We Can't Afford To Be Everywhere Forever

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sure, you paid into an alleged Social Security fund, that was then used by the government for all manner of other nonsense and completely depleted, if it ever existed, and is now dependent upon government borrowing. This is not to mention the number of people taking more money out of Social Security than they ever paid into it.

Fund nonexistent + more taken out than put in = welfare

Sooooo...

If your insurance company pays out on a claim more than you paid in premiums, it's welfare, right? If you have stocks, bonds, annuities, accounts that generate dividends or interest, it's welfare too, right?

Nice to know that most of the country is on welfare, toots.

I gave up....according to him everything is welfare.

Considering that so many companies use short term credit to make their payrolls and that he probably doesn't "put in" as much work as his employer pays him for, his paycheck is probably welfare too.

My employer is free to terminate my employment at any time should they find my work sub-par. The fact that they haven't would seem to indicate that I am at least worth as much as they're paying me.

But that does not refute the fact that, by your own definition, if you are not putting in the same value that they are paying you, that your paycheck, at least over and above the value you contribute, is welfare.

Again, you're comparing apples and flamingos.

 

[Dan Daly]

So you dont pay social security taxes?

Sure, you paid into an alleged Social Security fund, that was then used by the government for all manner of other nonsense and completely depleted, if it ever existed, and is now dependent upon government borrowing. This is not to mention the number of people taking more money out of Social Security than they ever paid into it.

Fund nonexistent + more taken out than put in = welfare

Sooooo...

If your insurance company pays out on a claim more than you paid in premiums, it's welfare, right? If you have stocks, bonds, annuities, accounts that generate dividends or interest, it's welfare too, right?

Nice to know that most of the country is on welfare, toots.

Free exchange on the market, where insurance companies are voluntarily offering these services knowing that in some individual cases they will be paying out more than they take in, but in the grand scheme of things bringing in more than they pay out, is not the same as government forcefully taking money from everyone, spending the money, and then paying out more than they took in by borrowing and inflating, thus forcing the people they've already looted to contribute even more.

The difference is in contracting a service with a mutually consenting party, and being robbed multiple times by an organization so that they can pay somebody else off.

While I agree that we are forced to participate in the ponzi scheme called Social Security...that was not one of the requirements of welfare that you outlined. Of course if one is forced into a ponzi scheme, you can hardly call anything recovered over and above what was taken as "welfare", it's more like "compensatory damages".

As it must be looted from others I can definitely call it welfare.

Sooo, if I loot your home then give what I took back to you, plus some gomen money, it's welfare. Gotcha. I want some of what you are smoking.

 

[Dan Daly]

Sooooo...

If your insurance company pays out on a claim more than you paid in premiums, it's welfare, right? If you have stocks, bonds, annuities, accounts that generate dividends or interest, it's welfare too, right?

Nice to know that most of the country is on welfare, toots.

I gave up....according to him everything is welfare.

Considering that so many companies use short term credit to make their payrolls and that he probably doesn't "put in" as much work as his employer pays him for, his paycheck is probably welfare too.

My employer is free to terminate my employment at any time should they find my work sub-par. The fact that they haven't would seem to indicate that I am at least worth as much as they're paying me.

But that does not refute the fact that, by your own definition, if you are not putting in the same value that they are paying you, that your paycheck, at least over and above the value you contribute, is welfare.

Again, you're comparing apples and flamingos.

Which what they all say when they have no factual or logical refutation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sure, you paid into an alleged Social Security fund, that was then used by the government for all manner of other nonsense and completely depleted, if it ever existed, and is now dependent upon government borrowing. This is not to mention the number of people taking more money out of Social Security than they ever paid into it.

Fund nonexistent + more taken out than put in = welfare

Sooooo...

If your insurance company pays out on a claim more than you paid in premiums, it's welfare, right? If you have stocks, bonds, annuities, accounts that generate dividends or interest, it's welfare too, right?

Nice to know that most of the country is on welfare, toots.

Free exchange on the market, where insurance companies are voluntarily offering these services knowing that in some individual cases they will be paying out more than they take in, but in the grand scheme of things bringing in more than they pay out, is not the same as government forcefully taking money from everyone, spending the money, and then paying out more than they took in by borrowing and inflating, thus forcing the people they've already looted to contribute even more.

The difference is in contracting a service with a mutually consenting party, and being robbed multiple times by an organization so that they can pay somebody else off.

While I agree that we are forced to participate in the ponzi scheme called Social Security...that was not one of the requirements of welfare that you outlined. Of course if one is forced into a ponzi scheme, you can hardly call anything recovered over and above what was taken as "welfare", it's more like "compensatory damages".

As it must be looted from others I can definitely call it welfare.

Sooo, if I loot your home then give what I took back to you, plus some gomen money, it's welfare. Gotcha. I want some of what you are smoking.

Smoking is unhealthy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I gave up....according to him everything is welfare.

Considering that so many companies use short term credit to make their payrolls and that he probably doesn't "put in" as much work as his employer pays him for, his paycheck is probably welfare too.

My employer is free to terminate my employment at any time should they find my work sub-par. The fact that they haven't would seem to indicate that I am at least worth as much as they're paying me.

But that does not refute the fact that, by your own definition, if you are not putting in the same value that they are paying you, that your paycheck, at least over and above the value you contribute, is welfare.

Again, you're comparing apples and flamingos.

Which what they all say when they have no factual or logical refutation.

Or when they don't wish to repeat the point that you've still failed to acknowledge or refute from a previous post.

 

[Dan Daly]

Me and you are going to get along just fine, Kevin....we may disagree on some points, but at least you are not a wussy who backs down in the face of my obviously superior intellect, logic and, of course, good looks.

 

[XPostFacto]

You forgot to include Democratic neocons like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in that analysis, but otherwise spot on. Though I would also point out we can't afford things like Social Security either.

They should eliminate welfare and apply it to SS.

SS is welfare.

You forgot to include Democratic neocons like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in that analysis, but otherwise spot on. Though I would also point out we can't afford things like Social Security either.

They should eliminate welfare and apply it to SS.

SS is welfare.

So you dont pay social security taxes?

Sure, you paid into an alleged Social Security fund, that was then used by the government for all manner of other nonsense and completely depleted, if it ever existed, and is now dependent upon government borrowing. This is not to mention the number of people taking more money out of Social Security than they ever paid into it.

Fund nonexistent + more taken out than put in = welfare

Sooooo...

If your insurance company pays out on a claim more than you paid in premiums, it's welfare, right? If you have stocks, bonds, annuities, accounts that generate dividends or interest, it's welfare too, right?

Nice to know that most of the country is on welfare, toots.

The only difference is that one who invests in stocks and bonds puts in money upfront to purchase those stocks and bonds, which in turn pay dividends and interest. These upfront investments contrast immensely with the welfare recipients, who invest nothing but reap the benefits just the same, hence welfare.

 

[Dan Daly]

They should eliminate welfare and apply it to SS.

SS is welfare.

They should eliminate welfare and apply it to SS.

SS is welfare.

So you dont pay social security taxes?

Sure, you paid into an alleged Social Security fund, that was then used by the government for all manner of other nonsense and completely depleted, if it ever existed, and is now dependent upon government borrowing. This is not to mention the number of people taking more money out of Social Security than they ever paid into it.

Fund nonexistent + more taken out than put in = welfare

Sooooo...

If your insurance company pays out on a claim more than you paid in premiums, it's welfare, right? If you have stocks, bonds, annuities, accounts that generate dividends or interest, it's welfare too, right?

Nice to know that most of the country is on welfare, toots.

The only difference is that one who invests in stocks and bonds puts in money upfront to purchase those stocks and bonds, which in turn pay dividends and interest. These upfront investments contrast immensely with the welfare recipients, who invest nothing but reap the benefits just the same, hence welfare.

I believe that people (working people at least) are required to pay into SS and medicrap upfront...via forced taxation on their wages.

 

[XPostFacto]

Me and you are going to get along just fine, Kevin....we may disagree on some points, but at least you are not a wussy who backs down in the face of my obviously superior intellect, logic and, of course, good looks.

I hope that avatar isn't your picture.

 

[Dan Daly]

Me and you are going to get along just fine, Kevin....we may disagree on some points, but at least you are not a wussy who backs down in the face of my obviously superior intellect, logic and, of course, good looks.

I hope that avatar isn't your picture.

Of course not, I am much uglier...and still living.

 

[MaryL]

But we can afford millions of illegals?

Yeah, funny thing about that, can you tell a liberal fiscal wastrel from a conservative wastrel? Apparently, ONLY liberals can waste money on vague causes and then be self righteous about wasting money. But they shame conservatives...MAN, let's get real here. We can fund Illegal FOREVER? Ok, just till hell freezes over. Are you kidding?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

dear, we tried isolationism before WW2 and got bombed at Pearl Harbor. Did you want to watch Hitler kill every Jew on earth? Do you want to watch ISIS enslave every woman on earth?

 

[Truman123]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

You forgot to include Democratic neocons like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in that analysis, but otherwise spot on. Though I would also point out we can't afford things like Social Security either.

They should eliminate welfare and apply it to SS.

SS is welfare.

Not real big on reading, are you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But they shame conservatives...MAN, let's get real here. We can fund Illegal FOREVER? Ok, just till hell freezes over. Are you kidding?

dear, Republicans sign the Pledge, shut down govt, vote against stimulus and Obamacare, and introduce Balanced Budget Amendments all of which Democrats oppose with every fiber of their worthless tax, print, borrow and spend souls.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

dear, we tried isolationism before WW2 and got bombed at Pearl Harbor. Did you want to watch Hitler kill every Jew on earth? Do you want to watch ISIS enslave every woman on earth?

Before WW2 we tried WW1, which was the opposite of isolationism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

You forgot to include Democratic neocons like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in that analysis, but otherwise spot on. Though I would also point out we can't afford things like Social Security either.

They should eliminate welfare and apply it to SS.

SS is welfare.

Not real big on reading, are you?

Not real big on making an actual point, are you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

dear, we tried isolationism before WW2 and got bombed at Pearl Harbor. Did you want to watch Hitler kill every Jew on earth? Do you want to watch ISIS enslave every woman on earth?

Before WW2 we tried WW1, which was the opposite of isolationism.

dear, WW1 was the same. We got in very very late after 10's of millions had already been slaughtered!!

 

[HenryBHough]

Good thing about not being everywhere is it makes good cover for America no longer being anywhere in world opinion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

dear, we tried isolationism before WW2 and got bombed at Pearl Harbor. Did you want to watch Hitler kill every Jew on earth? Do you want to watch ISIS enslave every woman on earth?

Before WW2 we tried WW1, which was the opposite of isolationism.

dear, WW1 was the same. We got in very very late after 10's of millions had already been slaughtered!!

The point being that WW1 is proof that the U.S. was not "isolationist," but rather very much interventionist. Especially considering WW1 led directly to WW2. Not to mention that before WW1 was the Spanish-American War. Not "isolationist" then either.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The point being that WW1 is proof that the U.S. was not "isolationist," but rather very much interventionist.

dear, very much interventionist would mean getting in in the very beginning not in at the very end. In any case it is silly subject since it is our obligations to stop Putin ISIS and Ebola as the richest country on earth by far and as the last best hope for freedom on earth.