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.
I asked my wingnut brother-in-law if he was getting SS yet. Of course, Medicare to he's entitled to it, why not?
I have to laugh and walk away. For the last 22 years I've known him he has been an early adopter of the Concord Coalition who spent his "tax days" in clown costums in front of the post office. It was amusing to watch him fall silent when the R majorities and R prez's didn't act on their fiscal conservative talking points.
So why the laughing on my part? The guy doesn't walk the walk. Between him and his wife they have pensions worth $1.5 to $2.5 mill. On top of that he made a small fortune with a small business over the last ten years.
When I try raising means testing of SS benefits he has a hissy fit and goes off on "welfare queens" and lazy porch monkeys.
My parents saved and drove cheap cars, veggie garden, worked extra jobs etc. They now have a nice retirement. Some of thier brothers etc. with similar employment over the years have blown every cent living more lavish lifestyles. Means testing after the fact is utterly evil.
If you want to implement it for everyone under 18 going forward then great, but otherwise a manuever like that to a private pension type plan would be illegal and unethical.
I fully intend to take advantage of every government benefit that I qualify for including tax deductions, SS, Medicare, solar panel rebates, visiting National Parks, driving on free roads and bridges, etc, etc.
That in no way relates to any political position that I hold on the role of government.
That position is not hypocritical. It's just plain common sense.
I always have a problem with people being brandished hypocrits because they receive benefits from programs they oppose. If I oppose all government transfer of wealth programs and they cost me a total of three thousand dollars in taxes and I receive two thousand dollars in benefits from such wealth transfers I am still a thousand in the hole.
I will accept every benefit I can get from government even if I oppose the program. Just like I pay my taxes regardless of my feelings fror the programs they support.
The fact that government taxes individuals and forces them to participate in purchasing insurance and pension benefits does not mean that those who would prefer to save on their own and purchase their own insurance should turn down the proceeds should they need that insurance, they have paid for it.
how can you have a conversation with a person that is "conservative" and TP supporter when they:
1- qualify the EIC and get a huge tax kick-back
2- sign up all of their kids (3) for taxpayer paid free school breakfasts and lunches
3- has a mother whose healthcare is entirely dependent on medicare
Exactly the same way you would have a conversation with a person that is liberal when they:
1- qualify the EIC and get a huge tax kick-back
2- sign up all of their kids (3) for taxpayer paid free school breakfasts and lunches
3- has a mother whose healthcare is entirely dependent on medicare
There is no connection between using government services and your political views.
I always have a problem with people being brandished hypocrits because they receive benefits from programs they oppose. If I oppose all government transfer of wealth programs and they cost me a total of three thousand dollars in taxes and I receive two thousand dollars in benefits from such wealth transfers I am still a thousand in the hole.
I will accept every benefit I can get from government even if I oppose the program. Just like I pay my taxes regardless of my feelings fror the programs they support.
The fact that government taxes individuals and forces them to participate in purchasing insurance and pension benefits does not mean that those who would prefer to save on their own and purchase their own insurance should turn down the proceeds should they need that insurance, they have paid for it.
Correct. To do otherwise would be the height of stupidity.
My parents saved and drove cheap cars, veggie garden, worked extra jobs etc. They now have a nice retirement. Some of thier brothers etc. with similar employment over the years have blown every cent living more lavish lifestyles. Means testing after the fact is utterly evil.
If you want to implement it for everyone under 18 going forward then great, but otherwise a manuever like that to a private pension type plan would be illegal and unethical.
how can you have a conversation with a person that is "conservative" and TP supporter when they:
1- qualify the EIC and get a huge tax kick-back
2- sign up all of their kids (3) for taxpayer paid free school breakfasts and lunches
3- has a mother whose healthcare is entirely dependent on medicare
If the government is offering you money you should take it, these programs are often paid for by your tax dollars or indirectly through the increased costs of goods you purchase.
The TP platform is to eliminate the expenses which cause people to be dependent on these programs to begin with.
Moreover, Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.”
Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy in your post. Why? Because you make the assumption that "federal spending" is automatically code for "handouts."
Please tell us that you understand that that's not the case, right? You do understand that not all "federal spending" on states is solicited by the states, right?
Are you sure you understand what all federal spending entails?
Very disengenous for you to assert that federal spending as a percentage of tax receipts to conservative states is the result of people requiring additional handouts when you show absolutely zero proof that the net drain is the result of entitlements. Since when is federal spending relegated only to safety nets?
Once again you fail with your obsession with charts to make empty claims.
I agree. Please take a look at the article if you want a better graphical presentation of where SSA, medicare, medicaid, etc are disburses. these are the classic social spending programs
Moreover, Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.”
That is totally useless information. You would be hard pressed to find one person in the USA who has not used a government program. But so what?
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.
