S.S. is an entitlement program. There are no personal account, benefits come out of the general fund, the taxes go into it. Every generation has taken benefits larger than what they paid in. And it worked while there were more and more people to pay into the program. Problem is that demographic shifts have made this trend impossible to continue. What cannot continue mathematically will not continue.
Am I in the twilight zone? I just watched about nine minutes (head couldn't take the pain) of a video where a lady spent that portion of the video presenting an ethical rant about how the ponzi scheme called social security is *not* an entitlement, but a "social net", which is self defeating on several grounds. Kay, that's normal.
@Shezmu (conclusion) - I mean, I'm no expert on socialist philosophy, but isn't the main thing of socialism that profit and money is undesirable, and that private property should be abolished?
@Shezmu (con't) But then I watch a by Swordsage, who I believe is less bat shit insane authoritarian than the average person imply that, among other things, that people voluntarily trading with people across plots of dirt called nations is bad, that groups have moral rights that the individuals that make up said group do not have, and that socialism has ideals benefit the middle class, yet alone free people.
@ArchNME That may be, but it still ends up being money and resources given to the people who need it (hopefully anyway). If the government were to tax the hell out of his riches, he';d be losing money anyway, so if he has to lose some, might as well give it to people who can really use it, right? I don't see what the problem is.
Good Video man, I have to agree that the masses have been programmed and I've basically given up trying to wake them up, they're too set in their idelogy.
Thanks for the great vid response, swordsage. I understand your pessimism completely, btw. As things fall apart, there will be an increasing trend toward finding scape goats. What's happening in Arizona is just the beginning.
In America, it's much easier to get rid of the middle class because so few of them have strong utilitarian or entrepreneurial skills. Most, in the past 50 years, have just been well paid for jobs that the lower classes in other industrial nations have..which is why their lifestyle is going away.
@p717 "In America, it's much easier to get rid of the middle class because so few of them have strong utilitarian or entrepreneurial skills."
I am so glad you brought this up. Really, you have no idea.
Whenever I ask someone if they've ever thought if there was more to making a living than having to work for a wage, it's like looking at a deer with headlights on it.
@Swordsage "Whenever I ask someone if they've ever thought if there was more to making a living than having to work for a wage, it's like looking at a deer with headlights on it." You have no idea how hard it is and how much it costs and all the gov. hurdles it takes for a middle class boss to provide this dreaded "wage" you speak of. Most of us don't get rich and just get by while providing a service to society and wages to workers and getting taxed and regulated to death. F the system
If people pay into social security so they may collect when they retire, why can't an individual choose to Not pay unto social security and not collect out of it, Why not have that choice?
@Silveracity I don't think that's a bad question, and I think it's worth considering. One could argue that if someone is going to be part of a group. They should be willing to put into the pot whether they want something out of it or not, or one could argue that such a thing would be forced on everyone because they don't trust that everyone would be willing to help fund it. But the use of force, any force, needs to be justified, and if people don't want something, it's hard to justify it.
@Silveracity Because that means the wealthy who don't need a safety net will not contribute. That is part of the social contract, the bit where you contribute even to stuff that doesn't help you personally, but helps society as a whole.
@Silveracity For the simple reason that it is THEIR money (if you want to call it theirs) that they are getting back. I would also like to make the point that even the rich can lose everything they have, they are not immune to making mistakes or bad decisions with money.
@Silveracity The most obvious response that comes to mind is that whilst you may not want to be part of the group, if you are in proximity to the group members of it will feel a moral requirement to help you if you are unable to help yourself at some point. Not all of them by any means, but some will. So with that in mind, the more ruthless may happily declare themselves individualist and not contribute, relying on the aid from the altruistic later on if they fall down.
revolution with blood will be the end result and i'm afriad that it will be similar to our civil war bloody and confuse manimulated fools killing each other. without even fixing the problems that begun it. or maybe we actully sovle this dilima without blood and guts every were. I place my hopes in peoples desire to survive and pick the less risky solution to insure ones own life. ps:most people don't relly want to die for a cuase. then again most poeple think they will live forever.:D
@1tofallen Oh I know there are a few non Republican tea party types, but that's just it: it's just a few. Most are Republican. And even if there were a lot of Democrats, that still shows the Tea Party types to be dupes. Wasn't the whole point of their movement to challenge the status quo in government? So why are they still picking candidates from the two established parties?
They could have had promise, but they were finished before they even started. Fox News sponsoring them proved that.
I figured that you forgot, as you mentioned in the video info, because you were running to work. Providing the link was my, very small, public service for today.
Sharon Angle in Nevada is going to ram the bible down everyones throat while she takes their ss. Madow has a great breakdown of how she has softened her tune to get into office.
I don't agree that every society will always have to have a rich powerful class and poor class. I think we were just trained to think that. I am glad you did mention that socialism has many benefits.
@NubianTribesman The main reason why I said there usually is a rich class and a poor class in complex society is because that's how it tended to start historically. You'd have people living somewhere minding their own business, and sooner or later some bandit kings come rolling in, subjugate everyone, and tell them to submit or else. The middle class don't even come into the picture until there's some kind of uprising, revolution, or separation.
The government took my money under a contractual agreement that I was getting it back, plus interest. I loaned them my money.
I wasn't even given a choice about this, so you're goddamned right I want it back. It's my money, and I don't want it gambled in vegas or the stock market.
This was a completely separate agreement from the long list of taxes that I'm never getting back, and I was never given a vote on. Bottom line : GFTO my retirement savings.
S.S. is an entitlement program. There are no personal account, benefits come out of the general fund, the taxes go into it. Every generation has taken benefits larger than what they paid in. And it worked while there were more and more people to pay into the program. Problem is that demographic shifts have made this trend impossible to continue. What cannot continue mathematically will not continue.
WorBlux 1 year ago
Am I in the twilight zone? I just watched about nine minutes (head couldn't take the pain) of a video where a lady spent that portion of the video presenting an ethical rant about how the ponzi scheme called social security is *not* an entitlement, but a "social net", which is self defeating on several grounds. Kay, that's normal.
Shezmu 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shezmu 1 year ago
@Shezmu (conclusion) - I mean, I'm no expert on socialist philosophy, but isn't the main thing of socialism that profit and money is undesirable, and that private property should be abolished?
Either way, I'm pretty confused here.
Shezmu 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shezmu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shezmu (con't) But then I watch a by Swordsage, who I believe is less bat shit insane authoritarian than the average person imply that, among other things, that people voluntarily trading with people across plots of dirt called nations is bad, that groups have moral rights that the individuals that make up said group do not have, and that socialism has ideals benefit the middle class, yet alone free people.
Shezmu 1 year ago
@shazzbot007 This room isn't as tiny as you think.
Swordsage 1 year ago
Bill Gates charity is nothing but a PR campaign to keep the gov from bringing the hammer down on people like him.
ArchNME 1 year ago
@ArchNME That may be, but it still ends up being money and resources given to the people who need it (hopefully anyway). If the government were to tax the hell out of his riches, he';d be losing money anyway, so if he has to lose some, might as well give it to people who can really use it, right? I don't see what the problem is.
Swordsage 1 year ago
Good Video man, I have to agree that the masses have been programmed and I've basically given up trying to wake them up, they're too set in their idelogy.
funeralsong34 1 year ago
Thanks for the great vid response, swordsage. I understand your pessimism completely, btw. As things fall apart, there will be an increasing trend toward finding scape goats. What's happening in Arizona is just the beginning.
55ella2007k 1 year ago
@55ella2007k All the more reason for me to plan a migration.
I actually have a follow up video to this that I think you might have liked too, but I'm saving that rant for my blog tv later.
Swordsage 1 year ago
That's why I'm only voting progressive. Dems are weak and republicans are monsters.
mrx0066600 1 year ago
In America, it's much easier to get rid of the middle class because so few of them have strong utilitarian or entrepreneurial skills. Most, in the past 50 years, have just been well paid for jobs that the lower classes in other industrial nations have..which is why their lifestyle is going away.
p717 1 year ago
@p717 "In America, it's much easier to get rid of the middle class because so few of them have strong utilitarian or entrepreneurial skills."
I am so glad you brought this up. Really, you have no idea.
Whenever I ask someone if they've ever thought if there was more to making a living than having to work for a wage, it's like looking at a deer with headlights on it.
Swordsage 1 year ago
@Swordsage "Whenever I ask someone if they've ever thought if there was more to making a living than having to work for a wage, it's like looking at a deer with headlights on it." You have no idea how hard it is and how much it costs and all the gov. hurdles it takes for a middle class boss to provide this dreaded "wage" you speak of. Most of us don't get rich and just get by while providing a service to society and wages to workers and getting taxed and regulated to death. F the system
clarkmt 1 year ago
@clarkmt If you want to make it in America you got to fuck sombody 'cause we are getting fucked by the gov.
clarkmt 1 year ago
@clarkmt
Hence, the collapse
p717 1 year ago
If people pay into social security so they may collect when they retire, why can't an individual choose to Not pay unto social security and not collect out of it, Why not have that choice?
Silveracity 1 year ago
@Silveracity I don't think that's a bad question, and I think it's worth considering. One could argue that if someone is going to be part of a group. They should be willing to put into the pot whether they want something out of it or not, or one could argue that such a thing would be forced on everyone because they don't trust that everyone would be willing to help fund it. But the use of force, any force, needs to be justified, and if people don't want something, it's hard to justify it.
Swordsage 1 year ago
@Silveracity Because that means the wealthy who don't need a safety net will not contribute. That is part of the social contract, the bit where you contribute even to stuff that doesn't help you personally, but helps society as a whole.
logic11isGod 1 year ago 2
@logic11isGod
Safety Net?
Isn’t a safety net something to prevent the poor or vulnerable people from falling into poverty?
Do the wealthiest need a safety net? If the wealthy don’t need a safety net, why are they still given social security checks?
Silveracity 1 year ago
@Silveracity I would agree that there should be an income cap for receiving social security, but not one for paying into it.
logic11isGod 1 year ago
@Silveracity For the simple reason that it is THEIR money (if you want to call it theirs) that they are getting back. I would also like to make the point that even the rich can lose everything they have, they are not immune to making mistakes or bad decisions with money.
phantomsnare 1 year ago
@phantomsnare
If both rich and poor get social security payments, even those who do not need it, that it doesn't seem to be a safety net, but something else.
Silveracity 1 year ago
@Silveracity The most obvious response that comes to mind is that whilst you may not want to be part of the group, if you are in proximity to the group members of it will feel a moral requirement to help you if you are unable to help yourself at some point. Not all of them by any means, but some will. So with that in mind, the more ruthless may happily declare themselves individualist and not contribute, relying on the aid from the altruistic later on if they fall down.
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
... The various options are: to allow that kind of parasitical situation to continue or,
Ban altruistic acts or,
To force individualists to move away from the group so their possible later failure is not going to impact the group or,
Make the individualists, who still exist in the sphere of control of the group, pay towards a big pot that they will later draw upon.
All have their issues, some glaring some subtle, but honestly? The last is the only one where everyone gets 'some' benefit.
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
revolution with blood will be the end result and i'm afriad that it will be similar to our civil war bloody and confuse manimulated fools killing each other. without even fixing the problems that begun it. or maybe we actully sovle this dilima without blood and guts every were. I place my hopes in peoples desire to survive and pick the less risky solution to insure ones own life. ps:most people don't relly want to die for a cuase. then again most poeple think they will live forever.:D
LORDNAG1 1 year ago
When is America going to realize that you can have a democratic society with both Liberal and socialist ideas fletched into each other.
KaptajnKaffe 1 year ago
@KaptajnKaffe
That's because America is filled with purists.
mistermateriel 1 year ago
There is one tea party democrat candidate from Idaho.
1tofallen 1 year ago
@1tofallen Oh I know there are a few non Republican tea party types, but that's just it: it's just a few. Most are Republican. And even if there were a lot of Democrats, that still shows the Tea Party types to be dupes. Wasn't the whole point of their movement to challenge the status quo in government? So why are they still picking candidates from the two established parties?
They could have had promise, but they were finished before they even started. Fox News sponsoring them proved that.
Swordsage 1 year ago 2
Here is the link for 55ella2007k's video :
watch?v=P7Azruv99U8
NYCAustinNYC 1 year ago
@NYCAustinNYC oops... I forgot to put that in... I was rushing to work when I uploaded this. :P
Swordsage 1 year ago
@Swordsage
I figured that you forgot, as you mentioned in the video info, because you were running to work. Providing the link was my, very small, public service for today.
NYCAustinNYC 1 year ago
Sharon Angle in Nevada is going to ram the bible down everyones throat while she takes their ss. Madow has a great breakdown of how she has softened her tune to get into office.
a300pilotster 1 year ago
I don't agree that every society will always have to have a rich powerful class and poor class. I think we were just trained to think that. I am glad you did mention that socialism has many benefits.
good video, interesting thoughts.
NubianTribesman 1 year ago
@NubianTribesman The main reason why I said there usually is a rich class and a poor class in complex society is because that's how it tended to start historically. You'd have people living somewhere minding their own business, and sooner or later some bandit kings come rolling in, subjugate everyone, and tell them to submit or else. The middle class don't even come into the picture until there's some kind of uprising, revolution, or separation.
Overly simplistic sure, but you get the idea.
Swordsage 1 year ago
Watching this made me compulsively oil my blade.
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 year ago
your katana was so distracting to want you are saying , you should have a similar model as we have in the uk
jmm1233 1 year ago
@jmm1233 That's not a katana.
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 year ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri well i am not a sword person i don't know , it still very very distracting all shiny and stuff
jmm1233 1 year ago
The government took my money under a contractual agreement that I was getting it back, plus interest. I loaned them my money.
I wasn't even given a choice about this, so you're goddamned right I want it back. It's my money, and I don't want it gambled in vegas or the stock market.
This was a completely separate agreement from the long list of taxes that I'm never getting back, and I was never given a vote on. Bottom line : GFTO my retirement savings.
Great reply.
onlywhenprovoked 1 year ago 3
@onlywhenprovoked BINGO!
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 year ago