If you retire while I'm still working, your revenge will be taking money out of my pocket. I will call you a leech and a looter and will be correct in doing so.
No, you are wrong in calling him a leech. He entered into a contract with the gov against his will, as I was forced to do, when he started working.
A certain amount was stolen from him over the years and he was promised a certain amount would be stolen form others to reimburse him.
He and I didn't design the f*cking system, didn't elect to participate in the f*cking system, and you have no right calling those those that were stolen from earlier leeches.
Grow up or go away.
Really!? Show me the contract. Tell me how much is in your Social Security account that is owed to you. Further, show me the portion of the Constitution that granted the Federal Government or any of its agencies the authority to enter into such an agreement with you.
A certain amount was stolen from him over the years and he was promised a certain amount would be stolen from others to reimburse him.
So, a little bit (actually a lot) of stealing is OK just like a little bit of socialism is OK!?
Thieves, looters, and leeches are what they are no matter who they hire as their agents to commit the actual theft. That you would excuse such a system so long as you get what you think is owed to you - what you believe you are entitled to - just proves the point made by the author of this article. Socialism permeates America, the Republican Party, and even Free Republic.
He and I didn't design the f*cking system, didn't elect to participate in the f*cking system, and you have no right calling those those that were stolen from earlier leeches. Grow up or go away.
Leech. Looter. Thief.
Those that made stole the money from him and made the "promise" had no real authority to do so. Unfortunately, this leaves a very real quandary since digging up FDR and selling off his gold teeth or any jewelry with which he might be buried wouldn't make the slightest dent in Social Security's systemic debt [might still be a good idea, but . . .]
Essentially, the issue is this: the government has promised people more money than it has or can morally claim title to. Someone is going to have to pay the price for the government's malfeasance. The only equitable thing I can see to do is divvy up the "pain" among workers and retirees.