any of you? If we had no Social Security and Medicare for the aged do you believe we would have all of the other social programs? At least at the levels we do. I believe when people get a certain age and start collecting maybe they do not want to rock the boat. I know. Paying that 15% nut every payday or every quarter for others turns it into something earned and not an entitlement. But our politicians have had other plans for that 15% which was a bit lower in earlier years since it was put into the general fund. Now the pay ins are becoming more and more pay outs as the shortsightedness of the political class to live for the present when elected becomes more and more apparent. And the feds need resources with the millenials wanting socialism but not wanting to pay for it even though we have a different form of socialism going on now.

Social programs are fine as long as it's run by the state, and not the federal government. As for SS, it's mandatory and the federal government runs it. What we should have done decades ago is what Bush wanted to do, and that is allow it to at least be partly privatized where you could earn some real interest on the investment. Then if you pass on at a younger retirement age, or not make it to retirement at all, you can will that money to your family like any of your personal property. Right now, if you die on your 65th birthday, all that money you and your employers contributed, your family doesn't see dime one.

Social Programs should be run where they are most efficient and make the most sense
That may be the federal, state or local level

Retirement is available to workers through both SS and tax free investment often with employer matching
Workers should take advantage of both

I'm confused as how you think the federal government is efficient. How much interest did your money make on SS? How secure are the funds? What about Medicare? How is it every insurance company in the country increased premium rates for medical care, yet Medicare hasn't increased their contributions in decades?

SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They display what you and your employers contributed, and what the payout will be depending on when you wish to retire. Now take one of those pamphlets to a reputable investment company, and ask them what you'd be worth today had all that money for all those years been invested in a conservative growth account. I think you will be shocked.

Mediare is broke, SS is going broke, Medicaid is usually the largest expenditure draining most states. I just don't understand how you consider that efficient.

I think the Federal Government is more efficient than 50 separate states trying to do the same thing with varying success.

Both Social Security and Medicare were essential in providing a secure retirement for all Americans.

Anyone wanting to invest retirement funds is free to use tax exempt 401ks to build a nest egg in addition to Social Security. Millions of Americans do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

May I ask any of you? If we had no Social Security and Medicare for the aged do you believe we would have all of the other social programs? At least at the levels we do. I believe when people get a certain age and start collecting maybe they do not want to rock the boat. I know. Paying that 15% nut every payday or every quarter for others turns it into something earned and not an entitlement. But our politicians have had other plans for that 15% which was a bit lower in earlier years since it was put into the general fund. Now the pay ins are becoming more and more pay outs as the shortsightedness of the political class to live for the present when elected becomes more and more apparent. And the feds need resources with the millenials wanting socialism but not wanting to pay for it even though we have a different form of socialism going on now.

Social programs are fine as long as it's run by the state, and not the federal government. As for SS, it's mandatory and the federal government runs it. What we should have done decades ago is what Bush wanted to do, and that is allow it to at least be partly privatized where you could earn some real interest on the investment. Then if you pass on at a younger retirement age, or not make it to retirement at all, you can will that money to your family like any of your personal property. Right now, if you die on your 65th birthday, all that money you and your employers contributed, your family doesn't see dime one.

Social Programs should be run where they are most efficient and make the most sense
That may be the federal, state or local level

Retirement is available to workers through both SS and tax free investment often with employer matching
Workers should take advantage of both

I'm confused as how you think the federal government is efficient. How much interest did your money make on SS? How secure are the funds? What about Medicare? How is it every insurance company in the country increased premium rates for medical care, yet Medicare hasn't increased their contributions in decades?

SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They display what you and your employers contributed, and what the payout will be depending on when you wish to retire. Now take one of those pamphlets to a reputable investment company, and ask them what you'd be worth today had all that money for all those years been invested in a conservative growth account. I think you will be shocked.

Mediare is broke, SS is going broke, Medicaid is usually the largest expenditure draining most states. I just don't understand how you consider that efficient.

I think the Federal Government is more efficient than 50 separate states trying to do the same thing with varying success.

Both Social Security and Medicare were essential in providing a secure retirement for all Americans.

Anyone wanting to invest retirement funds is free to use tax exempt 401ks to build a nest egg in addition to Social Security. Millions of Americans do.

And I'm one of them. SS now requirers you to retie later and later to help preserve the fund. It doesn't provide enough for most people to retire on. We have several retirees where I work, and we're a small company. Some work to keep busy, but others work because they can't make it on retirement alone.

Yes, you can have an IRA, but imagine how much that IRA would be worth today had all your SS money plus your personal retirement contributions to the IRA were all in there. Depending on the size of your contributions, you would likely be a millionaire, or even a multi-millionaire at retirement.

 

[rightwinger]

May I ask any of you? If we had no Social Security and Medicare for the aged do you believe we would have all of the other social programs? At least at the levels we do. I believe when people get a certain age and start collecting maybe they do not want to rock the boat. I know. Paying that 15% nut every payday or every quarter for others turns it into something earned and not an entitlement. But our politicians have had other plans for that 15% which was a bit lower in earlier years since it was put into the general fund. Now the pay ins are becoming more and more pay outs as the shortsightedness of the political class to live for the present when elected becomes more and more apparent. And the feds need resources with the millenials wanting socialism but not wanting to pay for it even though we have a different form of socialism going on now.

Social programs are fine as long as it's run by the state, and not the federal government. As for SS, it's mandatory and the federal government runs it. What we should have done decades ago is what Bush wanted to do, and that is allow it to at least be partly privatized where you could earn some real interest on the investment. Then if you pass on at a younger retirement age, or not make it to retirement at all, you can will that money to your family like any of your personal property. Right now, if you die on your 65th birthday, all that money you and your employers contributed, your family doesn't see dime one.

Social Programs should be run where they are most efficient and make the most sense
That may be the federal, state or local level

Retirement is available to workers through both SS and tax free investment often with employer matching
Workers should take advantage of both

I'm confused as how you think the federal government is efficient. How much interest did your money make on SS? How secure are the funds? What about Medicare? How is it every insurance company in the country increased premium rates for medical care, yet Medicare hasn't increased their contributions in decades?

SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They display what you and your employers contributed, and what the payout will be depending on when you wish to retire. Now take one of those pamphlets to a reputable investment company, and ask them what you'd be worth today had all that money for all those years been invested in a conservative growth account. I think you will be shocked.

Mediare is broke, SS is going broke, Medicaid is usually the largest expenditure draining most states. I just don't understand how you consider that efficient.

I think the Federal Government is more efficient than 50 separate states trying to do the same thing with varying success.

Both Social Security and Medicare were essential in providing a secure retirement for all Americans.

Anyone wanting to invest retirement funds is free to use tax exempt 401ks to build a nest egg in addition to Social Security. Millions of Americans do.

And I'm one of them. SS now requirers you to retie later and later to help preserve the fund. It doesn't provide enough for most people to retire on. We have several retirees where I work, and we're a small company. Some work to keep busy, but others work because they can't make it on retirement alone.

Yes, you can have an IRA, but imagine how much that IRA would be worth today had all your SS money plus your personal retirement contributions to the IRA were all in there. Depending on the size of your contributions, you would likely be a millionaire, or even a multi-millionaire at retirement.

If you begin contributing to a 401 k in your early 20s, you will be a millionaire by the time you retire

Social Security has never been a savings plan. It is insurance in case you are injured on the job and provides income after you retire

If Social Security had been set up as a savings plan in the late 1930s, it would have been the 1970s before people could start to collect on it.
During the Depression, they needed a plan to cover people who would be retiring near term. To do that, they needed current workers to support retirees

 

[whitehall]

First of all there is no evidence that millennials like socialism. Thanks to the government run education system in the last couple of decades, millennials might be the dumbest and possibly the most self absorbed generation but they like their stuff and you only get good stuff in a democracy. (Millennials in Hong Kong will tell you that). When you add the fact that today's media might be the most dishonest source of information we have ever experienced you get the perception that millennials are pro socialist but it ain't necessarily so.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Social programs are fine as long as it's run by the state, and not the federal government. As for SS, it's mandatory and the federal government runs it. What we should have done decades ago is what Bush wanted to do, and that is allow it to at least be partly privatized where you could earn some real interest on the investment. Then if you pass on at a younger retirement age, or not make it to retirement at all, you can will that money to your family like any of your personal property. Right now, if you die on your 65th birthday, all that money you and your employers contributed, your family doesn't see dime one.

Social Programs should be run where they are most efficient and make the most sense
That may be the federal, state or local level

Retirement is available to workers through both SS and tax free investment often with employer matching
Workers should take advantage of both

I'm confused as how you think the federal government is efficient. How much interest did your money make on SS? How secure are the funds? What about Medicare? How is it every insurance company in the country increased premium rates for medical care, yet Medicare hasn't increased their contributions in decades?

SS sends out pamphlets now and then. They display what you and your employers contributed, and what the payout will be depending on when you wish to retire. Now take one of those pamphlets to a reputable investment company, and ask them what you'd be worth today had all that money for all those years been invested in a conservative growth account. I think you will be shocked.

Mediare is broke, SS is going broke, Medicaid is usually the largest expenditure draining most states. I just don't understand how you consider that efficient.

I think the Federal Government is more efficient than 50 separate states trying to do the same thing with varying success.

Both Social Security and Medicare were essential in providing a secure retirement for all Americans.

Anyone wanting to invest retirement funds is free to use tax exempt 401ks to build a nest egg in addition to Social Security. Millions of Americans do.

And I'm one of them. SS now requirers you to retie later and later to help preserve the fund. It doesn't provide enough for most people to retire on. We have several retirees where I work, and we're a small company. Some work to keep busy, but others work because they can't make it on retirement alone.

Yes, you can have an IRA, but imagine how much that IRA would be worth today had all your SS money plus your personal retirement contributions to the IRA were all in there. Depending on the size of your contributions, you would likely be a millionaire, or even a multi-millionaire at retirement.

If you begin contributing to a 401 k in your early 20s, you will be a millionaire by the time you retire

Social Security has never been a savings plan. It is insurance in case you are injured on the job and provides income after you retire

If Social Security had been set up as a savings plan in the late 1930s, it would have been the 1970s before people could start to collect on it.
During the Depression, they needed a plan to cover people who would be retiring near term. To do that, they needed current workers to support retirees

But it's still your money. After all, the more you put in, the more you're going to get out. Yes, even though an entire separate entity, it provides coverage in case you can't work any longer. However, it's miserable to collect on. If you collect unemployment after you can't work, they will disqualify you from collecting SS disability. Their claim is that since you filed for unemployment, it demonstrates you were looking for work, which means you can.

Also you cannot be working after applying for SS disability. it may take up to one or two years before you get a decision on your acceptance. Who can support themselves with no income for one or two years???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First of all there is no evidence that millennials like socialism. Thanks to the government run education system in the last couple of decades, millennials might be the dumbest and possibly the most self absorbed generation but they like their stuff and you only get good stuff in a democracy. (Millennials in Hong Kong will tell you that). When you add the fact that today's media might be the most dishonest source of information we have ever experienced you get the perception that millennials are pro socialist but it ain't necessarily so.

Most of Bernie Sanders supporters are young people in spite of his age. Polls also show the support for Socialism in the US are younger people.

Younger people today don't want to deal with problems. Socialism offers relief from those problems.

 

[rightwinger]

First of all there is no evidence that millennials like socialism. Thanks to the government run education system in the last couple of decades, millennials might be the dumbest and possibly the most self absorbed generation but they like their stuff and you only get good stuff in a democracy. (Millennials in Hong Kong will tell you that). When you add the fact that today's media might be the most dishonest source of information we have ever experienced you get the perception that millennials are pro socialist but it ain't necessarily so.

Most of Bernie Sanders supporters are young people in spite of his age. Polls also show the support for Socialism in the US are younger people.

Younger people today don't want to deal with problems. Socialism offers relief from those problems.

Young people want Government to stop being an agent for the wealthy and start doing more for the people

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First of all there is no evidence that millennials like socialism. Thanks to the government run education system in the last couple of decades, millennials might be the dumbest and possibly the most self absorbed generation but they like their stuff and you only get good stuff in a democracy. (Millennials in Hong Kong will tell you that). When you add the fact that today's media might be the most dishonest source of information we have ever experienced you get the perception that millennials are pro socialist but it ain't necessarily so.

Most of Bernie Sanders supporters are young people in spite of his age. Polls also show the support for Socialism in the US are younger people.

Younger people today don't want to deal with problems. Socialism offers relief from those problems.

Young people want Government to stop being an agent for the wealthy and start doing more for the people

You mean give them things? The government doesn't give "things" to the wealthy. They make enough to have their own things. As generations went on, the government taught people to be less and less responsible. Now it's to the point they don't want responsibility for anything, hence favoring Socialism. Whenever there's a problem, don't try to solve it yourself. Call government, and they'll solve it for you.

 

[Redfish]

Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail.

Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos.

Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Venezuela are unfree, poor and failed states. Baathism -- a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism -- ruined the postwar Middle East.


(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...

-----------'

Because Work is hard and doesn’t leave enough time to smoke weed, play video games and jack off with their buddies.....and FREE is a word that the socialist educators have inbeded into their heads without explaining that NOTHING IS FREE, whether you pay for it now or down the road!

You didn't mention Canada, Great Britain, any Scandinavian nation, Japan, Austrailia, Germany, Switzerland or Israel.

those places are not practicing the kind of socialism advocated by Sanders and his like. Most of them are also going broke with their modified socialism. In Denmark very few can afford to own a house or a car but they get FREE medical care if they live long enough to make the appointment and get to pay 43% of their income to the government regardless of income level. If you think that's good, move.

 

[Redfish]

First of all there is no evidence that millennials like socialism. Thanks to the government run education system in the last couple of decades, millennials might be the dumbest and possibly the most self absorbed generation but they like their stuff and you only get good stuff in a democracy. (Millennials in Hong Kong will tell you that). When you add the fact that today's media might be the most dishonest source of information we have ever experienced you get the perception that millennials are pro socialist but it ain't necessarily so.

Most of Bernie Sanders supporters are young people in spite of his age. Polls also show the support for Socialism in the US are younger people.

Younger people today don't want to deal with problems. Socialism offers relief from those problems.

Young people want Government to stop being an agent for the wealthy and start doing more for the people

young people, some of them, are too naive to understand the falacy in that. I don't think you are young, but you are certainly stupid if you believe that a socialist government would have your best interests in mind.

In a socialist state all of the power and all of the wealth resides in a tiny elite minority and everyone is EQUALLY miserable. Because that minority has convinced the masses that they know best how to live YOUR life. Socialism appeals to the naive, ignorant, and stupid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First of all there is no evidence that millennials like socialism. Thanks to the government run education system in the last couple of decades, millennials might be the dumbest and possibly the most self absorbed generation but they like their stuff and you only get good stuff in a democracy. (Millennials in Hong Kong will tell you that). When you add the fact that today's media might be the most dishonest source of information we have ever experienced you get the perception that millennials are pro socialist but it ain't necessarily so.

Most of Bernie Sanders supporters are young people in spite of his age. Polls also show the support for Socialism in the US are younger people.

Younger people today don't want to deal with problems. Socialism offers relief from those problems.

Young people want Government to stop being an agent for the wealthy and start doing more for the people

young people, some of them, are too naive to understand the falacy in that. I don't think you are young, but you are certainly stupid if you believe that a socialist government would have your best interests in mind.

In a socialist state all of the power and all of the wealth resides in a tiny elite minority and everyone is EQUALLY miserable. Because that minority has convinced the masses that they know best how to live YOUR life. Socialism appeals to the naive, ignorant, and stupid.

We already have places in our country where you are provided food, medical care, and a job if you want one. Nobody has money except the government, and nobody has guns except the government.

We call these places prison, and they're not all the hard to get into. That's the society Democrats want for all of us.