Republicans: Fiscal Sanity

[Sallow]

LOL the SS trusftund surplus was being raided long before 1983. However Reagans over withholding of ss payments gave the govt a LOT more surplus to raid.

I remember this..my SSI payments were stopped at 18..when they should have gone to 21 to help with college. Reagan also implemented taxes on unemployment and tips.

Great guy.

You support the DEATH TAX, but think chidlren should receive SSI payments after they are legal adults?

Hypocrite.

My father died when he was 36. He paid into SSI and was a small business owner.

So all the money he paid in shouldn't go to his family?

Nice.

 

[finebead]

This is a really, really weak post. Americans have the greatest life expectancy...the WHO stats are a fraud, the vast majority of folks were perfectly happy with their healthcare before Obamacare,

Vague, all over the map, and asking me to provide a price for a premium....but you write, "you can assume," "I have not" seen data....
pretty bogus.

why are you so afraid of a free market approach?


So here's more so you can have nightmares:

1. Government actually subsidizes healthcare for the wealthy. Pennsylvania ran a commercial stating “No family makes too much money for low-cost CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program), so apply today. Don’t think you make too little or too much.”
CHIP Error

2. The group that is chronically uninsured, and does not include illegal aliens, those making over $75,000, are not currently eligible for government programs, is in the area of 3% of the population.
http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf

3. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Aetna, Humana, and many other insurers offer basic youth-oriented health-insurance plans for around $50 a month, depending on homestate (since we can’t buy insurance across state lines).
Health Insurers Target The Individual Market - WSJ.com

So, which is higher, the healthcare or cell phone plan?
When you give free insurance to someone who can afford it, but who chooses to spend their money on other things, you are in effect paying for those other things.

4. Can you force those who choose not to be insured to get health insurance?
“Even in good times, many Americans drive without insurance. The Insurance Research Council's previous study, released in 2006, found that nearly 15% of drivers nationally were uninsured in 2004, up from about 13% in 1999. In some states, including Mississippi, California and Arizona, roughly a quarter of drivers weren't insured.”
And this is even though auto insurance is required in 48 states, costs less than health insurance, and jail time is possible!
Road Risks Rise as More Drivers Drop Insurance - WSJ.com

5. Universal Healthcare Around the World:
Italy: average wait for a mammogram is 70 days
“When you compare the outcomes for specific
diseases, the United States clearly outperforms
the rest of the world. Whether the disease
is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or
AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far
higher in the United States than in other countries.

The same is true for prescription drugs.
For example, 44 percent of Americans who
could benefit from statins, lipid-lowering
medication that reduces cholesterol and protects
against heart disease, take the drug.
That number seems low until compared with
the 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of
Britons, and 17 percent of Italians who could
both benefit from the drug and receive it.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

In Great Britain, about 20% of patients with treatable colon cancer at the time of discovery are considered incurable by the time treatment is finally available.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

Countries in which complementary or supplementary private health insurance policies are common include
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United States (in
the case of Medicare programme beneficiaries).
In countries where private health insurance is available, governments often impose rules on what sort of
coverage is permissible. For example, Australia prohibits private insurance policies from covering the
ambulatory care co-payments required in the public programme. Canada prohibits private health insurers
from covering benefits included in the national plan.
The public-integrated model combines on-budget financing of health-care provision with hospital
providers that are part of the government sector.6 These systems, which merge the insurance and provision
functions, are organised and operated like any government department. Staff is generally paid on salary
(although, in some cases, doctors can have private patients as well) and they are most often public-sector
employees. Ambulatory doctors and other health-care professionals can be either public employees or
private contractors to the health-care authority, with a range of remuneration packages. Ensuring complete
population coverage is particularly easy under such systems, and as they are under the control of the
budget, the growth of overall costs has been contained more easily. However, they have weak incentives to
increase output, improve efficiency, or maintain quality and responsiveness to patient needs.


6. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): tells Brits if their life is worth living- in actual dollars and cents. As the NYTimes states, its job is to develop “a standard method of rationing. NICE has decided that Britain, except in rare cases, can afford only £15,000, or about $22,750, to save six months of a citizen’s life.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html)

So, the average one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan is worth way more than a Brits’ life!(March 2009 Manhattan Rental Market Report | Rental Market Reports | TREGNY)
So, it has concluded that if you have breast cancer, the drug Tykerb, shown to delay the progression of the disease, is worth more than you are “despite Glaxo’s offer to pay for the first 12 weeks of treatment.”
U.K. Says Tykerb Isn’t Worth Cost, Even With 12 Free Weeks - Health Blog - WSJ

The Bush Administration sent chief medical officer of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Sean Tunis to learn about NICE and try to adopt the processes and mechanisms they used, “and we just couldn’t…[use]price to determine which drugs or devices Medicare or Medicaid provides has provoked fierce protests.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html

7. WHO/UN
So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General

8. Now, who are you going to believe if not Michael Moore? Moore states that Cuba has a better healthcare system (they live longer). "All the independent health organizations in the world, and even our own CIA, believes that the Cubans have a pretty good health system. And they do, in fact, live longer than we do," he said.
But when "20/20" contacted the CIA, officials said, "We don't say that Cuba has a pretty good system or that Cubans live longer than Americans."
In fact, the CIA's World Fact Book says Americans live nearly a year longer. Although a U.N. report supports Moore's position, that data comes straight from the Cuban government.
Healthy in Cuba, Sick in America? - ABC News

9. If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free:
The following ‘Universal Healthcare’ countries have higher out-of-pocket costs than the United States:
Out-of-pocket spending as a share of total expenditure on health, 1980-2000 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/53/22364122.pdf (table 4)
Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland.

10. How to judge healthcare:

a) life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!
“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.
In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Dave Petno | On Freedom

11. Free-Market Innovations
• a) Walgreens has retail health clinics staffed by board-certified Family Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants, and expects to have 400 open by 2010, and CVS plans on about 500. Anyone can walk in and get treatment for about 1/6 the cost of an emergency room, plus about 2/3 are paid for by insurance. Treatment includes: Respiratory Illnesses
• Additional Treatments
• Skin Conditions
• Minor Injuries
• Diagnostic Testing
• Wellness
• Vaccinations
• About Us - Take Care Clinic - Convenient, Affordable Health Care

b) Wal-Mart offers some 400 different prescription drugs @ $10 for a 90 day supply. CVS, Target, Kroegers, Food Lion, and a number of others have similar plans.

c) eHealthinsurance.com allows you to find health insurance in your zip.

d) Healthcarebluebook.com tells the costs of various procedures and treatments, allowing the consumer to negotiate prices with practitioners.

e) Teledoc gets you on the phone with a licensed physician in 3 hours or less, for $35- or it’s free!

f) American Well will let you talk to a doctor by webcam, text, phone, or IM for $45. And some Wal-Marts have virtual clinics where they can actually look into eyes, ears, and throat by webcam. American Well - FAQs
g) For an annual fee of just $480 for singles ($580 for couples and $680 for families) The No Insurance Club offers affordable pre-paid health care plans that cover basic medical services from a participating board-certified physician, with no deductibles, no additional premiums, and no co-payments and either 12 or 16 visits per year. NoInsuranceClub

h) Cosmetic surgery is the closest thing we have to a true free-market system in American. No insurance coverage, and the consumer shops around among practitioners: the price has been falling over time in real terms — despite a huge increase in volume and considerable technical innovation (which is blamed for increasing costs for every other type of surgery).

In summary, as far as your defense "This is not true."

I counter with "Is too."

You have tossed out many largely irrelevant unassociated topics, very detailed and disjointed, but you have NOT PROPOSED THE FRAMEWORK FOR A WORKABLE SYSTEM TO REPLACE MEDICARE, WHICH YOU HAVE STATED IS FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.

Describe the outline of such a system. Discuss proposed pricing as I have asked, by age group, up to 110 years of age.

I counter with specifics, at age 64 in Texas, it costs $500 per month with a $5,000 annual deductible. What do you think that would cost at 70, 80, 90, 100, and 110? Would everyone be covered, or would the insurance company death panels be able to exclude folks that are too sick or have pre-existing conditions? What percentage of people would be able to afford the monthly premiums at age 70, 80, 90, 100, and 110?

All those other details are hoo ha that is avoiding the basic question. If Medicare is fiscally irresponsible, what is your other plan. Saying "private insurance and HSA's" is not an adequate reply. Describe what the system would look like. Answer the questions directly (but no such system has been proposed that I have ever seen).

I say we keep Medicare and try to make it more efficient so we can afford it. Medicare is broken, but you can throw it out and start over (you need to describe this system in adequate detail that the system can be evaluated), or we can take the structure of Medicare as the starting point and change it so it meets the most needs, at a cost we can afford (and yes, rationing is a part of that, you can call them death panels if you want, but then you would also have to call todays private insurers "death panels" for dropping cancer patients or refusing to insure those with pre-existing conditions, its the same thing).

 

[boedicca]

I remember this..my SSI payments were stopped at 18..when they should have gone to 21 to help with college. Reagan also implemented taxes on unemployment and tips.

Great guy.

You support the DEATH TAX, but think chidlren should receive SSI payments after they are legal adults?

Hypocrite.

My father died when he was 36. He paid into SSI and was a small business owner.

So all the money he paid in shouldn't go to his family?

Nice.

I don't support the Death Tax. I also don't support SS being controlled by the government instead of being Private Retirement Savings which an individual may pass along to heirs.

You, however, support the Death Tax, so thinking that you should receive your father's SS payments is hypocritical.

 

[uscitizen]

Link?

Here, let me show you how to do this:

The 1983 Greenspan Commission initiated changes in Social Security that generated large surpluses. “As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs.” How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People | Dissident Voice

a. In 1985, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus was only $7.5 billion, a decade later it was $60.4 billion.

b. In 2000, the surplus was $152 billion. Clinton took the $152 billion, and counted it as income, instead of the debt it actually repesented.

c. “Instead of Social Security subsidizing the rest of the budget, the rest of the budget will have to subsidize Social Security.” Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute Recession Hurts Social Security Trust Fund - CBS News

from you post:
How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People

what I said.

No, Citi...what you said was "the SS trusftund surplus was being raided long before 1983."

But, hey, if supporting your contentions is too tough, let it go....

Consequently, over time the Social Security Trust Funds have included a mix of marketable and non-marketable Treasury securities. Over the years, the proportion has shifted heavily in favor of special obligation bonds as the main asset held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Prior to 1960, the Treasury's policy was to invest primarily in marketable securities, although this policy was not always followed. Since 1960, the policy has been to invest principally in special obligation bonds, unless the Managing Trustee of the funds (i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury) determines that investment in marketable securities would be "in the public interest." In fact, since 1980 no marketable securities have been added to the Trust Funds. (For a more detailed explanation see the Office of the Actuary's Actuarial Note #142.)

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds
Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds

read the entire article at the link and learn.

 

[Trajan]

LOL the SS trusftund surplus was being raided long before 1983. However Reagans over withholding of ss payments gave the govt a LOT more surplus to raid.

I remember this..my SSI payments were stopped at 18..when they should have gone to 21 to help with college. Reagan also implemented taxes on unemployment and tips.

Great guy.

Pray tell why should they have gone on until 21.


And Oh hey, I realize you're a talented guy but how did you pull off SSI contributions from the womb or minority?

 

[Sallow]

You support the DEATH TAX, but think chidlren should receive SSI payments after they are legal adults?

Hypocrite.

My father died when he was 36. He paid into SSI and was a small business owner.

So all the money he paid in shouldn't go to his family?

Nice.

I don't support the Death Tax. I also don't support SS being controlled by the government instead of being Private Retirement Savings which an individual may pass along to heirs.

You, however, support the Death Tax, so thinking that you should receive your father's SS payments is hypocritical.

Um..no it isn't.

And it got cut off anyway.

So Reagan took the pittance in benefits I was recieving in college and spent it on an Orbital Nuclear Platform that never got off the ground.

Sound investment.

 

[Trajan]

from you post:
How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People

what I said.

No, Citi...what you said was "the SS trusftund surplus was being raided long before 1983."

But, hey, if supporting your contentions is too tough, let it go....

Consequently, over time the Social Security Trust Funds have included a mix of marketable and non-marketable Treasury securities. Over the years, the proportion has shifted heavily in favor of special obligation bonds as the main asset held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Prior to 1960, the Treasury's policy was to invest primarily in marketable securities, although this policy was not always followed. Since 1960, the policy has been to invest principally in special obligation bonds, unless the Managing Trustee of the funds (i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury) determines that investment in marketable securities would be "in the public interest." In fact, since 1980 no marketable securities have been added to the Trust Funds. (For a more detailed explanation see the Office of the Actuary's Actuarial Note #142.)

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds
Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds

read the entire article at the link and learn.

in the context of the discussion its a distinction without a difference.

 

[Sallow]

LOL the SS trusftund surplus was being raided long before 1983. However Reagans over withholding of ss payments gave the govt a LOT more surplus to raid.

I remember this..my SSI payments were stopped at 18..when they should have gone to 21 to help with college. Reagan also implemented taxes on unemployment and tips.

Great guy.

Pray tell why should they have gone on until 21.


And Oh hey, I realize you're a talented guy but how did you pull off SSI contributions from the womb or minority?

Um..because my father paid into it? There were death benefits for surviving children continuing their education?

He was a small business owner..paid taxes..and SSI. So when a need arises for help..it's like "Fuck you" in your eyes..even if he paid into the system?

Then they shouldn't be taxing me now. And believe me..they are getting far more back then anything they've ever put in. I worked my way through college. Paid for most of it on my own.

 

[boedicca]

My father died when he was 36. He paid into SSI and was a small business owner.

So all the money he paid in shouldn't go to his family?

Nice.

I don't support the Death Tax. I also don't support SS being controlled by the government instead of being Private Retirement Savings which an individual may pass along to heirs.

You, however, support the Death Tax, so thinking that you should receive your father's SS payments is hypocritical.

Um..no it isn't.

And it got cut off anyway.

So Reagan took the pittance in benefits I was recieving in college and spent it on an Orbital Nuclear Platform that never got off the ground.

Sound investment.

It is hypocritical according to your own value system. According to you, once a person dies, his wealth and property belong to "society". This includes SS benefits.

In my value system, your father's property and wealth would belong to him, and he would be free to choose who will be the inheritor.

 

[uscitizen]

No, Citi...what you said was "the SS trusftund surplus was being raided long before 1983."

But, hey, if supporting your contentions is too tough, let it go....

Consequently, over time the Social Security Trust Funds have included a mix of marketable and non-marketable Treasury securities. Over the years, the proportion has shifted heavily in favor of special obligation bonds as the main asset held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Prior to 1960, the Treasury's policy was to invest primarily in marketable securities, although this policy was not always followed. Since 1960, the policy has been to invest principally in special obligation bonds, unless the Managing Trustee of the funds (i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury) determines that investment in marketable securities would be "in the public interest." In fact, since 1980 no marketable securities have been added to the Trust Funds. (For a more detailed explanation see the Office of the Actuary's Actuarial Note #142.)

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds
Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds

read the entire article at the link and learn.

in the context of the discussion its a distinction without a difference.

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds

and yes it is relevant to PC's posts. PC says the spending of the surplus only began in 1983 or somesuch.

 

[Trajan]

I remember this..my SSI payments were stopped at 18..when they should have gone to 21 to help with college. Reagan also implemented taxes on unemployment and tips.

Great guy.

You support the DEATH TAX, but think chidlren should receive SSI payments after they are legal adults?

Hypocrite.

My father died when he was 36. He paid into SSI and was a small business owner.

So all the money he paid in shouldn't go to his family?

Nice.

hey Ace...short answer. NO.

oh and my mother, my sole sppt. btw died at 30...I got SQUAT, bupkas, zip de do da.

just because you got a survivor benefit till 18 means little...try working for 50 years then your wife dies at 66 and you get the choice of the higher benefit yours or hers, but NOT both....where the hell does her contribution of 50 years go? Ponder that sanctioned theft.

 

[uscitizen]

I don't support the Death Tax. I also don't support SS being controlled by the government instead of being Private Retirement Savings which an individual may pass along to heirs.

You, however, support the Death Tax, so thinking that you should receive your father's SS payments is hypocritical.

Um..no it isn't.

And it got cut off anyway.

So Reagan took the pittance in benefits I was recieving in college and spent it on an Orbital Nuclear Platform that never got off the ground.

Sound investment.

It is hypocritical according to your own value system. According to you, once a person dies, his wealth and property belong to "society". This includes SS benefits.

In my value system, your father's property and wealth would belong to him, and he would be free to choose who will be the inheritor.

Umm widows and survivors benefits are a part of the SS system.
And yes my little brother got cut off at 18 and quit school because he nor the family could afford it. Had to go to work to support himself and the family.
Had me been able to go on to vocational school he would have paid in far more taxes and SS payments because of better paying jobs.

 

[boedicca]

Umm widows and survivors benefits are a part of the SS system.
And yes my little brother got cut off at 18 and quit school because he nor the family could afford it. Had to go to work to support himself and the family.
Had me been able to go on to vocational school he would have paid in far more taxes and SS payments because of better paying jobs.

He made a lifestyle choice, bub.

An 18 year old who has a family should be working to support it. We don't owe him funds for an education because he had a kid or two.

 

[Sallow]

I don't support the Death Tax. I also don't support SS being controlled by the government instead of being Private Retirement Savings which an individual may pass along to heirs.

You, however, support the Death Tax, so thinking that you should receive your father's SS payments is hypocritical.

Um..no it isn't.

And it got cut off anyway.

So Reagan took the pittance in benefits I was recieving in college and spent it on an Orbital Nuclear Platform that never got off the ground.

Sound investment.

It is hypocritical according to your own value system. According to you, once a person dies, his wealth and property belong to "society". This includes SS benefits.

In my value system, your father's property and wealth would belong to him, and he would be free to choose who will be the inheritor.

According to me, when?

That the government takes out a portion of obscenely wealthy estates is not denying anyone, anything.

If anything..it protects their interests overall. Because the very system that allowed that person the means to acquire that property is subsized.

 

[Trajan]

Consequently, over time the Social Security Trust Funds have included a mix of marketable and non-marketable Treasury securities. Over the years, the proportion has shifted heavily in favor of special obligation bonds as the main asset held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Prior to 1960, the Treasury's policy was to invest primarily in marketable securities, although this policy was not always followed. Since 1960, the policy has been to invest principally in special obligation bonds, unless the Managing Trustee of the funds (i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury) determines that investment in marketable securities would be "in the public interest." In fact, since 1980 no marketable securities have been added to the Trust Funds. (For a more detailed explanation see the Office of the Actuary's Actuarial Note #142.)

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds
Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds

read the entire article at the link and learn.

in the context of the discussion its a distinction without a difference.

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds

and yes it is relevant to PC's posts. PC says the spending of the surplus only began in 1983 or somesuch.

I never said it wasn't relevant. And, I am well aware of the machinations surrounding the creative touches to basically cloak a fraud. THAT my friend was the context.

 

[Sallow]

You support the DEATH TAX, but think chidlren should receive SSI payments after they are legal adults?

Hypocrite.

My father died when he was 36. He paid into SSI and was a small business owner.

So all the money he paid in shouldn't go to his family?

Nice.

hey Ace...short answer. NO.

oh and my mother, my sole sppt. btw died at 30...I got SQUAT, bupkas, zip de do da.

just because you got a survivor benefit till 18 means little...try working for 50 years then your wife dies at 66 and you get the choice of the higher benefit yours or hers, but NOT both....where the hell does her contribution of 50 years go? Ponder that sanctioned theft.

Well good on you for surviving..and sorry your mom died so early.

That said..it was extremely tough to do what I did..and I ain't complaining.

However..I would rather see a kid today spend his time on academics..and not have to drive a truck and move furniture to pay for college. Kind of screws up the ol' study time.

 

[boedicca]

Um..no it isn't.

And it got cut off anyway.

So Reagan took the pittance in benefits I was recieving in college and spent it on an Orbital Nuclear Platform that never got off the ground.

Sound investment.

It is hypocritical according to your own value system. According to you, once a person dies, his wealth and property belong to "society". This includes SS benefits.

In my value system, your father's property and wealth would belong to him, and he would be free to choose who will be the inheritor.

According to me, when?

That the government takes out a portion of obscenely wealthy estates is not denying anyone, anything.

If anything..it protects their interests overall. Because the very system that allowed that person the means to acquire that property is subsized.

Hypocrite. You advocate the government taking away a great deal from those you view, with PEA GREEN ENVY, as obscenely wealthy, yet you wish to feed at the public trough.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

 

[boedicca]

My father died when he was 36. He paid into SSI and was a small business owner.

So all the money he paid in shouldn't go to his family?

Nice.

hey Ace...short answer. NO.

oh and my mother, my sole sppt. btw died at 30...I got SQUAT, bupkas, zip de do da.

just because you got a survivor benefit till 18 means little...try working for 50 years then your wife dies at 66 and you get the choice of the higher benefit yours or hers, but NOT both....where the hell does her contribution of 50 years go? Ponder that sanctioned theft.

Well good on you for surviving..and sorry your mom died so early.

That said..it was extremely tough to do what I did..and I ain't complaining.

However..I would rather see a kid today spend his time on academics..and not have to drive a truck and move furniture to pay for college. Kind of screws up the ol' study time.

Then he shouldn't impregnate a girl and start a family at 18.

 

[Sallow]

It is hypocritical according to your own value system. According to you, once a person dies, his wealth and property belong to "society". This includes SS benefits.

In my value system, your father's property and wealth would belong to him, and he would be free to choose who will be the inheritor.

According to me, when?

That the government takes out a portion of obscenely wealthy estates is not denying anyone, anything.

If anything..it protects their interests overall. Because the very system that allowed that person the means to acquire that property is subsized.

Hypocrite. You advocate the government taking away a great deal from those you view, with PEA GREEN ENVY, as obscenely wealthy, yet you wish to feed at the public trough.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

You're out of gas.

 

[Trajan]

Um..no it isn't.

And it got cut off anyway.

So Reagan took the pittance in benefits I was recieving in college and spent it on an Orbital Nuclear Platform that never got off the ground.

Sound investment.

It is hypocritical according to your own value system. According to you, once a person dies, his wealth and property belong to "society". This includes SS benefits.

In my value system, your father's property and wealth would belong to him, and he would be free to choose who will be the inheritor.

According to me, when?

That the government takes out a portion of obscenely wealthy estates is not denying anyone, anything.

you really don't get this at all.

If anything..it protects their interests overall.


Because the very system that allowed that person the means to acquire that property is subsized.

this is why I insisted starting from scratch ala "the rich vs. poor who gets the what out of fed. taxs" debate with NY Carbineer on Pol Chics apology thread.

heres the clue for you....equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome.....digest that, then read your blurb bolded by me, above. Get it?