 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
I agree with this 100%.Originally Posted by Franco
And medicare forced changes in our health care system that have caused many problems ( some of it with more charges ). I did not want medicare
in the first place. We had our own insurance through the company my husband worked for. Of course the company jumped on the band wagon because they thought it was going to save them money where we retirees were concerned.
No Hew, you’re not using my logic. I see where you were trying to go with that, but your analogy doesn’t quite work.
If I openly opposed to the war, then found a way to profit or benefit from it, that would make me a hypocrite. In your example, I’m actually taking in the shorts twice. I opposed going into Iraq, then I’m required to pay taxes, a portion of which funds the war. It’s a lose – lose situation.
Also, you have the legal right not to apply for SS benefits, if you don’t want to. No one is going to force you take them, and no one is going to penalize you if you don’t. However, you don’t have the legal right not to pay your taxes. Therein lies the difference.
Oh, you can lower the BS flag now.
In both cases the govt. is compelling you to spend your money on something you don't personally agree with. You spent it on the war. He spent it on SS. Plain and simple. Cut and dried. Perfectly apt analogy. So which are you; hypocrite or tax scofflaw?
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
Hmmm. Don't know about your neck of the woods, but Public education is doing pretty good out here in Oregon. I've got two boys, both in college on their way to good careers and public education played a big role in that. Of course I like to think our home had a lot to do with it as well. Lots of kids don't do well in public education but it is not because the opportunity wasn't there. It is because they failed to take advantage of it. A second example of something the government has done well are our public police and fire departments. They are functioning quite well. A third example I would submit is Social Security. To my knowledge the Government has never missed a payment or defaulted on a SS account in what, 75 years? How many private pensions can make that claim. A forth example could be VA Medical. Every veteren I"ve talked to says they love their VA medical benefits. And another would be Medicare. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say they want to forgo their medicare coverage for Private Insurance.
Granted, government screws up a lot. But they do get it right a lot too.
Medicaid may be govt-paid, but SS and Medicare are programs into which the beneficiaries paid out of their pre-tax income.I recently listened to an interview with an author that wrote a book about the demographics of the Tea Party membership. According to the author, about 20% are over age 65, receive Social Security, and receive some form of Medicaid and/or Medicare related benefits. Yet, they say they are against gov. programs because they are just a form of socialism.
Remember, you do not get to deduct what you pay into SS and Medicare from your gross income. So, you are taxed on those amounts ... but yet compelled by law to pay those amounts.
And, when you sign up for Medicare at age 65 it's really not "free" ... you must also pay a certain amount each month for "Part B". Since Part A & B only pay minimal coverage, you still really need supplemental coverage & prescription drug coverage. The total can vary by what kind of coverage you choose, but moderate coverage ends up being about $300 - $400/month.
Realistically, most people, if compelled to live on SS only would be quite a bit below the standard of living they were used to before retirement.
SS would be in much better shape if the coffers hadn't been raided for the general budget. It would also be in better shape if additional benefits hadn't been added when the finances looked pretty rosy.
G.Clinchy@gmail.com
"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim
I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.
I am neither. Where is the hypocrisy in being forced to pay for something you don’t support? It may be ironic, but it is not hypocritical.
Apparently you misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that it is hypocritical to be adamantly against something, yet willingly accept the benefits it provides.
On one hand, he is opposed SS, but is willing to accept SS benefits. On the other hand I opposed going to Iraq, but I am not accepting any benefit or profiting in any way from the Iraq war. So, how is that an apt analogy? Yes, we are both forced to pay for something we didn’t support, but one makes the CHOICE to reap the benefit of the program he was against (which is what makes it hypocritical), and the other reaps no benefits. You can’t just pick the part of the 2 scenarios that are similar, leave out the dissimilar parts, then say they are analogous. Cut and dried, plain and simple, the 2 are not analogous.
And you can't pick out the minor dissimilarities that aren't particularly germane to the point as your proof that something isn't analogous. There are a million things that separate an African Elephant from an Asian Elephant, but in the end, they're both elephants. There are a million things that separate SS and war funding, but in the end, they're both examples of the government compelling people to pay for something they don't agree with.
PS....since you wouldn't choose between hypocrite and scofflaw, I picked for you.
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
And you can't pick out the minor dissimilarities that aren't particularly germane to the point as your proof that something isn't analogous. There are a million things that separate an African Elephant from an Asian Elephant, but in the end, they're both elephants. There are a million things that separate SS and war funding, but in the end, they're both examples of the government compelling people to pay for something they don't agree with.
PS....since you wouldn't choose between hypocrite and scofflaw, I picked for you.
Another little difference between war funding and SS, is that SS saves lives and gives people a means to stay off the street, and doesn't result in the devastation and destruction of lives and infrastructure. Not germane to this discussion, I realize, but thought it was worth tossing into the mix.
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
Good point, because everyone knows that nothing beneficial has ever come from military conflict...well, except for the ending of slavery, facism, nazism, communist expansionism, yada, yada, yada.Another little difference between war funding and SS, is that SS saves lives and gives people a means to stay off the street, and doesn't result in the devastation and destruction of lives and infrastructure. Not germane to this discussion, I realize, but thought it was worth tossing into the mix.
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
And what of those benefits did WE, as US citizens, derive from the multi-trillion war in Iraq? I was not aware that Iraq was using Americans as slaves, or invading our country in hopes of an ovethrow, or in any other way posing a threat to us??
On the other hand, there are millions of Americans who have a roof over their head and warm food on their plate because of SS. To me, the benefits of SS are a little more clear than the Iraq war.
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote