Posted on 11/18/2020 4:00:52 AM PST by RoosterRedux
So you non answer implies there is no difference. Checkmate.
“B-b-b-but someone didnt make enough to live like they want in old age and it’s all due to systemic gender-trans-racial-gay-lesbian-whositwhatsit-ism”
Then we are right back to socialism....
That should remove any doubt that “conservatives” in America are socialists too.
Thanks to a divorce 25 years ago, I was wiped out and all I have (I’m now 67) is social security as my retirement plan. Well, that and I moved to an area with a very low cost of living and I paid off all debt - and acquired more land than I need, also debt free, as a possible income generator.
But I have been against SS my whole life. If I’d put that same amount of money just in a bank savings account, divorce notwithstanding, I’d have a LOT more money than SS is giving me.
I’m a huge proponent of increasing the SS retirement age incrementally until virtually nobody receives it because virtually nobody lives that long. Come to think of it, that is how it stared. The average lifespan was lower than the retirement age when SS began.
But yeah, I’m against any Government plan that gives money directly to individuals. Parks, Roads, etc are not like that.
Idiotic.
How many Americans are waiting until the magic date so they can get the “free” stuff from medicare?
The average conservative is not very far removed from a practical standpoint from a fire-breathing AOC socialist. They hate to admit it, but its true.
Ask them if Social Security should be in individual accounts, with property rights, instead of an pay as you go system, where the money belongs to the state, and you will get a much different answer.
Correct...like the Georgia governor and sec of state...sold out...I’d even say they are fascists.
Conservatives, OTOH, are free-market, free-thinking, constitutionalists and are patriots and will protect the republic...
The rebuttal reply is usually, "well, I paid into social security so I should get it."
I reply, "No, you didn't pay into the system...your money was taken from you. It is not voluntary."
It is all a continuum.
You can claim society is on the road to socialism when they make public roads. That does not make it true.
“Ask them if Social Security should be in individual accounts, with property rights, instead of an pay as you go system, where the money belongs to the state, and you will get a much different answer”
And institutionalize inequality? Why should someone who didnt work as hard as you get less in retirement?
Yeah, it’s a rhetorical question. You know we are so socialist already that this would not fly
+1
Socialism in the US has its roots going way back in the 19th Century. Authors like Emerson long embraced extremist socialist ideas, which even then were destructive, hateful insanity. By the time of the Civil War, socialism offered things like a justification of slavery, and feudal rule by the 10% of elites over the 90% of everyone else.
Of course any objective analysis of their claptrap showed that it was worthless, but this did not deter them in the slightest.
The big schism in socialism began just before the turn of the 20th Century in both Europe and the US, in the latter called “progressivism”. In Europe the split was between the National Socialists (fascists) and the Socialist-Communists.
In the US, nationalist socialists embraced Teddy Roosevelt, and internationalist socialists embraced Woodrow Wilson.
It should be mentioned that in the US, both the far left and right were minorities in their respective political parties, the vast majority of centrists not supporting either philosophy.
With the utter failure of Russian communism under Lenin, progressive leftists in the US did try developing fascist economic ideas in the great depression, but they were almost as bad as the communist ideas.
Yet the vast conservative center remains, with no interest in the failed 19th Century philosophies of socialist progressivism.
Ask before someone has paid into the system all their working life. If I would have been able to add that tax to my investments, I wouldn’t need(aka want) SS.
Excellent summation.
Until recently, it has always been extremely taboo to openly talk about the lack of knowledge of American voters because so many people wanted to use the “the American people will not stand for this!” moniker as if it had significance in swaying politicians; however, I have always had a deeply cynical view of peoples’ judgement, especially on civic matters.
I would be willing to see Social Security benefits reduced or eliminated, even though I'm going to retire soon.
THEN, I would go for SS being eliminated.
Deal?
LOL, so true. That has been going on for days around here.
I consider socialism as an economics system where the majority of all production is done under the direction of government planners.
To me Social Security is a collectivist, wealth-redistriubtion program. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but one deals with the means of production the other (more narrowly) deals with wealth-redistribution.
Now it’s true that one could have so many wealth-redistribution programs in a nation that the EFFECT is little different than socialist planning. But I don’t think we’re anywhere near that yet.
The social security system is socialism, but it is so ingrained into our system, that without a total shooting revolution, it will continue.
It is extremely difficult to clean out socialist programs, i.e. subsidies for college, medicade, free ______.
Speak for yourself, Gindler, kkthx.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.