To Infinity And Beyond. A Look At The Future Of The Debt

[CarmelHP]

Seems to me that's a management beef we all have with the politicians who've been in charge. Does Bernie Madoff not owe? Did Charles Ponzi not owe? Do the people who took it out of the box and didn't put it back not owe? I certainly didn't give them permission to raid Social Security. You?

Just because someone told you a lie that you liked to hear doesn't mean that people not involved, some yet unborn, should be yoked to that lie to satisfy you.

 

[Bummer]

... ..in fact it was caused by people Bummer and his generation voted into office, ....

Just because someone told you a lie that you liked to hear doesn't mean that people not involved, some yet unborn, should be yoked to that lie to satisfy you.

Sorry kids, I've voted Libertarian since the Seventies. I haven't voted for so much as one Republican since 1978. I walked away from the Democrats before that. The Libertarians have been against continuing Social Security from their beginning, as was discussed at length in the party newsletter way back when the Nation could have ended the scam honorably. The folks who did this are those who voted Democrat and Republican, including those who voted for what they saw as the lesser evil. Turns out it really was still evil. It also turns out nobody really wants to admit it. What a surprise.

Again, I do not expect to get back so much as one red cent. Like the grandparents and perhaps parents of those so keen to turn away, I'll accept what I am able to get back, and I'll do it knowing it is owed me.

And again, I'm arguing against the statement that it's Welfare for the Elderly. I'm arguing that those who voted for those who did this are engaged in self serving denial of responsibility.

 

[CarmelHP]

And again, I'm arguing against the statement that it's Welfare for the Elderly. I'm arguing that those who voted for those who did this are engaged in self serving denial of responsibility.

I don't know about you, but I wasn't voting in the '30's when SS was implemented, or in the '60's when it was greatly expanded. I was never in the cohort of "senior citizens" (though that time for me is rapidly approaching) who argued vehemently, just like you, that they deserve a big payout because they paid some money in even though it's much less than what they're likely to receive. It's a wealth transfer of tax dollars from one generation to another, and from the less wealthy to the more wealthy on average. I don't know what your definition of welfare is, but that's exactly what the program is, a public welfare program. It's immoral.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sorry kids, I've voted Libertarian since the Seventies. I haven't voted for so much as one Republican since 1978. I walked away from the Democrats before that. The Libertarians have been against continuing Social Security from their beginning, as was discussed at length in the party newsletter way back when the Nation could have ended the scam honorably. The folks who did this are those who voted Democrat and Republican, including those who voted for what they saw as the lesser evil. Turns out it really was still evil. It also turns out nobody really wants to admit it. What a surprise.

Again, I do not expect to get back so much as one red cent. Like the grandparents and perhaps parents of those so keen to turn away, I'll accept what I am able to get back, and I'll do it knowing it is owed me.

And again, I'm arguing against the statement that it's Welfare for the Elderly. I'm arguing that those who voted for those who did this are engaged in self serving denial of responsibility.

I don't consider my self a libertarian, but I do agree with many of the positions that I hear self-described libertarian speakers and writers take. I thought one of the common libertarian beliefs is, when it comes to social spending, that the government should have no power to do for one person to another, that the person does not have the right to do for him/her self.

Said another way, I have no right to forcibly take money from you to enrich (i.e. subsidize, feed, house, provide a cell phone, healthcare, etc.) another person of my choosing without your consent, right? That's called robbery. And if I use the threat of force to do it, depending on the circumstances, could be considered armed robbery. (I doubt the judge would care how good my intentions were). Well, if the government does it, what's the difference? Does it make it OK that a majority of voters said it's OK to forcibly take from one person to give to another?

 

[ATOMonkey]

You know what else is awesome?

We paid $454 Billion in just interest last year. You want to guess what the rate on that was?

You want to guess what direction interest rates are going to go?

 

[chraland51]

Social Security may be very much like a Ponzi scheme. We all know that and began wondering in the 70s how in the world it could continue when someone finally admitted that the population was aging and the burden would be ever increasing on the ever decreasing number of citizens paying into that very flawed system. Our gutless and spineless elected officials are also making that same money available to a lot of people who never paid one cent into the system including illegal aliens. No one ever asked me if I wanted to give up a portion of my paycheck to social security for the last 45 years. Our government made a deal and commitment to me. I have become dependent on the expectation of getting some of it back as they promised. I am getting ready to retire in a couple of years and expect the federal government to keep its promise to me. This is not an entitlement. It is a contract. For years, I have been getting statements in the mail telling me just how much I will get if I retire at 62, 66 and 70. I have other sources of retirement income, but the loss of social security would make it very difficult to do anything, but just get by. It would make me very angry if our elected officials would make more deep cuts into my retirement like taxing it more than they currently do. They could make it easier to take if they make the same cuts in their own pensions and health care benefits in an equally proportionate manner. Don't hold your breath on that, however. Another thing that I would like to see is that anyone who is receiving government welfare (excluding social security and medicare) not be allowed to vote or at the most have their vote count only half as much as a real working taxpayer. That would limit the impact of the sleazy political class when they literally buy votes by promising the societal leeches and parasites money they have forcefully taken from my pockets. The workers and contributors need to have the majority of the vote to determine how THEIR money is used. For years, my government screwed my parents out of a bunch of retirement money because they were "notch babies" born in 1928. I forget how that worked, but I do remember a lot of politicians promising to correct that mistake and go for also giving them their back payments just to suck up their votes. This has all but died out in the last several years as the notch babies are quickly declining in number, just like our great veterans of WWII. Soon, the historical revisionists will be able to change history with the stroke of the computer keys--whatever that has to do with notch babies.

 

[ATOMonkey]

How is medicare not welfare? Is that another one of those "well I paid into it" kind of things?

I pay into a lot of stuff that I'll never see dime one from. I'm not sure how this kind of logic works.

Should I be gunning for some Medicaid, SCHIP, UE, etc money? Afterall, I did pay into the system...

I'd also like some free plane rides from the DOD the next time I go on vacation since I paid into that as well.

What else...hhhhhmmmm.... Oh yeah! I think I've got at least 2 or 3 meals coming my way from all the farm subsidy I've paid.

 

[Lex Concord]

Wow, I hadn't thought about it but the little Buzz Lightyear quote really highlights the reality.

Obama's not worried about deficit or debt because he's so narcissistic he thinks he can both fly and count to infinity.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

If you are going to use red pills yourself ...

... can I drop by and pick up your stuff ??

But <snip> More bread and circuses from the Establishment to keep people from taking the red pill and and escaping their reality...

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Run ...

... for, and get elected to ☭ongress and you can. Or start your own religion. EBG

May I now exercise my free will, opt out of "social security", keep my property and be responsible for my own security?

 

[EvilBlackGun]

But the remedy is so simple that ...

... even congress can't understand it: " Hey! You there in congress! Put back IN all our $$$$ that you borrowed and left an I.O.U. for. Remember, you said it was just sitting there, unused? Just put it back into the S.S. kitty. Oh, and don't you forget to put back in the interest also. Just take the needed amount out of your generous stipends and retirements. Yeah, THAT'S the ticket."

I want mine back, too. The problem is that it's all gone, stolen by previous generations.

I'm not too interested in stealing from my daughter.

 

[Bummer]

I don't know about you, but I wasn't voting in the '30's when SS was implemented, or in the '60's when it was greatly expanded.

The Republicans have had plenty of time to do something about it. They could have done something in the '70s. They could have done something in the '80s. They could have done something in the '90s. They could have done something in the '00s. They really aren't doing all that much right now. The lesser evil accepted the status quo. The lesser evil shares the guilt for the result, as do those who chose that lesser evil.

I was never in the cohort of "senior citizens" (though that time for me is rapidly approaching) who argued vehemently, just like you, that they deserve a big payout because they paid some money in even though it's much less than what they're likely to receive.

That's not what I've said at all. I've said I paid in for over forty years. I've said I expect to get nothing. Exactly how is that vehemently arguing that I deserve a payout much larger than I've paid in? I will gleefully accept the return of the original amount. I'll even forgo the interest, though it would only be fair (guffaw snort wheeze). Still, I expect nothing at all.

The only thing vehement I've seen in this thread is in the attempt to distort what I'm trying to say.

It's a wealth transfer of tax dollars from one generation to another, and from the less wealthy to the more wealthy on average.

Our wealth has been transferred to other generations. Have you discussed the immorality of the Social Security Welfare scheme with your parents? Your grandparents?

My father was a Democrat. He paid in and got nothing in return. He had no complaints, since he was willing to give of himself for the greater good. His choice. My mother was a Democrat. She paid in and got little in return. She had no complaints, since she was willing to give of herself for the greater good. Her choice. I'm a libertarian. Doesn't look like I'll get a choice, I just get to donate. Seems fair, in a Republican sort of way.

I don't know what your definition of welfare is, but that's exactly what the program is, a public welfare program. It's immoral.

A debt owed is not welfare. The collection of a debt is not immoral, though the characterization of the collection of a debt as welfare may well be.

I don't know what your definition of BS is, but I'll bet you can guess what mine is.

 

[CarmelHP]

The Republicans have had plenty of time to do something about it. They could have done something in the '70s. They could have done something in the '80s. They could have done something in the '90s. They could have done something in the '00s. They really aren't doing all that much right now. The lesser evil accepted the status quo. The lesser evil shares the guilt for the result, as do those who chose that lesser evil.

Oh boy, you've done a lot to fix it.

That's not what I've said at all. I've said I paid in for over forty years. I've said I expect to get nothing. Exactly how is that vehemently arguing that I deserve a payout much larger than I've paid in? I will gleefully accept the return of the original amount. I'll even forgo the interest, though it would only be fair (guffaw snort wheeze). Still, I expect nothing at all.

The only thing vehement I've seen in this thread is in the attempt to distort what I'm trying to say.

Distort? Why? Because you want it both ways? You want to say, "it's not my fault it's not fixed" AND "I'll milk it for all it's worth if I can because it's owed me." Nothing is owed you.

Our wealth has been transferred to other generations. Have you discussed the immorality of the Social Security Welfare scheme with your parents? Your grandparents?

Grandparents were all gone before I was on the scene, none collected a dime. My parents are also long gone so it would be a very one-sided conversation. But thank you for asking.

My father was a Democrat. He paid in and got nothing in return. He had no complaints, since he was willing to give of himself for the greater good. His choice. My mother was a Democrat. She paid in and got little in return. She had no complaints, since she was willing to give of herself for the greater good. Her choice. I'm a libertarian. Doesn't look like I'll get a choice, I just get to donate. Seems fair, in a Republican sort of way.

So, the Democrats built it, expanded it, ran it into the ground, the Republicans are the only ones who ever cut in back (in 1981-82) and they get all the blame. Boy, you're fair minded, ain't ya?

A debt owed is not welfare. The collection of a debt is not immoral, though the characterization of the collection of a debt as welfare may well be.

A debt is created by a loan. Someone tell you you were making a loan? Now I've heard it all. You have a note, a bond maybe?

I don't know what your definition of BS is, but I'll bet you can guess what mine is.

Calling something a debt that you know isn't? BS is what you're peddling.

 

[dross]

A debt is created by a loan. Someone tell you you were making a loan? Now I've heard it all. You have a note, a bond maybe?

Calling something a debt that you know isn't? BS is what you're peddling.

That's a pretty neat trick:

Hello, nice to meet you, you owe me a bunch of money.

How come I owe you money?

You were born, then you started working.

So let me get this straight, before I was born other people had money and spent it, so now I owe that money back? Money I never used, spent before I was born?

Yes.

So the generation before you took yours.

Yes.

And the generation before them took theirs?

Well...not exactly. The generation before me didn't put in very much, but they took a lot out. They spent a lot of money on lots of other things, then took a lot of money they didn't put in for their retirement. Then my generation owed that money back to them.

Who will pay me when it's time for me to retire?

Just tell your kids they owe you, like you owe us.

But you guys were the largest generation in history. There aren't enough kids in the future for us to steal ours from.

Not our problem. Stop whining. Your generation is so selfish. You've been whining like that since we started leaving you home by yourselves while we went to find fulfillment in life. You whined as kids when you were spending all that time alone after school, and cooking your own dinner, and now you're whining 'cause you owe a debt, you whine about the wars my generation sends you to fight (now Vietnam, that was a real war, so real we could only do a year then come home, not dilly dally over there for years at a time like you guys) you whine about the debt you owe my generation, and you're probably going to whine when you're old 'cause you won't have the balls to take what you're owed from the next generation. You guys are such selfish little crybabys.