What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Vidi]

Still missing the point where that becomes MY problem, rather than theirs. Life sucks sometimes; adults had best be smart and flexible enough to deal with it.

thats a good christian attitude you have there. a guy gets fired because his boss made some bad business decision and your solution is oh well fuck 'em, its his own fault.

Don't even TRY that "government aid is the Christian thing to do" bullshit on ME, Reverend Dumbfuck. You show me anywhere that the Bible a) indicates that charity should be run through the government, and b) it's acceptable for people to sit on their dead asses and demand the fruits of others' labor for themselves, and we'll talk, but until then, I am deeply and spectacularly unimpressed by Satan spouting Scripture.

You just describe the Koch brothers and the Walton family.

 

[Syphon]

Still missing the point where that becomes MY problem, rather than theirs. Life sucks sometimes; adults had best be smart and flexible enough to deal with it.

thats a good christian attitude you have there. a guy gets fired because his boss made some bad business decision and your solution is oh well fuck 'em, its his own fault.

Don't even TRY that "government aid is the Christian thing to do" bullshit on ME, Reverend Dumbfuck. You show me anywhere that the Bible a) indicates that charity should be run through the government, and b) it's acceptable for people to sit on their dead asses and demand the fruits of others' labor for themselves, and we'll talk, but until then, I am deeply and spectacularly unimpressed by Satan spouting Scripture.

show me where in the bible anything that actually happened was true.... its a nice piece if fiction if you like a long read....

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

You know, I do see that from Libs.
I see the same hyperbole from Conservs too though. For example, if a Lib wants more reasonable gun laws, many Conservs immediately go into hysterics screaming "That's the road to destruction! The next step will be taking all the guns away!"
So both sides do it all the time.

Have you considered that it might be that what YOU consider "reasonable gun control" is, in fact, one step away from gun-grabbing? It's not disagreeing with something that makes it hyperbole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

thats a good christian attitude you have there. a guy gets fired because his boss made some bad business decision and your solution is oh well fuck 'em, its his own fault.

Don't even TRY that "government aid is the Christian thing to do" bullshit on ME, Reverend Dumbfuck. You show me anywhere that the Bible a) indicates that charity should be run through the government, and b) it's acceptable for people to sit on their dead asses and demand the fruits of others' labor for themselves, and we'll talk, but until then, I am deeply and spectacularly unimpressed by Satan spouting Scripture.

You just describe the Koch brothers and the Walton family.

Wow, Sparkles. You made even less sense than usual. Did you have help, or was this a moment of inspiration for you?

 

[Liability]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating ?

Their idea of being "open minded" is very much like the brick wall.

 

[Cecilie1200]

thats a good christian attitude you have there. a guy gets fired because his boss made some bad business decision and your solution is oh well fuck 'em, its his own fault.

Don't even TRY that "government aid is the Christian thing to do" bullshit on ME, Reverend Dumbfuck. You show me anywhere that the Bible a) indicates that charity should be run through the government, and b) it's acceptable for people to sit on their dead asses and demand the fruits of others' labor for themselves, and we'll talk, but until then, I am deeply and spectacularly unimpressed by Satan spouting Scripture.

show me where in the bible anything that actually happened was true.... its a nice piece if fiction if you like a long read....

You don't get to have it both ways, fool. Either you want to justify your bullshit by way of the Bible, in which case you're talking out of your ass and monumentally don't understand your subject matter, or the Bible is just a bunch of stupid nonsense, in which case you shouldn't have brought it up at all. No matter which way you go, you're a fucking moron without a leg to stand on. Congratulations on that truly epic public humiliation.

 

[Vidi]

Don't even TRY that "government aid is the Christian thing to do" bullshit on ME, Reverend Dumbfuck. You show me anywhere that the Bible a) indicates that charity should be run through the government, and b) it's acceptable for people to sit on their dead asses and demand the fruits of others' labor for themselves, and we'll talk, but until then, I am deeply and spectacularly unimpressed by Satan spouting Scripture.

You just describe the Koch brothers and the Walton family.

Wow, Sparkles. You made even less sense than usual. Did you have help, or was this a moment of inspiration for you?

It was the giant rabbit this time. Just can't keep a good bunny down.

But hey, if he's talking above you let me know, I'll translate it into infant for you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You just describe the Koch brothers and the Walton family.

Wow, Sparkles. You made even less sense than usual. Did you have help, or was this a moment of inspiration for you?

It was the giant rabbit this time. Just can't keep a good bunny down.

But hey, if he's talking above you let me know, I'll translate it into infant for you.

My God, you get more pathetic with every word. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

 

[Vidi]

Wow, Sparkles. You made even less sense than usual. Did you have help, or was this a moment of inspiration for you?

It was the giant rabbit this time. Just can't keep a good bunny down.

But hey, if he's talking above you let me know, I'll translate it into infant for you.

My God, you get more pathetic with every word. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Seriously, your insults are boring, uncreative and totally unoriginal. At least make me laugh with them.

 

[koshergrl]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

You know, I do see that from Libs.
I see the same hyperbole from Conservs too though. For example, if a Lib wants more reasonable gun laws, many Conservs immediately go into hysterics screaming "That's the road to destruction! The next step will be taking all the guns away!"
So both sides do it all the time.

Have you considered that it might be that what YOU consider "reasonable gun control" is, in fact, one step away from gun-grabbing? It's not disagreeing with something that makes it hyperbole.

Besides which, standing against the erosion of our rights, and proposing the erosion of them, are NOT the same thing.

IL is just a typical so-called middle of the roader...he's not middle of the road. He's an apologetic progressive, who doesn't have the strength of conviction. He must only condemn vile policy on one side if he condemns equally the other side. It's asinine.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

You know, I do see that from Libs.
I see the same hyperbole from Conservs too though. For example, if a Lib wants more reasonable gun laws, many Conservs immediately go into hysterics screaming "That's the road to destruction! The next step will be taking all the guns away!"
So both sides do it all the time.

Have you considered that it might be that what YOU consider "reasonable gun control" is, in fact, one step away from gun-grabbing? It's not disagreeing with something that makes it hyperbole.

I consider not carrying machine guns into bars reasonable. There I go, "gun-grabbing"!

No. You're wrong. There are whackjobs on both sides. Lots of Conservatives here are complete whackjobs who use hyperbole all the time. If you don't like Ron Paul, you're a statist who hates freedom. If you have a friend who happens to be Muslim, you're a terrorist by association. If you thought the government health care you got in the Navy seemed pretty good, you want the government to control your whole life. Lots of whacky BS like that from lots of Conservative posters. Exactly the stuff the OP claims only Libs do.
The Conservative whackjobs are absolutely no different than this RightWingConspiracy fellow who claims I'm an evil corporate bastardwho hates the Earth because he found out I own a successful company and drive a Mercedes S-Class. Or the guy who said i hate American workers when I dared to claim that the Teamsters might not be holy and the UAW has abused its' power.
Both sides are the same to Independents. While we focus on the merit of an issue or the logic of a position, the extremists attack anything that doesn't fall in line with the opinions fed to them by their thought masters.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry Joe, the thread is moving pretty fast, but I didn't see this as an answer to my question. You were not addressing the issue of whether entitlements are or are not mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

Well, I can see why you ignored this for so long, if this was the best answer you can come up with. You are beating up the strawman of the imaginary Welfare Queen, who was a fraud when Reagan made her up in the 1980's.

You again gave me the litany of the evil Republican, the evil boss, and your opinion of why there are entitlements. These all can be related to the issue of entitlements but are separate topics. You did touch on a concept that you don't agree with Democrats/socialists/leftists who think everybody should go on welfare or the world owes us a living. Again this can be related to entitlements but is a different thing.

More avoidance. Here's the thing. There are entitlements so we don't have riots in the street. Obviously, you are probalby too young to remember the 1960's. The flip side of my Dad making enough to send us all to Wisconsin in the summer of 1968, the reason he started doing that was because riots from the underclass made it necessary. (I remember my dad showing my mom how to use a gun in case the rioters made it into our SW Side neighborhood while he was at work.) So the purpose of entitlements for the upper classes was to keep the lower classes mollified. What should have been done was expanding the middle class to include them, not shrinking the middle class to drive the people who had made it there out.

You took a shot a me that I was 'whining about entitlements.'

You did not address, either agree or disagree, with the specific statement that entitlements themselves are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

Because you see them as a cause, I see them as a side effect. There should be entitlements for those who can't work. People living off of them for life is bad, but it's not like we are putting them to work, is it. I'd be happy if every welfare person was required to perform a certain amount of labor in return for his keep. But that's not the purpose. The purpose is to keep a certain pool of unemployables to threaten the employed with.

I also think part of the problem is that it's only "welfare" if the other guy gets it. The person who happily applies for Unemployment when his Plutocrat boss decides he has no use for him.. but then looks down on the lady getting food stamps.

And again this brings us back to the topic of the thread which is why arguing with liberals is so frustrating.

In the way I look at it as a conservative, as entitlements have been the means government uses to solve many of the problems that you, Jillian, and others have expressed, I think we need to look at those entitlements to see if they are actually providing solutions or whether they are doing more harm than good,. Until we agree on the answer to that, we will likely not look for the best solutions to those problems.

You see the entitlement as the cause, I see them as the symptom of the problem. The problem is the vast wealth inequality in this country and the systematic destruction of the middle class. Entitlements are how goverment is keeping their from being riots in the street.

 

[ecinicola]

It is the mind-set of individuals as to what party you belong to and also how you were raised to think. Personally i think the two party system is horrible. It pits people against one another and not how it should be. Taking sides and going against one or the other instead of standing together as american citizens, just isn't right. I am obligated to no party. I am an independent because i stand as an american citizen, not as party affliation.
It appears the democrats are the enemy and vise verse, and that is just wrong. We should not be enemys of one another, but stand united as american citizens. Vote for the person, not the party. I did not vote for obama, and not because of any reason, other then my views of him as the wrong person for leader of this country. As it turns out, i was right.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is the mind-set of individuals as to what party you belong to and also how you were raised to think. Personally i think the two party system is horrible. It pits people against one another and not how it should be. Taking sides and going against one or the other instead of standing together as american citizens, just isn't right. I am obligated to no party. I am an independent because i stand as an american citizen, not as party affliation.
It appears the democrats are the enemy and vise verse, and that is just wrong. We should not be enemys of one another, but stand united as american citizens. Vote for the person, not the party. I did not vote for obama, and not because of any reason, other then my views of him as the wrong person for leader of this country. As it turns out, i was right.

You are correct that the 'party spirit' (that the Apostle Paul warned us about) has become divisive and very counter productive in this country. And I think it has become divisive and counter productive because of entitlements and giveaways.

We have around half the country now dependent on some kind of entitlement and elected and appointed leaders at the national level who are enriching themselves at our expense and whose primary focus is continuing that enrichment rather than being public servants for the benefit of the country. And they do that by promising more and better entitlements and giveaways while attempting to paint the opposing party as the ones who will take those away.

JoeB says entitlements are necessary to prevent riots in the streets. He also thinks I am too young to remember the 'riots' of the 60's which is really amusing. I not only remember them but I was part of the media studying the phenomenon which had nothing to do with the lack of entitlements, and everything to do with a counter culture revoloution that attacked almost all America values and the institutions that expressed them as well as protests of the Vietnam War.

Prior to that, there was much more poverty as we define poverty in America, but far less crime and violence. And America did not represent upper class and under class but only degrees of prosperity with all having opportunity to aspire to it.

In my opinion when the government has to pay people to not riot, to be civil, to obey the law, to appease the 'underclass', we are doomed as the America many of us once knew.

 

[KevinWestern]

It is the mind-set of individuals as to what party you belong to and also how you were raised to think. Personally i think the two party system is horrible. It pits people against one another and not how it should be. Taking sides and going against one or the other instead of standing together as american citizens, just isn't right. I am obligated to no party. I am an independent because i stand as an american citizen, not as party affliation.
It appears the democrats are the enemy and vise verse, and that is just wrong. We should not be enemys of one another, but stand united as american citizens. Vote for the person, not the party. I did not vote for obama, and not because of any reason, other then my views of him as the wrong person for leader of this country. As it turns out, i was right.

You are correct that the 'party spirit' (that the Apostle Paul warned us about) has become divisive and very counter productive in this country. And I think it has become divisive and counter productive because of entitlements and giveaways.

We have around half the country now dependent on some kind of entitlement and elected and appointed leaders at the national level who are enriching themselves at our expense and whose primary focus is continuing that enrichment rather than being public servants for the benefit of the country. And they do that by promising more and better entitlements and giveaways while attempting to paint the opposing party as the ones who will take those away.

JoeB says entitlements are necessary to prevent riots in the streets. He also thinks I am too young to remember the 'riots' of the 60's which is really amusing. I not only remember them but I was part of the media studying the phenomenon which had nothing to do with the lack of entitlements, and everything to do with a counter culture revoloution that attacked almost all America values and the institutions that expressed them as well as protests of the Vietnam War.

Prior to that, there was much more poverty as we define poverty in America, but far less crime and violence. And America did not represent upper class and under class but only degrees of prosperity with all having opportunity to aspire to it.

In my opinion when the government has to pay people to not riot, to be civil, to obey the law, to appease the 'underclass', we are doomed as the America many of us once knew.

Hey I'm 26 and I'm all for ending entitlements if you want to; including social security. Let's end it right now, because I find it infuriating that I have to pay into these programs every paycheck when likely I will not be receiving anything in return when I hit retirement age.

People my age setup 401k's, because we understand that you can only depend on yourself for your twilight years - not a Federal Government. The "millennials" - as they call the group - are not as dependent on entitlements as the generations before, primarily because we can't be.

We've seen first hand growing up just how dysfunctional and petty our government is, with the past 10 years being the climax, how could one in their right mind depend on anything government related? The politicians of the generation currently in power are like children. Just look at Newt Gingrich.

 

[konradv]

Hey I'm 26 and I'm all for ending entitlements if you want to; including social security. Let's end it right now, because I find it infuriating that I have to pay into these programs every paycheck when likely I will not be receiving anything in return when I hit retirement age.

People my age setup 401k's, because we understand that you can only depend on yourself for your twilight years - not a Federal Government. The "millennials" - as they call the group - are not as dependent on entitlements as the generations before, primarily because we can't be.

We've seen first hand growing up just how dysfunctional can be, with the past 10 years being the climax, how could one in their right mind depend on anything government related?

You're going to end up paying extra anyway, 401k or not. They're a scam to help out Wall St. Most people don't have the time, knowledge or patience to take care of one properly. That's work for professionals. Are you saying the failures are going to be allowed starve on the side of the road? I say, no that won't happen. If it does, I'm glad I'll be dead. Don't hold up much hope for such a society where "I got mine" is all that counts.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is the mind-set of individuals as to what party you belong to and also how you were raised to think. Personally i think the two party system is horrible. It pits people against one another and not how it should be. Taking sides and going against one or the other instead of standing together as american citizens, just isn't right. I am obligated to no party. I am an independent because i stand as an american citizen, not as party affliation.
It appears the democrats are the enemy and vise verse, and that is just wrong. We should not be enemys of one another, but stand united as american citizens. Vote for the person, not the party. I did not vote for obama, and not because of any reason, other then my views of him as the wrong person for leader of this country. As it turns out, i was right.

You are correct that the 'party spirit' (that the Apostle Paul warned us about) has become divisive and very counter productive in this country. And I think it has become divisive and counter productive because of entitlements and giveaways.

We have around half the country now dependent on some kind of entitlement and elected and appointed leaders at the national level who are enriching themselves at our expense and whose primary focus is continuing that enrichment rather than being public servants for the benefit of the country. And they do that by promising more and better entitlements and giveaways while attempting to paint the opposing party as the ones who will take those away.

JoeB says entitlements are necessary to prevent riots in the streets. He also thinks I am too young to remember the 'riots' of the 60's which is really amusing. I not only remember them but I was part of the media studying the phenomenon which had nothing to do with the lack of entitlements, and everything to do with a counter culture revoloution that attacked almost all America values and the institutions that expressed them as well as protests of the Vietnam War.

Prior to that, there was much more poverty as we define poverty in America, but far less crime and violence. And America did not represent upper class and under class but only degrees of prosperity with all having opportunity to aspire to it.

In my opinion when the government has to pay people to not riot, to be civil, to obey the law, to appease the 'underclass', we are doomed as the America many of us once knew.

Hey I'm 26 and I'm all for ending entitlements if you want to; including social security. Let's end it right now, because I find it infuriating that I have to pay into these programs every paycheck when likely I will not be receiving anything in return when I hit retirement age.

People my age setup 401k's, because we understand that you can only depend on yourself for your twilight years - not a Federal Government. The "millennials" - as they call the group - are not as dependent on entitlements as the generations before, primarily because we can't be.

We've seen first hand growing up just how dysfunctional and petty our government is, with the past 10 years being the climax, how could one in their right mind depend on anything government related? The politicians of the generation currently in power are like children. Just look at Newt Gingrich.

And think how much more you could be putting into that 401K if you were receiving that 15+% social security deduction instead of it going to the feds. (I know, your employer has to pay half of it, but if he didn't have to pay that, he would be able to pay the employees more and many would.) My husband and I being self employed for the last several years of our working life had to pay it all and it would have been great to have had it to put into our 401Ks.

America has never just allowed people to starve but have always been the most generous and giving of any society on Earth. That was true before there were entitlements and that would be true after entitlements ended. The most significant thing that separates conservatism and liberalism is that liberals seem to think if the federal government doesn't do it, it won't get done. Conservatives believe that there are far better ways to do most things than leaving it to the federal government to do. Most especailly since the federal government swallows up huge amounts of resources just to feed its own bloated bureaucracy and that money isn't then available to help anybody.

A person who put 7 to 10% of his/her wages into an intellegently managed and invested 401K beginning in his/her 20's will almost certainly retire a millionaire. And the money is his/hers to be used as s/he sees fit and to leave to his/her heirs if there is money left over.

A person who depends only on social security will likely retire below or close to the poverty line, will likely qualify for food stamps, and the money is not his/hers to use as s/he sees fit but is doled out in pittances by the government who, by the way, does not HAVE to pay it but could legally end the program at any time and confiscate the money for any other purpose. And if you die before you collect social security or before you collect all that you paid in, the government keeps it. Your heirs don't get it. It is gone. Swallowed up in the bureaucracy.

There simply has to be a better way.

 

[KevinWestern]

You're going to end up paying extra anyway, 401k or not. They're a scam to help out Wall St. Most people don't have the time, knowledge or patience to take care of one properly. That's work for professionals. Are you saying the failures are going to be allowed starve on the side of the road? I say, no that won't happen. If it does, I'm glad I'll be dead. Don't hold up much hope for such a society where "I got mine" is all that counts.

Konradv – I’m not against social safety nets, by any means. And the main point of my post was to illustrate that my generation has lost faith in our government, thanks to the example set by the generation in power, who lead by calling eachother names, overgeneralizing, not compromising, and overall just acting like a large group of overgrown children. I'm not speaking from experience, but from what I know the politicians in the 50's were much more functional, aligned than the politicians of the 90's and 2000's.

I personally believe that the government – in theory – could do a lot of good things; I believe that government involvment in areas like Healthcare might be necessary, primarily because consumers have no idea of price or quality, and therefore the standard free market forces that drive efficiencies in other industries does not exist.

But even if there are some really good ideas out there, they will never be executed. Children suck at taking on complex tasks that require thoughtful back and forth debate, and openness to each other’s ideas. Children are silo-ed extremists who will never be able to successfully carry out any sort of sophisticated plan by working together.

We need adults in Washington. My hope is that when my generation comes of age, we’ll be a bit more civil in our discourse and approach problems intelligently, together. I think growing up in the "internet" age will make us less fearful of our differences than in generations past. This is my hope.

Also, on another note:

I don't think calling 401k a "scam" is correct. It's a legitimate way to make money, and the fees they charge are for the investment services they provide (I don't have time to be constantly watching the market). Plus it's all my generation has, as pensions are a thing of the past, likely along with social security (I predict) in the near future.

 

[Syphon]

You are correct that the 'party spirit' (that the Apostle Paul warned us about) has become divisive and very counter productive in this country. And I think it has become divisive and counter productive because of entitlements and giveaways.

We have around half the country now dependent on some kind of entitlement and elected and appointed leaders at the national level who are enriching themselves at our expense and whose primary focus is continuing that enrichment rather than being public servants for the benefit of the country. And they do that by promising more and better entitlements and giveaways while attempting to paint the opposing party as the ones who will take those away.

JoeB says entitlements are necessary to prevent riots in the streets. He also thinks I am too young to remember the 'riots' of the 60's which is really amusing. I not only remember them but I was part of the media studying the phenomenon which had nothing to do with the lack of entitlements, and everything to do with a counter culture revoloution that attacked almost all America values and the institutions that expressed them as well as protests of the Vietnam War.

Prior to that, there was much more poverty as we define poverty in America, but far less crime and violence. And America did not represent upper class and under class but only degrees of prosperity with all having opportunity to aspire to it.

In my opinion when the government has to pay people to not riot, to be civil, to obey the law, to appease the 'underclass', we are doomed as the America many of us once knew.

Hey I'm 26 and I'm all for ending entitlements if you want to; including social security. Let's end it right now, because I find it infuriating that I have to pay into these programs every paycheck when likely I will not be receiving anything in return when I hit retirement age.

People my age setup 401k's, because we understand that you can only depend on yourself for your twilight years - not a Federal Government. The "millennials" - as they call the group - are not as dependent on entitlements as the generations before, primarily because we can't be.

We've seen first hand growing up just how dysfunctional and petty our government is, with the past 10 years being the climax, how could one in their right mind depend on anything government related? The politicians of the generation currently in power are like children. Just look at Newt Gingrich.

And think how much more you could be putting into that 401K if you were receiving that 15+% social security deduction instead of it going to the feds. (I know, your employer has to pay half of it, but if he didn't have to pay that, he would be able to pay the employees more and many would.) My husband and I being self employed for the last several years of our working life had to pay it all and it would have been great to have had it to put into our 401Ks.

America has never just allowed people to starve but have always been the most generous and giving of any society on Earth. That was true before there were entitlements and that would be true after entitlements ended. The most significant thing that separates conservatism and liberalism is that liberals seem to think if the federal government doesn't do it, it won't get done. Conservatives believe that there are far better ways to do most things than leaving it to the federal government to do. Most especailly since the federal government swallows up huge amounts of resources just to feed its own bloated bureaucracy and that money isn't then available to help anybody.

A person who put 7 to 10% of his/her wages into an intellegently managed and invested 401K beginning in his/her 20's will almost certainly retire a millionaire. And the money is his/hers to be used as s/he sees fit and to leave to his/her heirs if there is money left over.

A person who depends only on social security will likely retire below or close to the poverty line, will likely qualify for food stamps, and the money is not his/hers to use as s/he sees fit but is doled out in pittances by the government who, by the way, does not HAVE to pay it but could legally end the program at any time and confiscate the money for any other purpose. And if you die before you collect social security or before you collect all that you paid in, the government keeps it. Your heirs don't get it. It is gone. Swallowed up in the bureaucracy.

There simply has to be a better way.

social security is currently a 4.2% deduction for employee, the employer pays 6.2%
Social Security Withholding - Payroll Tax Holiday for 2011 and 2012

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey I'm 26 and I'm all for ending entitlements if you want to; including social security. Let's end it right now, because I find it infuriating that I have to pay into these programs every paycheck when likely I will not be receiving anything in return when I hit retirement age.

People my age setup 401k's, because we understand that you can only depend on yourself for your twilight years - not a Federal Government. The "millennials" - as they call the group - are not as dependent on entitlements as the generations before, primarily because we can't be.

We've seen first hand growing up just how dysfunctional and petty our government is, with the past 10 years being the climax, how could one in their right mind depend on anything government related? The politicians of the generation currently in power are like children. Just look at Newt Gingrich.

And think how much more you could be putting into that 401K if you were receiving that 15+% social security deduction instead of it going to the feds. (I know, your employer has to pay half of it, but if he didn't have to pay that, he would be able to pay the employees more and many would.) My husband and I being self employed for the last several years of our working life had to pay it all and it would have been great to have had it to put into our 401Ks.

America has never just allowed people to starve but have always been the most generous and giving of any society on Earth. That was true before there were entitlements and that would be true after entitlements ended. The most significant thing that separates conservatism and liberalism is that liberals seem to think if the federal government doesn't do it, it won't get done. Conservatives believe that there are far better ways to do most things than leaving it to the federal government to do. Most especailly since the federal government swallows up huge amounts of resources just to feed its own bloated bureaucracy and that money isn't then available to help anybody.

A person who put 7 to 10% of his/her wages into an intellegently managed and invested 401K beginning in his/her 20's will almost certainly retire a millionaire. And the money is his/hers to be used as s/he sees fit and to leave to his/her heirs if there is money left over.

A person who depends only on social security will likely retire below or close to the poverty line, will likely qualify for food stamps, and the money is not his/hers to use as s/he sees fit but is doled out in pittances by the government who, by the way, does not HAVE to pay it but could legally end the program at any time and confiscate the money for any other purpose. And if you die before you collect social security or before you collect all that you paid in, the government keeps it. Your heirs don't get it. It is gone. Swallowed up in the bureaucracy.

There simply has to be a better way.

social security is currently a 4.2% deduction for employee, the employer pays 6.2%
Social Security Withholding - Payroll Tax Holiday for 2011 and 2012

And that is a temporary rate established as a bone the President threw to us so he could claim that he cut taxes. Why cut it on social security that is already gushing red ink is anybody's guess, but the tax (including Medicare tax) will go back up to a combined employee/employer rate of 15.3% if the Congress doesn't keep renewing the tax relief. And you can just about guarantee they won't renew it if there is a Republican president and a Democratically controlled House or Senate beginning in January because the Democrats will call it a tax hike and blame it on the President.