Jump to content

Conservatives, please explain to me ....


Recommended Posts

A goal of most mainstream conservatives is the partial or full privatization of Social Security into private accounts whereby the Social Security monies withheld from American's paychecks can be funneled to private accounts (much like an IRA or 401K) to be invested per the discretion off the individual taxpayer.

 

Since the SS withholding is mandatory, seems this plan will mandate Americans buy a financial product. Yet conservatives complain that the government per the ACA mandating Americans buy a health insurance product is unconstitutional.

 

How do conservatives reconcile this seeming contradiction? Why is it okay with you the government mandate retirement savings, but not health insurance?

 

(Libertarians, I already know what your thinking would be - that there should be no SS withholding in the first place - so spare us.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There should be no ss witholding. Just wanted to make you right.

 

for once

 

Fortunately, those who would get rid of SS completely are, and will continue to be, in a distinct minority in this country.

 

But perhaps you would like to step away from your personal philosophy for a second though, and explain the thinking of your mainstream conservative cousins. Or would you agree they hypocritical on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortunately, those who would get rid of SS completely are, and will continue to be, in a distinct minority in this country.

 

But perhaps you would like to step away from your personal philosophy for a second though, and explain the thinking of your mainstream conservative cousins. Or would you agree they hypocritical on this?

why do you suppose I am a libertarian? There is but five years separating repubs and libs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A goal of most mainstream conservatives is the partial or full privatization of Social Security into private accounts whereby the Social Security monies withheld from American's paychecks can be funneled to private accounts (much like an IRA or 401K) to be invested per the discretion off the individual taxpayer.

 

Since the SS withholding is mandatory, seems this plan will mandate Americans buy a financial product. Yet conservatives complain that the government per the ACA mandating Americans buy a health insurance product is unconstitutional.

 

How do conservatives reconcile this seeming contradiction? Why is it okay with you the government mandate retirement savings, but not health insurance?

 

(Libertarians, I already know what your thinking would be - that there should be no SS withholding in the first place - so spare us.)

I would be for SS if I got some kind of return. Since it is a transfer program there is no interest.

From my calculations, I will get $.03 on every dollar I would have gotten with a straight T- Bill investment.

Why do people support such a terrible investment? Why can't we earn some interest on our money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be for SS if I got some kind of return. Since it is a transfer program there is no interest.

From my calculations, I will get $.03 on every dollar I would have gotten with a straight T- Bill investment.

Why do people support such a terrible investment? Why can't we earn some interest on our money?

 

Even if taxpayers are allowed to funnel some or all of their SS withholdings into private accounts, aren't you still supporting government mandated retirement savings via the Social Security program, only difference being you are allowing the private sector to sell this old-age savings product taxpayers are mandated to purchase?

 

How is it you have no constitutional problem with the government mandating old-age savings, but not with health insurance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservatives, please explain to me ....

No problem, ask and ye shall receive, easy peasy.

 

A goal of most mainstream conservatives is the partial or full privatization

I've never seen someone calling for full privatization. Please to submit evidence of such.

 

of Social Security into private accounts whereby the Social Security monies withheld from American's paychecks can be funneled to private accounts (much like an IRA or 401K) to be invested per the discretion off the individual taxpayer.

So far, so good, so what? - Megadeth

 

Since the SS withholding is mandatory, seems this plan will mandate Americans buy a financial product. Yet conservatives complain that the government per the ACA is mandating Americans buy a health insurance product.

 

How do conservatives reconcile this seeming contradiction?

Because said plan is voluntary, not mandated. You are welcome to stick with Mother government for your retirement if you wish.

 

Betchya thought you had sumpin there, didn't ya, girlie? I can see how that can happen. Liberals often chomp at the bit after not thinkin sumpin through.

 

 

Of course, if you had read and understood The entire Mighty Horse Thread you'd have known this. You'd have known about Galveston, Texas, and it's citizens who can opt into said kinda plan, and how they are swimming in cash. You'd have read where I ask "has the stock market, long term, ever lost money?"

 

And crap like that.

 

Ah, a horse thread post comes to mind.

 

Don't hold your breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A goal of most mainstream conservatives is the partial or full privatization of Social Security into private accounts whereby the Social Security monies withheld from American's paychecks can be funneled to private accounts (much like an IRA or 401K) to be invested per the discretion off the individual taxpayer.

 

Since the SS withholding is mandatory, seems this plan will mandate Americans buy a financial product. Yet conservatives complain that the government per the ACA mandating Americans buy a health insurance product is unconstitutional.

 

How do conservatives reconcile this seeming contradiction? Why is it okay with you the government mandate retirement savings, but not health insurance?

 

(Libertarians, I already know what your thinking would be - that there should be no SS withholding in the first place - so spare us.)

Every plan I've ever seen gives the option to stay is SS as it is structured now. No one would be forced to buy anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fortunately, those who would get rid of SS completely are, and will continue to be, in a distinct minority in this country.

 

But perhaps you would like to step away from your personal philosophy for a second though, and explain the thinking of your mainstream conservative cousins. Or would you agree they hypocritical on this?

Doesn't matter if we get rid of it or not. eventually it will bankrupt itself and the nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A goal of most mainstream conservatives is the partial or full privatization of Social Security into private accounts whereby the Social Security monies withheld from American's paychecks can be funneled to private accounts (much like an IRA or 401K) to be invested per the discretion off the individual taxpayer.

 

Since the SS withholding is mandatory, seems this plan will mandate Americans buy a financial product. Yet conservatives complain that the government per the ACA mandating Americans buy a health insurance product is unconstitutional.

 

How do conservatives reconcile this seeming contradiction? Why is it okay with you the government mandate retirement savings, but not health insurance?

 

(Libertarians, I already know what your thinking would be - that there should be no SS withholding in the first place - so spare us.)

 

What are you mandated to purchase? It's an investment vehicle for fook sakes. It would also be up to you whether you wanted to participate or not! No mandatory gun to the head programs like you leftist idiots love to impose on everyone. Moreover, you can put your fooking money in Treasury Bills for all I care and do exactly what Uncle Sham wants you to do.

 

Just what the fook do you think the MYRA that Obama proposed is?

 

Do yourself a favor. Stop being fooking stupid and learn something about money, how compounding interest works, how ponzi schemes work and look up the term "financial repression". If you want to be fucking idiotic about macroeconomics and debt, do it on your own and don't take the whole country over the cliff, dipschit.

 

LEARN ECONOMICS.

 

Did I 'splain it clearly enough for you, asshat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A goal of most mainstream conservatives is the partial or full privatization of Social Security into private accounts whereby the Social Security monies withheld from American's paychecks can be funneled to private accounts (much like an IRA or 401K) to be invested per the discretion off the individual taxpayer.

Right off the bat, you have it wrong. That is not what most conservatives are calling for, PM. If people must be forced to save by government (and that's probably a good idea), then conservatives are not for leaving it entirely to their discretion as to how it's invested. I haven't heard a single mainstream conservative say let them invest in individual stocks, for instance, or any other highly risky investment. What we want to happen is that the funds be invested in something like an S&P index fund ... which over the long haul has proven to be a very safe and wise investment. And we want it invested in such a way ( like my example on this demonstrated) that the investor is protected, during years when withdrawals will be necessary, from having to withdraw funds from the index fund during an economic downturn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every plan I've ever seen gives the option to stay is SS as it is structured now. No one would be forced to buy anything.

 

Ah, so if the ACA had a "public option" .... that would be a similar scheme? People mandated to buy health insurance could buy it on the private market or buy into the government provided option. Just like people mandated to save for old-age could designate their withholdings go to the SS trust fund or be invested in a fund consisting of private sector equities or bonds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

How do conservatives reconcile this seeming contradiction? Why is it okay with you the government mandate retirement savings, but not health insurance?

 

(Li

Seeming contradiction? Then you just stated by asking this question there is no contradiction except by your accusation one could exist if others protest loud enough to make it believeable.

 

that is staging a reality, not attempting to correct a real problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What are you mandated to purchase?

 

 

You are currently mandated to purchase government bonds via your contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Right off the bat, you have it wrong. That is not what most conservatives are calling for, PM. If people must be forced to save by government (and that's probably a good idea), then conservatives are not for leaving it entirely to their discretion as to how it's invested. I haven't heard a single mainstream conservative say let them invest in individual stocks, for instance, or any other highly risky investment. What we want to happen is that the funds be invested in something like an S&P index fund ... which over the long haul has proven to be a very safe and wise investment. And we want it invested in such a way ( like my example on this demonstrated) that the investor is protected, during years when withdrawals will be necessary, from having to withdraw funds from the index fund during an economic downturn.

 

So ...what's the difference with the ACA mandate and Republican privatizations plans for Social Security. You can purchase private sector investments with your SS $ or opt it be invested in the SS Trust Fund. It's still a government mandated purchase ... just of financial instruments instead of health insurance.

 

Why do you find it constitutional or the government to mandate you purchase investments as an old-age savings vehicle .... but claim it to be unconstitutional for government to mandate you purchase health insurance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Because said plan is voluntary, not mandated. You are welcome to stick with Mother government for your retirement if you wish.

 

 

Social Security contributions are not voluntary. Whether place in the SS Trust Fund or some private account invested in the private sector. Either way the government is mandating you save money for your old age. So ... if as a Republican, you are fine with this .... what's the problem with the ACA mandate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do conservatives reconcile this seeming contradiction? Why is it okay with you the government mandate retirement savings, but not health insurance?

I have about 20 projects going on at my house, I have been a little physically ill and mentally to lately.

 

On top of that I am training my new German Shepherd with the goal of level one protection and my girlie is driving me crazy.

 

What was the question again...well whatever it was I don't have time to think about it, I have more important things on my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have about 20 projects going on at my house, I have been a little physically ill and mentally to lately.

 

On top of that I am training my new German Shepherd with the goal of level one protection and my girlie is driving me crazy.

 

What was the question again...well whatever it was I don't have time to think about it, I have more important things on my mind.

 

Sorry it's a little over your head. Maybe this forum is just not for you, Mister Mack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A goal of most mainstream conservatives is the partial or full privatization of Social Security into private accounts whereby the Social Security monies withheld from American's paychecks can be funneled to private accounts (much like an IRA or 401K) to be invested per the discretion off the individual taxpayer.

 

Since the SS withholding is mandatory, seems this plan will mandate Americans buy a financial product. Yet conservatives complain that the government per the ACA mandating Americans buy a health insurance product is unconstitutional.

 

How do conservatives reconcile this seeming contradiction? Why is it okay with you the government mandate retirement savings, but not health insurance?

 

(Libertarians, I already know what your thinking would be - that there should be no SS withholding in the first place - so spare us.)

You answered your own question....."to be invested per the discretion off the individual taxpayer." There is no discretion in ØbamaCare. Not only must you buy it, you pay for things you don't want and disagree with
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry it's a little over your head.

Right back atchya.

 

Social Security contributions are not voluntary.

Correct.

 

Whether place

teacher buys a "d" for the English impaired. (I'm assuming a typo there, but please to allow me snark.)

 

in the SS Trust Fund or some private account invested in the private sector.

As are SS funds not invested in the private sector. Correct?

 

Either way the government is mandating you save money for your old age.

Mcglaughlin_1_1.png

 

Not either way. Mother government mandates we invest in the SS trust fund. No private sector.

 

 

So ... if as a Republican,

No ifs. Republican. To be exact, Libertarian. But not libertarian as YOU describe such. I gets to describe myself. You do not get to describe me.

 

you are fine with this ...

Well, in the macro, not really, but as YOU describe it, yes.

 

what's the problem with the ACA mandate?

The mandate part.

 

First time dealing with teacher, eh? It's only gonna get worse.

 

For you.

 

Fu(kin lying azz liberal, you don't get to change your tune in the middle of the song just cause you got handed your azz. Not with Ol' teach at least.

 

After my post you are now equating contributing to the SS trust fund with contributing to the Slowbamascare mandate.

 

NOT what you said at all at the get go...

 

Social Security into private accounts whereby the Social Security monies withheld from American's paychecks can be funneled to private accounts

Holy crap, dealing with you retards is so tiresome.

 

You do understand that we on the right that advocate such a plan do not require/mandate that all must participate, right?

 

If anyone so desire they can still put all of their cash into the full faith and trust of Mother government.

 

It is not a mandate, dumbazz. But then I say maybe you ain't so dumb, you just lying. Trying to scare the unwashed masses.

 

So now the deal is contributing to the SS trust fund is the same as participating in Slowbamascare? Roger that.

 

Where did the part of contributing, voluntarily, part of ones SS funds to private sector investment slip away from your debate there, lady?

 

How did you go from b!tching about, ah crap, fu(k this. I grow bored, and drunk.

 

Know what that means, right?

 

Time for LF.net.

 

I like this chick...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8JFEuNSJUQ

 

Smitten would maybe be a more betterer term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ah, so if the ACA had a "public option" .... that would be a similar scheme? People mandated to buy health insurance could buy it on the private market or buy into the government provided option. Just like people mandated to save for old-age could designate their withholdings go to the SS trust fund or be invested in a fund consisting of private sector equities or bonds.

A similar comparison would be for the government to sell investment products in competition with private investment products and have the ability to influence the value of its products through regulation, awarding contracts, etc.

 

In theory, it might be ok for government to compete against private companies. But in reality, the playing field can be manipulated. To remove any doubt about this, consider how the IRS was potentially used against political opponents, and continues to be to this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Social Security contributions are not voluntary. Whether place in the SS Trust Fund or some private account invested in the private sector. Either way the government is mandating you save money for your old age. So ... if as a Republican, you are fine with this .... what's the problem with the ACA mandate?

 

In one respect, you are comparing apples with oranges, but I'll set that aside for now.

 

The bottom line is a government mandate. If we were starting from scratch today, I'd have to believe most people would be against such a mandate. You can call it a tax, or a forced savings program or spin it anyway you want, you are still putting a gun to people's heads. And with human nature being what it is, most people don't like a gun to their head.

 

But there is a problem in this particular case, the promise.

 

We've promised seniors a guaranteed retirement system (of sorts), and to renege on that promise now would be morally wrong. Just like liberal politicians routinely renege on promises made to military vets, it goes against the grain of every moral underpinning we have as a society.

 

Any new plan would need to accomplish two goals:

1) Fulfill the existing promise

2) Provide better options for the future

 

And for those of you that need a translation, better options means more choices to the consumer.

 

So the difference between Social Security and ObamaCare on Elm Street is that one is brand new and the other contains a long standing promise. We would be wise to phase out the long standing Nightmare and avoid adding any new Nightmares to our children's future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A goal of most mainstream conservatives is the partial or full privatization of Social Security into private accounts whereby the Social Security monies withheld from American's paychecks can be funneled to private accounts (much like an IRA or 401K) to be invested per the discretion off the individual taxpayer.

 

Since the SS withholding is mandatory, seems this plan will mandate Americans buy a financial product. Yet conservatives complain that the government per the ACA mandating Americans buy a health insurance product is unconstitutional.

 

How do conservatives reconcile this seeming contradiction? Why is it okay with you the government mandate retirement savings, but not health insurance?

 

(Libertarians, I already know what your thinking would be - that there should be no SS withholding in the first place - so spare us.)

I have not seen any proposed plan that mandates purchase of investments.

 

Please present said plan you are referring to.

 

I don't know if this thread is purposely deceitful or just lazy ignorance.

 

Let me know.

 

SS is a tax.

 

Ostensibly we have the right to direct how our taxes are spent indirectly through the election of legislators.

 

I think it is only fitting that we should have more choice as to how our SS tax is spent, not less.

 

Are you against mandatory taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many taxes, and hidden taxes, were suppose to be ( snicker ) temporary? The blood suckers will go to the ends of he earth to drain the very soul from decent Americans. The parasites could care less. Two things we cannot avoid - death and taxes, right? Well, at least death doesn't get worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...