How to fix SS Trump style

[bendog]

Any one of us can get some horrible cancer or be in some terrible accident .

That shit will wipe out your job and savings in a matter of months .

Then your ass would be running to the nearest SS office for help.

Since SS doesn't pay for cancer horrible or not, accidents or not, savings or not, people run because they collect benefits. SS does not pay a penny based on need.

SS is not just a retirement thing . If you become disabled you can get disability from SS . Which includes Medicare / caid health coverage .

It is never a need thing. Medicare and Medicaid are not part of SS. The idea that Social Security is a safety-net is simply a myth.

Sure it is . There is ssi and ssdi for people who become or are disabled .

Well, Joe's right that SSDI and SSI are not paid with SS taxes, but they are both tied to people working enough "quarters" for themselves or someone related to become eligible. I'm quite sure that if one goes back into history (-: they'll find that SS was not intended to totally replace saving for retirement, which it has largely become.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Any one of us can get some horrible cancer or be in some terrible accident .

That shit will wipe out your job and savings in a matter of months .

Then your ass would be running to the nearest SS office for help.

Since SS doesn't pay for cancer horrible or not, accidents or not, savings or not, people run because they collect benefits. SS does not pay a penny based on need.

SS is not just a retirement thing . If you become disabled you can get disability from SS . Which includes Medicare / caid health coverage .

It is never a need thing. Medicare and Medicaid are not part of SS. The idea that Social Security is a safety-net is simply a myth.

Sure it is . There is ssi and ssdi for people who become or are disabled .

SSI is a government program funded by the general fund. It is not the same thing as SS even though it is administered by the SSA.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Any one of us can get some horrible cancer or be in some terrible accident .

That shit will wipe out your job and savings in a matter of months .

Then your ass would be running to the nearest SS office for help.

Since SS doesn't pay for cancer horrible or not, accidents or not, savings or not, people run because they collect benefits. SS does not pay a penny based on need.

SS is not just a retirement thing . If you become disabled you can get disability from SS . Which includes Medicare / caid health coverage .

It is never a need thing. Medicare and Medicaid are not part of SS. The idea that Social Security is a safety-net is simply a myth.

Sure it is . There is ssi and ssdi for people who become or are disabled .

Well, Joe's right that SSDI and SSI are not paid with SS taxes, but they are both tied to people working enough "quarters" for themselves or someone related to become eligible. I'm quite sure that if one goes back into history (-: they'll find that SS was not intended to totally replace saving for retirement, which it has largely become.

If you find that history, I hope that you will share it with me. SS was never intended to consume 10.6 of working wages.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Any one of us can get some horrible cancer or be in some terrible accident .

That shit will wipe out your job and savings in a matter of months .

Then your ass would be running to the nearest SS office for help.

Since SS doesn't pay for cancer horrible or not, accidents or not, savings or not, people run because they collect benefits. SS does not pay a penny based on need.

SS is not just a retirement thing . If you become disabled you can get disability from SS . Which includes Medicare / caid health coverage .

It is never a need thing. Medicare and Medicaid are not part of SS. The idea that Social Security is a safety-net is simply a myth.

Sure it is . There is ssi and ssdi for people who become or are disabled .

Well, Joe's right that SSDI and SSI are not paid with SS taxes, but they are both tied to people working enough "quarters" for themselves or someone related to become eligible. I'm quite sure that if one goes back into history (-: they'll find that SS was not intended to totally replace saving for retirement, which it has largely become.

SSI is a Supplementary Security Income. There is no work requirement. It is a means-tested welfare program.

 

[Andylusion]

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

I think he means it saves people from having to help their family directly. It allows people the illusion that they can ditch their family members in need, to be a burden on society.

In reality, as you said, government taxes the poor to pay for the poor. In short, the cost of supporting seniors is larger with government, than it ever would be if people supported each other.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social Security in large part protects society from having to support seniors who outlive their savings

Now that's ridiculous. Since government saves none of the money paid into social security, it ensures your children will have to write checks to you, it protects them from nothing

I think he means it saves people from having to help their family directly. It allows people the illusion that they can ditch their family members in need, to be a burden on society.

In reality, as you said, government taxes the poor to pay for the poor. In short, the cost of supporting seniors is larger with government, than it ever would be if people supported each other.

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them.

The government may tax the poor to pay for the poor, but that isn't remotely the case with Social Security. Bernie Sanders and his wife collect $46,000 per year in benefits. Can you explain how SS is about poverty when it allocates its resources in such ways. Households headed by someone over 65 is the wealthiest of any age demographic. Social Security may tax the poor, but its benefits have nothing to do with welfare - unless you use a non-standard definition of the word.

If you want to read about what Social Security would look like as welfare :

Social Security: Do 'earned benefits' stand in the way of effective reforms? - AEI

 

[kaz]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

 

[Redfish]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

the problem is that we had no choice about having money taken from our paychecks for SS. The govt took our money and promised to give us SS payments if we lived long enough

the second problem is that under LBJ the SS fund was merged with the general fund, thereby making it a tax rather than a retirement savings program. Working people are having money taken from their pay to pay the benefits to retired people.

Calling it anything other than a tax today, is lying.

 

[kaz]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

I only offered you facts.

1) Government spent your money as it came in, it saved nothing
2) Your social security welfare check is taken from your children and given to you

That you think government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to people under retirement age is welfare and government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to people over retirement age isn't welfare is completely unsupported by facts. You think the same formula leads to different results

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

the problem is that we had no choice about having money taken from our paychecks for SS. The govt took our money and promised to give us SS payments if we lived long enough

the second problem is that under LBJ the SS fund was merged with the general fund, thereby making it a tax rather than a retirement savings program. Working people are having money taken from their pay to pay the benefits to retired people.

Calling it anything other than a tax today, is lying.

I have researched SS for five years. The problem with Social Security is that no one is paying any attention to the system. The politicians don't care because the voters don't.

The idea that LBJ took money from SS is absurd on the surface. The system was a pay as you go program at the time. There was no money to take. The fact is that the 'fund' was never merged with the General Fund. The "fund" did not even exist to any material extent.

This is why I do not bother with solutions. People do not understand the problem - and they have no interest in looking at it until it shows up on their doorstep.

Here is the problem. Voters do not even listen to facts. They end their sentences with: calling it anything else is lying. You have a conclusion and you haven't spent probably 15 minutes thinking about this problem. FYI, the 2016 Trustee's Report will come out today. How many pages are you going to read? Just a guess, zero. That is the number that 300 million Americans will read.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

I only offered you facts.

1) Government spent your money as it came in, it saved nothing
2) Your social security welfare check is taken from your children and given to you

That you think government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to people under retirement age is welfare and government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to people over retirement age isn't welfare is completely unsupported by facts. You think the same formula leads to different results

You have offered me opinion shaped around words that don't mean what they mean in English. You have no facts. You have opinion formulated in emotional hyperboles. You call it welfare because somehow you think that I will be swayed by mean-spirited words. Sorry wake me when you read a page from the Trustees Report.

 

[kaz]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

the problem is that we had no choice about having money taken from our paychecks for SS. The govt took our money and promised to give us SS payments if we lived long enough

the second problem is that under LBJ the SS fund was merged with the general fund, thereby making it a tax rather than a retirement savings program. Working people are having money taken from their pay to pay the benefits to retired people.

Calling it anything other than a tax today, is lying.

I have researched SS for five years. The problem with Social Security is that no one is paying any attention to the system. The politicians don't care because the voters don't.

The idea that LBJ took money from SS is absurd on the surface. The system was a pay as you go program at the time. There was no money to take. The fact is that the 'fund' was never merged with the General Fund. The "fund" did not even exist to any material extent.

This is why I do not bother with solutions. People do not understand the problem - and they have no interest in looking at it until it shows up on their doorstep.

Here is the problem. Voters, like you, do not even listen to facts. They need their sentences with calling it anything else is lying. You have a conclusion and you haven't spent probably 15 minutes thinking about this problem. FYI, the 2016 Trustee's Report will come out today. How many pages are you going to read? Just a guess, zero. That is the number that 300 million Americans will read.

We should end Social Security and States should add what is honestly called a welfare program to replace it for people who didn't save for their retirement. The Federal government should stay out of it. Social Security and Medicare are flagrant violations of the 10th amendment

 

[kaz]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

I only offered you facts.

1) Government spent your money as it came in, it saved nothing
2) Your social security welfare check is taken from your children and given to you

That you think government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to people under retirement age is welfare and government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to people over retirement age isn't welfare is completely unsupported by facts. You think the same formula leads to different results

You have offered me opinion shaped around words that don't mean what they mean in English. You have no facts. You have opinion formulated in emotional hyperboles. You call it welfare because somehow you think that I will be swayed by mean-spirited words. Sorry wake me when you read a page from the Trustees Report.

Opinion?

Government spent the money as it came in. They saved zero. You keep saying you research this subject and you didn't know that? Maybe you need to research a little deeper ...

 

[kaz]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

I only offered you facts.

1) Government spent your money as it came in, it saved nothing
2) Your social security welfare check is taken from your children and given to you

That you think government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to people under retirement age is welfare and government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to people over retirement age isn't welfare is completely unsupported by facts. You think the same formula leads to different results

You have offered me opinion shaped around words that don't mean what they mean in English. You have no facts. You have opinion formulated in emotional hyperboles. You call it welfare because somehow you think that I will be swayed by mean-spirited words. Sorry wake me when you read a page from the Trustees Report.

And you're the one getting emotional, Nancy. I thought you wanted a discussion based on facts?

 

[Redfish]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

I only offered you facts.

1) Government spent your money as it came in, it saved nothing
2) Your social security welfare check is taken from your children and given to you

That you think government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to people under retirement age is welfare and government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to people over retirement age isn't welfare is completely unsupported by facts. You think the same formula leads to different results

welfare and SS are both being paid from tax receipts. anyone who thinks otherwise is either naïve or a fool.

 

[Redfish]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

the problem is that we had no choice about having money taken from our paychecks for SS. The govt took our money and promised to give us SS payments if we lived long enough

the second problem is that under LBJ the SS fund was merged with the general fund, thereby making it a tax rather than a retirement savings program. Working people are having money taken from their pay to pay the benefits to retired people.

Calling it anything other than a tax today, is lying.

I have researched SS for five years. The problem with Social Security is that no one is paying any attention to the system. The politicians don't care because the voters don't.

The idea that LBJ took money from SS is absurd on the surface. The system was a pay as you go program at the time. There was no money to take. The fact is that the 'fund' was never merged with the General Fund. The "fund" did not even exist to any material extent.

This is why I do not bother with solutions. People do not understand the problem - and they have no interest in looking at it until it shows up on their doorstep.

Here is the problem. Voters do not even listen to facts. They end their sentences with: calling it anything else is lying. You have a conclusion and you haven't spent probably 15 minutes thinking about this problem. FYI, the 2016 Trustee's Report will come out today. How many pages are you going to read? Just a guess, zero. That is the number that 300 million Americans will read.

I agree with you on all of that. But it is true that under LBJ the SS fund lost its identity completely.

SS today is a tax on working people, just as are welfare, food stamps, congressional salaries, and DOD.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

Not really, but you are close. The problem for society is when children either have no family or that family chooses to abandon them

And your solution to that is to give EVERYONE a government check of other people's money? Seriously?

I participate in the discussion about Social Security on a facts only basis. Until people can have a factual discussion, there isn't a point in talking about solution because no one agrees on the problem. I have seen in your writing that you don't fully appreciate the size of the problem. The Trustees Report is coming out today, and you will find another $1 trillion of unfunded liabilities because of the passage of time. The longer we do nothing, the greater the cost will be.

the problem is that we had no choice about having money taken from our paychecks for SS. The govt took our money and promised to give us SS payments if we lived long enough

the second problem is that under LBJ the SS fund was merged with the general fund, thereby making it a tax rather than a retirement savings program. Working people are having money taken from their pay to pay the benefits to retired people.

Calling it anything other than a tax today, is lying.

I have researched SS for five years. The problem with Social Security is that no one is paying any attention to the system. The politicians don't care because the voters don't.

The idea that LBJ took money from SS is absurd on the surface. The system was a pay as you go program at the time. There was no money to take. The fact is that the 'fund' was never merged with the General Fund. The "fund" did not even exist to any material extent.

This is why I do not bother with solutions. People do not understand the problem - and they have no interest in looking at it until it shows up on their doorstep.

Here is the problem. Voters do not even listen to facts. They end their sentences with: calling it anything else is lying. You have a conclusion and you haven't spent probably 15 minutes thinking about this problem. FYI, the 2016 Trustee's Report will come out today. How many pages are you going to read? Just a guess, zero. That is the number that 300 million Americans will read.

As long as you get the promise of benefits, it isn't welfare. It isn't even a tax. It may be over-priced insurance - and it is. Today the system takes a dollar and gives you a promise to repay roughly a dollar in benefits in the future. That isn't a tax. That is a low-quality loan. That is why we call SS financed.


I agree with you on all of that. But it is true that under LBJ the SS fund lost its identity completely.

SS today is a tax on working people, just as are welfare, food stamps, congressional salaries, and DOD.

 

[Andylusion]

It's funny because for thousands of years of human history, it was considered normal and expected, and honorable that people helped and cared for their families.

Now in our western world, this generation is so selfish, so narcissistic, that just suggesting that you help out your family instead of government, is reviled and hated.

So much for honor.

Umm....would you want to actually live in those wonderful "thousands of years"?

And selfish and narcissistic? For having some concern for fellow Americans and conscience slightly beyond your own picket fence? Sounds a bit upside down.

I ague the opposite of what you spelled out. The pro-socialist, pro-social security, pro- government take care of them, people don't have any concern for their fellow Americans.

I live in Ohio. Did you ever read about the Great Dayton Flood, of 1913? Dayton Ohio was nearly wiped off the map by a massive flood.

National Cash Register, which was head quartered in Dayton, had their employees build boats, and produced over 300 boats, in a few days time. They organized search and rescue, on their own, with the company support.

Cleveland got hammered by the flood, but on it's own accord, because Dayton was far worse, with hundreds of people killed, sent aid to flooded Dayton, from flooded Cleveland.

You remember on the Monopoly game board, that square "community chest". That wasn't a joke. Community Chest was a charity organization, created to help in just such situations. They loaded trains with food and supplies, nurses, and equipment. Loaded the trains up at each stop along the way until supplies had to be left at the stops for the next train.

All to help save Dayton Ohio. Private fund raisers, raised over $2 Million in 1913 dollars, which today would be $50 Million dollars, from average common citizens. That's not including food, lumber, and other goods donated. That just raw money.

And the Community Chest, is now what we know as the United Way.

The amount of aid that was given to Dayton Ohio, was staggering compared to the today.

And the difference is obvious. In that day, back in 1913, the average people thought it was their duty to care for their fellow citizens. The people believed it was partly their job to help each other.

Today, the average citizen when asked about helping in disasters, would respond FEMA. After Katrina hit New Orleans, what was the buzz all about? How badly FEMA did. Remember the complains about FEMA after Katrina? Where were the discussion of private help from fellow citizens? Didn't happen.

Then Sandy, and Rita, and the list of complains against FEMA never ends. What happened to the endless aid from private citizens that saved Dayton in 1913? Where did all that help go?

Well it's government job now. The average citizen doesn't give a crap, because it's governments job. The only thing the average people do is give blood. Where are the trains filled to over capacity with supplies? Doesn't happen. Where are the $50 million dollars in private charity raised to help a troubled city? Doesn't happen.

No no.... it's Governments job. We'll vote for a government program, and substitute that for "caring about our fellow citizens", by not caring at all, and complaining about FEMA.

We don't help out our neighbors anymore. We just vote for welfare, and say "why isn't government doing enough for the poor?", while we do nothing at all ourselves. We just vote for higher taxes, and claim "That rich guy over there should do more", while you do everything you can yourself, to avoid as much taxes as you can.

Sorry, but those people in the white picket fences, cared far more about their fellow neighbors and friends, than people today do.

You only see that in rare instances now. The mid-west flood of 2008. They didn't wait for government to come fix their lives, they helped each other. You didn't hear them complain much about FEMA either. Of course those are conservative christian people, which the left-wing hates. Just ask them.

 

[Andylusion]

Never mind. I take all that back. You call greed wanting to get what you have already paid for. You aren't worth talking to.

Not at all, but I do call making a small sacrifice, like a minor cut in the proposed benefits in order to sustain the system for another generation or two to come, pretty reasonable and selfless. You know, much like the sacrifice your parents made for you during WWII, but who am I kidding. The Baby Boomers will never agree to that because it's always been all about you.

I think you may have the wrong generations. The parents of the boomers are the ones who initiated Social Security in the 1950s as a pay-as-go take from your children system. They voted in Medicare when the oldest boomer was about 20. I am not sure I see the sacrifice in these programs. Boomers are foolish enough to think that these programs will continue because 'they paid in'. It isn't about greed. It is about naivete.

I would agree. The Boomers are not guilty of greed, as much as ignorance. They actually think that the "Social Security Trust Fund" is a "trust fund", and that they paid into it, and thus they are only getting back from it, what they paid into it.

They really believe that. Should they? Of course not. But then again, Social Security was sold as it being a trust fund, and thus people believe it, because their guy said so.

And really, has much changed? Obama sold "hope and change" and morons voted for him, believe in "Hope and Change". "Yes We Can".

Was the public foolish and stupid, to buy such cheezy slick advertising? Yes. But that's why democracy doesn't work. Whoever can dupe the most people, wins.

The bottom line is, people WANT to believe that they can...... have free health care. Have free housing. Have free retirement. Have mandated high wages. They want to believe it, and FDR convinced the nimrods that social security was a great "trust fund" that would save everyone when they got old. Yes it was a left-wing lie, as all left-wing promises are.... but it's not really greed. Stupidity and naivete.... sure.