The liberal march towards EXTREME fascism

[Rigby5]

I marvel at the idiocy of the leftwing theory that private ownership causes bureaucracy.

Easy to explain how private ownership causes bureaucracy.

When you have private, for profit companies doing your health care, each one tries to avoid paying out.
So they deliberately create massive paperwork to suppress payouts.
That causes health care providers to have to hire lots of people with insurance claim expertise, and that is where almost half of your health care costs are coming from.
When you do public health care instead, the providers are already on salary, and they don't really care at all how much health care they then happen to supply in any time frame, as it will all average out anyway. So they there is no paperwork or attempts to scrimp.
The public providers are the most honorable and are free to use their own judgement as to what sort of health care people deserve.
Government employees are not under nearly as much pressure to make a profit as private employees are.

The whole point of government bureaucracy is corruption from the profit motive, which is vastly increased in private industry.
For example, sometimes you can talk a cop out of a ticket if you have a sympathetic story. But imagine the cop was working on a percentage basis and had a quota to fill? You would never be able to talk then out of anything. It is only public sector that is slightly humane, because it is not totally profit motivated.

 

[bripat9643]

Easy to explain how private ownership causes bureaucracy.

When you have private, for profit companies doing your health care, each one tries to avoid paying out.
So they deliberately create massive paperwork to suppress payouts.
That causes health care providers to have to hire lots of people with insurance claim expertise, and that is where almost half of your health care costs are coming from.
When you do public health care instead, the providers are already on salary, and they don't really care at all how much health care they then happen to supply in any time frame, as it will all average out anyway. So they there is no paperwork or attempts to scrimp.
The public providers are the most honorable and are free to use their own judgement as to what sort of health care people deserve.
Government employees are not under nearly as much pressure to make a profit as private employees are.

The whole point of government bureaucracy is corruption from the profit motive, which is vastly increased in private industry.
For example, sometimes you can talk a cop out of a ticket if you have a sympathetic story. But imagine the cop was working on a percentage basis and had a quota to fill? You would never be able to talk then out of anything. It is only public sector that is slightly humane, because it is not totally profit motivated.

I've heard all the explanations. They are all obvious bullshit.

 

[P@triot]

VERY wrong. Social Security does pay you more than you put in

Hahahaha! "Very wrong" and the proceeds to admit what I said was 100% accurate

 

[P@triot]

VERY wrong. Social Security does pay a minimum even to those who neve paid in

Hahahaha! Once again, jack-hole states "very wrong" and the proceeds to admit what I said was 100% accurate

 

[P@triot]

Social Security does pay you more than you put in, but only about 3% or so, which is very minor interest over the length of time you let the government borrow and use your money.
Social Security does pay a minimum even to those who neve paid in, but that does NOT come from taxes, but from the Social Security surplus.

Bwahahaha! How can their be a "surplus" when you just claimed that the government gives you back everything they took, plus an additional 3% interest on what they took.

You're literally contradicting yourself, jack-hole. You really can't come up with a better troll response than that? Really? It's like you're not even trying.

 

[P@triot]

Wrong. For example, Social Security is not federal spending at all, but is just our money we are putting away for later.

So Rigby5 's fall-down hilarious claim is that there is no federal spending with Social Security. They just take our money, put it in a safe, and then give it back to us later.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that welfare is part of Social Security and millions and millions draw from welfare without ever having put into it, how does jack-hole here think that the federal government oversees Social Security?

Well, that would be the Social Security Administration. Made up of roughly 60,000 employees. All of which who pull a paycheck (which, at a paltry $50,000 per year, would come to a staggering $3 billion per year in salaries). How are government salaries paid? Taxes.

And that doesn't even include their costly healthcare benefits, pensions, buildings they work in, computers and servers they use, etc. In 2020, all of that added up to over $6 billion per year. That's just in administration of Social Security.

 

[P@triot]

So let's recap for a moment here. Chinese or Russian disinformation account Rigby5 states...

• Social Security doesn't cost the government anything, but admits that people who never paid into it, pull from it
• Social Security only gives you right back the exact money it took from you, but admits you get at least 3% more total than what you put into it
• Social Security has a "surplus", despite stating emphatically that they never take more than they give back to you
• Social Security doesn't use taxes, but can't explain then how 60,000 employees receive paychecks, benefits, resources, etc. to carry out their duties

This jack-hole troll has literally contradicted every statement he has made about Social Security in this thread. Do you need any more evidence that he is a foreign disinformation account?

 

[P@triot]

So since Social Security is totally self funding

Hahahaha! Is that why it is "insolvent"? Because it is "self-funding"?

By the way, jack-hole, by your logic, defense is "self-funding". They take taxes to fund it just like the do Social Security, ergo it is "self-funding"

You're not even trying at this point. That's just lazy. Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin might actually have you executed if you don't get your shit together make some form of an effort here.

 

[P@triot]

There is almost no social services in our federal budget at all.

Caught you in yet another egregious lie...

1. Medicaid ("social service" in our "federal budget")
2. Medicare ("social service" in our "federal budget")
3. Obamacare ("social service" in our "federal budget")
4. Welfare ("social service" in our "federal budget")
5. Food stamps ("social service" in our "federal budget")
6. Social Security ("social service" in our "federal budget")

 

[P@triot]

Note how Rigby5 's infographic is unsourced, insults Republicans, and came from Russia, while mine sites the Office of Management Budget and Budget directly from the White House government website?

***mic drop***

 

[HenryBHough]

Where is no private sector all the means of production will be owned by government.

Everybody will get a montly living allowance without having to work.

Plenty to spend!

Nothing to buy.

Welcome to Venezuela.

 

[Rigby5]

I've heard all the explanations. They are all obvious bullshit.

If the people actually control government, it will be benign and not wasteful.
It is only when private profit motivated companies bribe government to take it over, that it becomes evil and wasteful.

 

[Rigby5]

Hahahaha! "Very wrong" and the proceeds to admit what I said was 100% accurate

You implies Social Security was a means of wealth redistribution, taking from some to give to others.
That is not the case.
Everyone gets more than they put in, but there is no one getting wealthy by theft from others.
Minimum SS is very small and not really enough for anyone to live on.
And the very wealthy do not have to pay in at all on most of their income.

 

[Rigby5]

Bwahahaha! How can their be a "surplus" when you just claimed that the government gives you back everything they took, plus an additional 3% interest on what they took.

You're literally contradicting yourself, jack-hole. You really can't come up with a better troll response than that? Really? It's like you're not even trying.

Wrong.
There is a time delay between pay ins and pay outs, decades later.
In the mean time, there is a surplus that SS invest in the national debt interest.

 

[Rigby5]

So Rigby5 's fall-down hilarious claim is that there is no federal spending with Social Security. They just take our money, put it in a safe, and then give it back to us later.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that welfare is part of Social Security and millions and millions draw from welfare without ever having put into it, how does jack-hole here think that the federal government oversees Social Security?

Well, that would be the Social Security Administration. Made up of roughly 60,000 employees. All of which who pull a paycheck (which, at a paltry $50,000 per year, would come to a staggering $3 billion per year in salaries). How are government salaries paid? Taxes.

And that doesn't even include their costly healthcare benefits, pensions, buildings they work in, computers and servers they use, etc. In 2020, all of that added up to over $6 billion per year. That's just in administration of Social Security.

Wrong.
Welfare is NOT part of Social Security.
Only ADC and Disability are part of Social Security.
For example, SNAP and subsidized housing are not at all mixed with Social Security.

But you have a point that SS admin likely costs more than $3 billion. I would guess more like $5 billion?

 

[Rigby5]

So let's recap for a moment here. Chinese or Russian disinformation account Rigby5 states...

• Social Security doesn't cost the government anything, but admits that people who never paid into it, pull from it
• Social Security only gives you right back the exact money it took from you, but admits you get at least 3% more total than what you put into it
• Social Security has a "surplus", despite stating emphatically that they never take more than they give back to you
• Social Security doesn't use taxes, but can't explain then how 60,000 employees receive paychecks, benefits, resources, etc. to carry out their duties

This jack-hole troll has literally contradicted every statement he has made about Social Security in this thread. Do you need any more evidence that he is a foreign disinformation account?

The government borrows from the SS surplus, so it does not cost the government, but saves the government debt interest by borrowing from the surplus.
SS does give you back more than you pay in, but after a 30 year delay, when the use of that money has benefited both you and government.
The surplus is given back to you. They do no take more than they give back.
The $5 billion a year SS overhead is paid by the SS fund, not taxes.

 

[Rigby5]

Hahahaha! Is that why it is "insolvent"? Because it is "self-funding"?

By the way, jack-hole, by your logic, defense is "self-funding". They take taxes to fund it just like the do Social Security, ergo it is "self-funding"

You're not even trying at this point. That's just lazy. Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin might actually have you executed if you don't get your shit together make some form of an effort here.

SS will only be insolvent for 20 years or so, and that is due to the Boomer baby anomaly.
It is not funded by taxes.
When SS runs out of money shortly, they will just reduce pay outs.
They will not take tax money.
They legally can't.

 

[Rigby5]

Caught you in yet another egregious lie...

1. Medicaid ("social service" in our "federal budget")
2. Medicare ("social service" in our "federal budget")
3. Obamacare ("social service" in our "federal budget")
4. Welfare ("social service" in our "federal budget")
5. Food stamps ("social service" in our "federal budget")
6. Social Security ("social service" in our "federal budget")

View attachment 538357

Wrong.
Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA cost almost nothing.
You have to BUY into these programs and they are self funding mostly.

There essentially is no welfare in the US.

Food stamps have to be purchased and are only a slight discount, so SNAP costs very little.

Social Security gets no money from the government and instead is a huge benefit to government by reducing debt interest.

 

[bripat9643]

If the people actually control government, it will be benign and not wasteful.
It is only when private profit motivated companies bribe government to take it over, that it becomes evil and wasteful.

First error: people don't actually control the government. Your second statement proved it. Government is evil and wasteful regardless of whether anyone takes it over. Government suffers no penalty when it's evil and wastfull, so why would anyone conclude it's ever not evil and wasteful?

 

[Colin norris]

If that were even remotely true, I wouldn’t have owned you every time you’ve posted. Your post right there is a vintage example of the low-IQ left. Once they’ve been defeated by logic and reason, they lash-out in a fit of emotional frustration over the realization that they are wrong and were duped.

You've owned me?
There's not one Republican on this forum I have not taken a piece from.
You have never changed that. I'm all over you clowns like a cheap suit.