• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

haymarket said:
It is not at all the case with Social Security as people enter into a commitment with the government and pay a certain amount set by the government for over forty years and in return receive an amount back based on their pay in.
Click to expand...

No, the people paying into it are subsidising the people collecting now. Folks just don't like paying into it for 40 years and the possibility of not getting their chance to feed at the trough. It can be hard to give it up but think of the children.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
Sorry, you can only count the people who are paying taxes. According to your definition, if a city was wiped out by H-bomb that would be a progressive tax cut. :peace
Click to expand...

That is an incoherent post.:peace
 
reinoe said:
No, the people paying into it are subsidising the people collecting now. Folks just don't like paying into it for 40 years and the possibility of not getting their change to feed at the trough. It can be hard to give it up but think of the children.
Click to expand...

No, the people collecting now are collecting on a loan they made to the government over the course of their working lifetime.
 
reinoe said:
No, the people paying into it are subsidising the people collecting now. Folks just don't like paying into it for 40 years and the possibility of not getting their chance to feed at the trough. It can be hard to give it up but think of the children.
Click to expand...

So you would not have us honor our commitments to the American people who honored theirs and fulfilled their part of the bargain?
 
clownboy said:
No, the people collecting now are collecting on a loan they made to the government over the course of their working lifetime.
Click to expand...

When Social Security was first enacted, were the people collecting getting a payback on a loan? No they were not.
 
haymarket said:
So you would not have us honor our commitments to the American people who honored theirs and fulfilled their part of the bargain?
Click to expand...
It's hard to get people to stop feeding at the trough. It wasn't a commitment. Anyone who worked a job was forced against their will to contribute.
 
Grant said:
Of course they didn't. You seem to be confused between the government paying people with taxpayers dollars and companies creating jobs without taxpayer dollars.

If jobs was all there is to it then the government could hire 20 million people today and there would be full employment. You reckon that would work?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not confused all, maybe we are communicating.. I'm simply saying that if it were not for the Federal government and it's investment in space, we would not have the millions of jobs in the various technologies today. Years ago Senator Al Gore created a bill that appropriated money which was used to take a military system and converting it to the internet.
 
haymarket said:
Your phrase "simply hand out tax revenues" implies that a person does not deserve those revenues and has not earned them. That is not the case with Social Security. Not only is that not robbery but it is not what you describe either.

Or don't you believe in both parties honoring their commitments to each other?
Click to expand...

It's legit for the government to collect taxes to cover the costs of governing. But for it to collect taxes for the sake of handing out money is too close to outright theft for me to consider it ethical.
 
haymarket said:
When people voluntarily join with others in a group endeavor they automatically agree to give up some of their wants and needs and autonomy for the benefits of the group. Your membership and participation is purely voluntary and you can change that at any time you may wish.
Click to expand...

The CSA would disagree with you. ;)
 
reinoe said:
When Social Security was first enacted, were the people collecting getting a payback on a loan? No they were not.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but for the generations that followed that was indeed the case. Btw, the first recipient got a check for a whopping $22.40.
 
reinoe said:
It's hard to get people to stop feeding at the trough. It wasn't a commitment. Anyone who worked a job was forced against their will to contribute.
Click to expand...

Yep, forced contribution to the general fund.
 
clownboy said:
Perhaps, but for the generations that followed that was indeed the case. Btw, the first recipient got a check for a whopping $22.40.
Click to expand...

Which in todays dollars would be an astounding 473 today. Not bad considering Mae Fuller didn't pay a cent into the program.
 
haymarket said:
It is not at all the case with Social Security as people enter into a commitment with the government and pay a certain amount set by the government for over forty years and in return receive an amount back based on their pay in.
Click to expand...

"Enter into a commitment", huh? You make it sound as if this is something that people choose voluntarily.
 
reinoe said:
It's hard to get people to stop feeding at the trough. It wasn't a commitment. Anyone who worked a job was forced against their will to contribute.
Click to expand...

Really - it was not a commitment?!?!?!? What about all those yearly statements I got from SS then telling me what I put in and what I would get out?

Perhaps you were not brought up as I was and taught to honor ones commitments.
 
Green Man said:
"Enter into a commitment", huh? You make it sound as if this is something that people choose voluntarily.
Click to expand...

Of course it was. And they could get out of it at any time they wished.
 
pbrauer said:
No, I'm not confused all, maybe we are communicating.. I'm simply saying that if it were not for the Federal government and it's investment in space, we would not have the millions of jobs in the various technologies today. Years ago Senator Al Gore created a bill that appropriated money which was used to take a military system and converting it to the internet.
Click to expand...

So without Al Gore we would not have had the Internet and without the government we would not have had high-end technology. How do you suppose mankind advanced at all without the government instructing entrepreneurs where to invest their time and money? All those inventions would never have happened, huh?
 
haymarket said:
Really - it was not a commitment?!?!?!? What about all those yearly statements I got from SS then telling me what I put in and what I would get out?

Perhaps you were not brought up as I was and taught to honor ones commitments.
Click to expand...

It's not an individual honoring their commitments, its the governments, and they cannot promise anything long term.

The federal government is over $17 trillion in debt with no sign of the binge stopping. What is their 'commitment' worth now?
 
pbrauer said:
No, I'm not confused all, maybe we are communicating.. I'm simply saying that if it were not for the Federal government and it's investment in space, we would not have the millions of jobs in the various technologies today. Years ago Senator Al Gore created a bill that appropriated money which was used to take a military system and converting it to the internet.
Click to expand...

While you are correct about some technology resulting from direct gov't investment, very little of the current federal spending falls into that category. The vast majority of federal spending is now directed toward entitlements.

Perhaps you can supply a link citing Al Gore as a historic figure key to the internet development.

Hobbes' Internet Timeline - the definitive ARPAnet & Internet history
 
Grant said:
It's not an individual honoring their commitments, its the governments, and they cannot promise anything long term.

The federal government is over $17 trillion in debt with no sign of the binge stopping. What is their 'commitment' worth now?
Click to expand...

So you do not believe that the government of the American people should honor their commitments to the American people?
 
haymarket said:
Or don't you believe in both parties honoring their commitments to each other?
Click to expand...

I don't think that the government ought to make a commitment to tax one citizen in order to had the money over to another citizen. That is simply to similar to outright theft for me to consider it ethical.
 
Green Man said:
I don't think that the government ought to make a commitment to tax one citizen in order to had the money over to another citizen. That is simply to similar to outright theft for me to consider it ethical.
Click to expand...

Your posts cross the line into inane hyperbole when you define a voluntary program overwhelmingly supported by the American people for almost 80 years now with a benefit as theft.
 
haymarket said:
Your posts cross the line into inane hyperbole when you define a voluntary program overwhelmingly supported by the American people for almost 80 years now with a benefit as theft.
Click to expand...

I didn't define it as theft. I said it was too similar to outright theft to be considered ethical. Please stop with the intellectual dishonesty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom