Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We discussed the issue of Social Security and Medicare earlier. She felt, as do I, that taxes are forcibly taken from a person's earnings, therefore why should the benefits be declined?
For the very obvious reason that current SS payments are funded by current SS withholding (FICA). So, in order to pay for Rand's SS payments, money was taken from contemporary taxpayers. But by her (and your) logic, those taxpayers deserved their future SS payments, so at some point in what was then the future (let's say, right about now), the taxpayers in the 1970s and 1980s who were bankrolling Rand's SS payments deserve their own payments - for which we have to pay. And so in the decades to come, you and I will deserve our SS payments, for which our children have pay.
It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that there is no end without some generation biting the bullet and foregoing the benefits. And shouldn't those who rail against that system be leading by example? Hey, some actually did:
Quote:
Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968.
You know, the money withheld from Rand went to other people than those who were funding her own SS payments decades later. So while she resented having her own money confiscated to go to others, she was more than happy to have the government confiscate money from people completely unaffiliated with those who benefited from the taxes she paid years earlier, just so she could receive SS payments.
And you've actually managed to convince yourself that her (and your) position is somehow principled?
Really?
Seriously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Oh I don't care who wins this election, I am just happy to see Cantor lose and if a Tea Party Republican win this election, he will be nothing more than a little voice that no one listens to.
Funny thing is, the Tea Party has probably made Boehner's Speakership secure. Cantor was the Speaker in the waiting, biding his time. With him gone, Boehner is probably safely ensconced as Speaker until the end of the next Congress, January 2017.
For the very obvious reason that current SS payments are funded by current SS withholding (FICA). So, in order to pay for Rand's SS payments, money was taken from contemporary taxpayers. But by her (and your) logic, those taxpayers deserved their future SS payments, so at some point in what was then the future (let's say, right about now), the taxpayers in the 1970s and 1980s who were bankrolling Rand's SS payments deserve their own payments - for which we have to pay. And so in the decades to come, you and I will deserve our SS payments, for which our children have pay.
It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that there is no end without some generation biting the bullet and foregoing the benefits. And shouldn't those who rail against that system be leading by example? Hey, some actually did:
You know, the money withheld from Rand went to other people than those who were funding her own SS payments decades later. So while she resented having her own money confiscated to go to others, she was more than happy to have the government confiscate money from people completely unaffiliated with those who benefited from the taxes she paid years earlier, just so she could receive SS payments.
And you've actually managed to convince yourself that her (and your) position is somehow principled?
Really?
Seriously?
Funny thing is, the Tea Party has probably made Boehner's Speakership secure. Cantor was the Speaker in the waiting, biding his time. With him gone, Boehner is probably safely ensconced as Speaker until the end of the next Congress, January 2017.
Seriously. If the government sticks their hand in your pocket don't be surprised if a person demands something back. I never, in any way said Rand was principled. I would say she was fulfilling her pronouncements on human nature and entitlement.
Ayn Rand was a total phony. When she was elderly she received Medicare. And she was an atheist. Maybe somebody should tell Mr. Brat that in between his constant quoting of the Bible.
For the very obvious reason that current SS payments are funded by current SS withholding (FICA). So, in order to pay for Rand's SS payments, money was taken from contemporary taxpayers. But by her (and your) logic, those taxpayers deserved their future SS payments, so at some point in what was then the future (let's say, right about now), the taxpayers in the 1970s and 1980s who were bankrolling Rand's SS payments deserve their own payments - for which we have to pay. And so in the decades to come, you and I will deserve our SS payments, for which our children have pay.
It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that there is no end without some generation biting the bullet and foregoing the benefits. And shouldn't those who rail against that system be leading by example? Hey, some actually did:
You know, the money withheld from Rand went to other people than those who were funding her own SS payments decades later. So while she resented having her own money confiscated to go to others, she was more than happy to have the government confiscate money from people completely unaffiliated with those who benefited from the taxes she paid years earlier, just so she could receive SS payments.
You made this up. Plain and simple she paid into it, she was getting her money back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
And you've actually managed to convince yourself that her (and your) position is somehow principled?
Really?
Seriously?
It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right†to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.
So even though you ignore the FACT she paid into the system you've convinced yourself that your position is somehow principled?
Really?
Seriously?
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.â€
For 2 days in a row The Banner has had an editorial cartoon likening Brat to something called The Gallant Gallstone. Where does Toohey come up with this lame stuff.
Funny thing is, the Tea Party has probably made Boehner's Speakership secure. Cantor was the Speaker in the waiting, biding his time. With him gone, Boehner is probably safely ensconced as Speaker until the end of the next Congress, January 2017.
As much as I don't like Boner, I hated Cantor much more. I would rather deal with Cry Baby Boner over Greasy Cantor....which I think both were Garbage Pail Kids back in the day.
Look at all the Lefties scared to death of a different point of view than their own.
Oh, please. Know the difference between fear and discussion. Lefties kicked Ayn Rand around long before she became fashionable to today's teabaggers.
She was as much a minor liberal as a conservative icon 50 years ago when her ideas were fresh and the Cold War was in full bloom. That's why she became a best selling writer in the first place. Rand was always the naive kid's favorite; she sold best with the 14-25 year old age bracket. Most adults see her nonsense for what it is when they reach mental maturity.
Ayn Rand was a total phony. When she was elderly she received Medicare.
Did she pay premiums for that federal insurance program (FICA)? If so, she's no phony.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
