Do you support social welfare programs where the one paying gets nothing for the cost incurred and the one getting something incurs no costs?
I have an amazing idea you will love. Let's say you can get social security at 65 years. If you take 1 year of welfare you can't retire until 66. If you need 5 then you retire at 70. Max you can do welfare is 5. That's paying it back. A loan. And uncle Sam wins if they die age 69.
I have a better idea. Let those that want to opt out of the SS Ponzi scheme do so and invest their money the way they see fit. That way, if they die younger, their family gets the money and the government isn't involved. If they opt out but choose not to invest themselves, when they don't have anything at an older age, tough shit. They made the choice. For those that need financial help, let those that think they deserve another person's money give it to them instead of the government forcing it from those they think have too much.
In your scenario, it assumes they live long enough to pay back the "loan". What happens in situations where those getting welfare don't live to or past 65? Nothing yet they will have received something they didn't pay back. In my proposal, the bleeding hearts get what they think should happen with people being provided what they don't have and those thinking it should happen paying for it. SS isn't involved because people invested themselves. Accountability occurs because those that made bad choices now have to pay for those bad choices and not someone else.
That's great if they don't live past 65! If they got the max 5 years of welfare at age 20 then from 25-65 they paid into social security but then didn't get anything out of it in the end. Sure they got the 5 years of welfare but that's what we call a social safety net.
I don't know what you did for a living when you were younger but you had social safety nets behind you whether you took advantage of them or not. And I know lots of cons who thought they'd never need them and then did. And they took FULL advantage of them and justified it by saying, "i paid in". No shit you paid in. We all did. But not all of us are going to take advantage. That's what insurance is for.
Lots of Republicans started business' that failed and they were willing to try because those safety nets existed. Want to stop people from trying? Remove the nets.
I get it. You are an conservative as they come. Every man for himself!
I provided a way for a safety net where both of us get what we want. People you say should have what you want them to have get it because bleeding hearts like you pay for it and those of us that don't believe one person deserves another person's money aren't forced to fund it. We both get what we say we want. Why do you oppose it?
If I didn't use them, they weren't behind me. In fact, twice I could have used them and didn't because, as I said, no one owes me anything.
Welfare is not insurance. With insurance, you have to pay in to be part of a group in order to get out. If you don't buy the policy, you don't get what the policy provides if something happens.
Want to stop people from trying, keep the safety nets giving them a reason to not try.
You're as Liberal as they come. Someone not doing their share benefits because someone that is but doesn't benefit is forced to fund it.
Damn right I'm for myself. I have no problem doing so since it's not my responsibility in any way to do for someone that isn't doing for him/herself but can. If someone unwilling to do for him/herself thinks it's OK to look out for him/herself with someone else's money, you shouldn't have a single problem with the person earning it doing the same because it's their money.
