If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   FDR would fight against the current Social Security system   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 197
    More: Interesting, social security, FDR, Samuelson  
•       •       •

2826 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Apr 2012 at 1:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



197 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-09 07:00:40 PM

X-boxershorts: winterwhile: FDR against having a Ponzi Scheme we call SS?

no way

Can you even define Ponzi?

Not likely. Because you can't define insurance either.


like most Gov systems

it is broke, and going under
 
2012-04-09 07:09:53 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Robert Samuelson, still dumb as a bag of hammers

E.J. Dionne is the only actual liberal at the Washington Post. The other ostensibly leftish columnists are craven morons who value their membership in the Beltway cocktail circuit more than critical thinking.


E.J. Dionne's columns are pretty bad, mostly political screeds aimed at attacking the character and motivations of the opposition I rarely bother to read his ad hominem sermons.


Samuelson, besides being about 1000X smarter than you are, is one of the few columnists in North America who is worth reading on the subject of econimics.


You can't make the truth disappear by verbally assaulting the person speaking it.
 
2012-04-09 07:14:12 PM

winterwhile: X-boxershorts: winterwhile: FDR against having a Ponzi Scheme we call SS?

no way

Can you even define Ponzi?

Not likely. Because you can't define insurance either.

like most Gov systems

it is broke, and going under


Again, no grasp of modern monetary theory. A government that has autonomy to print it's own currency can never ever go broke.

And the government who's autonomous currency is borrowed by the entire world for purposes of trade (I refer, of course, to the USA) can never really generate enough debt.

This is the economy as it actually exists. Our debt fuels the world wide economy. And while sovereign banks hold significant amounts of American debt, the VAST majority remains in American investments.

Everything you post...AND I MEAN EVERYTHING...is posted from a position of complete, partisan, ignorance.

You look damn fine in pink son.
 
2012-04-09 07:14:36 PM

winterwhile: X-boxershorts: winterwhile: FDR against having a Ponzi Scheme we call SS?

no way

Can you even define Ponzi?

Not likely. Because you can't define insurance either.

like most Gov systems

it is broke, and going under


Well SS is undeniably a Ponzi scheme, but assuming X-boxershorts is younger than me, he's the one who's going to suffer while my generation garnishes some of every one of his paychecks.

So he'll pay up in big ways for his ignorance.
 
2012-04-09 07:16:59 PM
Let's hop back into the TARDIS and go FURTHER back, Subby. To the time when Thomas Paine (the ORIGINAL Founding Father before being a Founding Father was cool) proposed a Social Security system in his publication titled "Agrarian Justice":

www.ssa.gov
 
2012-04-09 07:18:28 PM

Animatronik: winterwhile: X-boxershorts: winterwhile: FDR against having a Ponzi Scheme we call SS?

no way

Can you even define Ponzi?

Not likely. Because you can't define insurance either.

like most Gov systems

it is broke, and going under

Well SS is undeniably a Ponzi scheme, but assuming X-boxershorts is younger than me, he's the one who's going to suffer while my generation garnishes some of every one of his paychecks.

So he'll pay up in big ways for his ignorance.


I'm 52 son. SS owes me 300,000 dollars. Insurance is a pay ahead scheme. Not a ponzi scheme. PAY AHEAD....The only way I'll suffer is if you ignorant frkktards who have no grasp of the world's economy manage to defund it completely.
 
2012-04-09 07:20:35 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Robert Samuelson, still dumb as a bag of hammers


southdakotapolitics.blogs.com
Ohhhhhhh. Robert "Rapist Glasses" Samuelson, the notorious Social Security hater. That explains everything.

Him and "Uncle Thomas" Sewell just cannot stand the idea of old and disabled people NOT rummaging through garbage cans for food or doing a tapdance in the street while billionaires laugh and throw pennies at them from their limos.
 
2012-04-09 07:33:36 PM

TV's Vinnie: TofuTheAlmighty: Robert Samuelson, still dumb as a bag of hammers

[southdakotapolitics.blogs.com image 240x363]
Ohhhhhhh. Robert "Rapist Glasses" Samuelson, the notorious Social Security hater. That explains everything.

Him and "Uncle Thomas" Sewell just cannot stand the idea of old and disabled people NOT rummaging through garbage cans for food or doing a tapdance in the street while billionaires laugh and throw pennies at them from their limos.


so as the Gov prints more money

the Middle Class who saved.... get Farked

or eat out of trash cans

good job Dem-o-rats... good job
 
2012-04-09 07:35:48 PM

winterwhile: TV's Vinnie: TofuTheAlmighty: Robert Samuelson, still dumb as a bag of hammers

[southdakotapolitics.blogs.com image 240x363]
Ohhhhhhh. Robert "Rapist Glasses" Samuelson, the notorious Social Security hater. That explains everything.

Him and "Uncle Thomas" Sewell just cannot stand the idea of old and disabled people NOT rummaging through garbage cans for food or doing a tapdance in the street while billionaires laugh and throw pennies at them from their limos.

so as the Gov prints more money

the Middle Class who saved.... get Farked

or eat out of trash cans

good job Dem-o-rats... good job


citation needed. As the vast majority of American debt over the past 150 years comes from American military activity.

Good job NeoCons. Teabaggers by any other name.

You look damn fine in pink son.
 
2012-04-09 07:40:41 PM

tgregory: Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: Dusk-You-n-Me: I don't think having to pay into SS makes me any less free. Sure, taxes suck, but I understand the importance of taking care of our elderly and disabled citizens. One of which I hope to be one day.


There are better ways to take care of the elderly and disabled than threatening free people with fines and imprisonment for not participating. A forced solution (in a free society) should never even be considered.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

I forgot that you are THAT guy.



Yup. Look out for me. That guy who thinks people own their own lives. (Crazy these days, I know.)


That's a funny way to describe how you basically are trying to duck all responsibility you have to your country.
 
2012-04-09 07:45:02 PM

Hydra: bugontherug: Hydra: FloydA: False premise. It is not "welfare" or "the dole" or anything like it. It is a form of insurance.

No, it isn't.

Helvering v. Davis did not hold that Social Security is not a form of insurance. It held that Social Security is constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare.

You're right; this one was the one I meant to post (multiple windows and all).


No, even in the Wikipedia synopsis, Fleming v. Nestor held no such thing. I suppose your argument is that because Social Security benefits are not contract rights in the same way one's right to benefit from a private insurance policy are, that therefore Social Security is not contributory insurance.

But even Fleming v. Nestor said accrued Social Security benefits cannot be stripped without due process. The same process by which the government may strip private property rights. Just because the relationship between government and beneficiary doesn't exactly match that of a private insurance relationship, doesn't mean Social Security cannot be considered something of an "insurance program." You pay into the system, which in turn entitles you to benefits which cannot be stripped except by due process of law. Much like a private insurance contract.
 
2012-04-09 08:04:23 PM

winterwhile: TV's Vinnie: TofuTheAlmighty: Robert Samuelson, still dumb as a bag of hammers

[southdakotapolitics.blogs.com image 240x363]
Ohhhhhhh. Robert "Rapist Glasses" Samuelson, the notorious Social Security hater. That explains everything.

Him and "Uncle Thomas" Sewell just cannot stand the idea of old and disabled people NOT rummaging through garbage cans for food or doing a tapdance in the street while billionaires laugh and throw pennies at them from their limos.

so as the Gov prints more money

the Middle Class who saved.... get Farked

or eat out of trash cans

good job Dem-o-rats... good job


Actually, it was Wall Street and the gop that farked over the middle class. Not Grandma.
 
2012-04-09 08:07:39 PM
This means Wendell Wilke is automatically president.
 
2012-04-09 08:34:40 PM
Dwight Eisenhower would hate the military-industrial complex. And Ted Nugent (who got out of the draft by shiatting his pants) would have got airtime on Fox News calling the Supreme Commander of European Allied Forces a "traitor" and an "America Hater."
 
2012-04-09 08:39:38 PM
Nope.
 
2012-04-09 09:02:45 PM

tgregory: Check out the 3rd bullet down. On this Social Security Administration page: http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/ (new window)

* Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2036, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits.

Land of the free. Where the government can sign you up for a service you never signed up for, threaten you with imprisonment if you don't participate, tell you that the service is for your own retirement, and then deny you the full benefit of the service.

Bunch of crooks.


How dare this country have "laws"! I didn't vote for them!
 
2012-04-09 10:09:18 PM

tgregory: Check out the 3rd bullet down. On this Social Security Administration page: http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/ (new window)

* Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2036, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits.

Land of the free. Where the government can sign you up for a service you never signed up for, threaten you with imprisonment if you don't participate, tell you that the service is for your own retirement, and then deny you the full benefit of the service.

Bunch of crooks.


doctor wu: Nope.


doctor wu: Nope.


Because of the payroll tax cut, payroll tax revenues already fall short of the amount required to meet Social Security outlays. Yet, Social Security is still paying full benefits.
 
2012-04-09 10:56:00 PM

lockers: My plan to fix the town water supply is burning down the town. You know good points and bad point.


With regards to the budget, it is a choice of dying a slow death or inducing a little pain now to live and fight another day. The festering debt issue we have is a big deal and something needs to be done. The quicker, the better. That being said, Ryan's plan does have some items that I don't agree with and feel need to be killed. It also has some good points in it.

However, instead of trying to find the areas where common ground can be made, both sides choose to demonize the other side and refuse to acknowledge that they will need to work together to get this mess under control.
 
2012-04-09 10:57:46 PM

tgregory: Dusk-You-n-Me: I don't think having to pay into SS makes me any less free. Sure, taxes suck, but I understand the importance of taking care of our elderly and disabled citizens. One of which I hope to be one day.


There are better ways to take care of the elderly and disabled than threatening free people with fines and imprisonment for not participating. A forced solution (in a free society) should never even be considered.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."


Then why was Social Security necessary at all? Because the elderly weren't being taken care of in the previous model, which you'd like to return to. If you'd like to get rid of Social Security make sure that it is replaced with something that works at least as well as it does. Remember not everyone earned enough to really invest. My Grandmother who died last year at 96 had to work for extra years just to get Social Security (if anyone remembers quarters paid in). Why would she do that if it wasn't advantageous. Of course when she was on it I and all of the other workers were paying for her. I'm fine with that, paying for current Social Security members. It's all part of living in a civilized society.
 
2012-04-09 10:58:34 PM

HeadLever: lockers: My plan to fix the town water supply is burning down the town. You know good points and bad point.

With regards to the budget, it is a choice of dying a slow death or inducing a little pain now to live and fight another day. The festering debt issue we have is a big deal and something needs to be done. The quicker, the better. That being said, Ryan's plan does have some items that I don't agree with and feel need to be killed. It also has some good points in it.

However, instead of trying to find the areas where common ground can be made, both sides choose to demonize the other side and refuse to acknowledge that they will need to work together to get this mess under control.


This budget doesn't do what you insinuate it does.

How old are your parents?
 
2012-04-09 11:00:26 PM

X-boxershorts: HeadLever: lockers: My plan to fix the town water supply is burning down the town. You know good points and bad point.

With regards to the budget, it is a choice of dying a slow death or inducing a little pain now to live and fight another day. The festering debt issue we have is a big deal and something needs to be done. The quicker, the better. That being said, Ryan's plan does have some items that I don't agree with and feel need to be killed. It also has some good points in it.

However, instead of trying to find the areas where common ground can be made, both sides choose to demonize the other side and refuse to acknowledge that they will need to work together to get this mess under control.

This budget doesn't do what you insinuate it does.

How old are your parents?


I would add, this Ryan Budget SHOULD be actively and vocally opposed. A LOT... If that offends your fee fee's...that's on you.
 
2012-04-09 11:03:47 PM
FDR is farking dead. Don't presume to speak for him
 
2012-04-09 11:06:40 PM
FDR would fight against the current Social Security system

derp
 
2012-04-09 11:16:07 PM

X-boxershorts: Does it include cost control measures that don't restrict services?


You can argue that any 'cost control measure' will cut the level of service from current levels. That is kind of the point. However this may be of interest;

Neither President Obama nor Paul Ryan actually cuts government spending. Rather, both are playing the time-honored game of calling a reduction in the rate of increase a "cut." Thus, the president would increase federal spending from $3.8 trillion in 2013 to $5.82 trillion in 2022. That might not be as big an increase there might otherwise be, but in no way can it be called a cut. Meanwhile, Ryan, who is being accused of "thinly veiled Social Darwinism," would actually increase spending from $3.53 trillion in 2013 to $4.88 trillion in 2022. (new window)

Does it include anti fraud measures?

That one I don't know, however, the nature of this beast is not necessarily the place for new fraud control legislation. Not that we don't need it, because we do. Especially in Medicare.

Why the focus on tax breaks for the highest earners?

His thinking, I believe, is that will help to stimulate the economy. However, this is one of the areas where I break from where I agree with him. I do believe that we need to gradually start increasing taxes on, not just the wealthy, but all wage earners.

Where's the details on loophole closure?

MIA (new window)
 
2012-04-09 11:22:28 PM
 
2012-04-09 11:24:18 PM

X-boxershorts: I would add, this Ryan Budget SHOULD be actively and vocally opposed.


Which I will agree. However that does not mean that there aren't good parts in it that could be rolled over into a bipartisan budget that may get this mess under control However, for this to happen, a few folks may have to quit pretending that the other side is the debil.
 
2012-04-09 11:29:56 PM

X-boxershorts: And the government who's autonomous currency is borrowed by the entire world for purposes of trade (I refer, of course, to the USA) can never really generate enough debt.


Wrong. While your insinuation that debt is not the problem is partially correct as it can be rolled over forever; the interest on the national debt is where the problems come in.

endoftheamericandream.com

Right now, the interest on the extended debt eats up about 20% of the entire federal tax revenue. That percentage is about ready to get a whole bunch bigger with exploding debt principal (CBO projects about $10T additional debt over the next decade) and normalizing interest rates.
 
2012-04-09 11:34:47 PM

HeadLever: X-boxershorts: This budget doesn't do what you insinuate it does.

What do I insinuate? The only thing that I am saying regarding this budget is that it goes further than Obama's budget in regard to minimizing the deficit and debt.

The president's budget proposal would reduce future deficits - at least until 2018 - but would never achieve balance. By 2018, the president projects deficits to fall to only $575 billion. After that, they begin rising again, reaching $704 billion by 2022. Overall, the president's budget would add an additional $6.7 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Paul Ryan does better when it comes to deficit reduction, but only because the president has set such a low bar. Unlike the president, Ryan would eventually balance the budget - but not until 2040 or so. He does, however, generally run much lower annual deficits than the president would, and adds $3.3 trillion less to the national debt over the next 10 years. (new window)

It still has some major problems (some of which you previously mentioned)

And what does it matter how old my parents are? Just assume they are Baby Boomers


So am I. We've paid into this system of insurance our whole lives. What Ryan's plan does is ignore the deal we made in 1986 regarding SS.

Take more out of our (Boomers) paychecks and spend it responsibly but we're buying bonds to make sure you pay us back....

Ryan's budget farks us out of that deal.

Yes, we believed you're lying farking ass when you told us you'd make sure we got paid back.

Pay me the fark back.
 
2012-04-09 11:35:12 PM
If we had the same tax rates today as we had under FDR, we would not even be having this discussion.
 
2012-04-09 11:38:03 PM

HeadLever: X-boxershorts: And the government who's autonomous currency is borrowed by the entire world for purposes of trade (I refer, of course, to the USA) can never really generate enough debt.

Wrong. While your insinuation that debt is not the problem is partially correct as it can be rolled over forever; the interest on the national debt is where the problems come in.

[endoftheamericandream.com image 640x466]

Right now, the interest on the extended debt eats up about 20% of the entire federal tax revenue. That percentage is about ready to get a whole bunch bigger with exploding debt principal (CBO projects about $10T additional debt over the next decade) and normalizing interest rates.


PAY ME THE fark BACK RYAN YOU ASSHOLE
 
2012-04-09 11:42:23 PM

X-boxershorts: HeadLever: X-boxershorts: And the government who's autonomous currency is borrowed by the entire world for purposes of trade (I refer, of course, to the USA) can never really generate enough debt.

Wrong. While your insinuation that debt is not the problem is partially correct as it can be rolled over forever; the interest on the national debt is where the problems come in.

[endoftheamericandream.com image 640x466]

Right now, the interest on the extended debt eats up about 20% of the entire federal tax revenue. That percentage is about ready to get a whole bunch bigger with exploding debt principal (CBO projects about $10T additional debt over the next decade) and normalizing interest rates.

PAY ME THE fark BACK RYAN YOU ASSHOLE


2 and a half farking TRILLION dollars we're getting screwed out of.
 
2012-04-09 11:49:03 PM

X-boxershorts: So am I. We've paid into this system of insurance our whole lives. What Ryan's plan does is ignore the deal we made in 1986 regarding SS.


Ryan's Plan doesn't do anything significant with regard to Social Security:

Unsurprisingly in an election year, both Ryan and the president punt on Social Security reform. Neither offers any reform of the troubled retirement system, despite its $21 trillion in unfunded liabilities. (new window)

Take more out of our (Boomers) paychecks and spend it responsibly but we're buying bonds to make sure you pay us back....

Ryan's budget farks us out of that deal.


How? That would mean changing the way SS is run and I am pretty sure that is not an item in Ryan's Budget. I could be wrong, but post what you have. From what I have seen, the only suggestions regarding SS reform is from the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission.
 
2012-04-09 11:50:26 PM

X-boxershorts: PAY ME THE fark BACK RYAN YOU ASSHOLE


Uh, I am pretty sure that Ryan is not going to be the one paying you. Especially since his budget has a -25% chance of passing.
 
2012-04-09 11:52:28 PM

X-boxershorts: 2 and a half farking TRILLION dollars we're getting screwed out of.


How? You are getting screwed out of IOUs? Do you even know what you are talking about?

That 'trust fund' is not going anywhere. To default on it would not be something that anyone would want to consider, let alone propose.
 
2012-04-10 12:00:27 AM

RyogaM: If we had the same tax rates today as we had under FDR, we would not even be having this discussion.


Actually, tax rates may not have as much of an impact as you assume

www.fundmasteryblog.com
 
2012-04-10 12:09:06 AM
There ya go, Pink one.

I've paid into this system my entire life. There was a promise to be responsible.

I didn't vote for a single farking militarily adventure. Not even the ones I went on with the US NAVY

We have been at one state of war or another for 40 straight farking years. And cutting taxes for the exact same amount of time.fark them.
If "they" want a constant state of war in America, then "they" need to farking pay for it. Like they did for Korea.

All those tax cuts since Reagan? That's my (and your mom's) retirement being squandered on foreign military expeditions that aren't paid for except for the excess paid into the general fund by your mom's and mine retirement and health insurance taxes (FICA).

Ryan's budget ignores that debt. And goes so far as to give the war machine even MORE tax breaks so we can export even more death at yours and your Mom's expense. He wants FICA monies to be doled out in vouchers which don't even cover current expenses. With zero controls over cost.

This is not a realistic budget. BY ANY stretch of the imagination. It's a giant FU to the boomers.
 
2012-04-10 12:11:57 AM

HeadLever: RyogaM: If we had the same tax rates today as we had under FDR, we would not even be having this discussion.

Actually, tax rates may not have as much of an impact as you assume

[www.fundmasteryblog.com image 353x275]


Your chart is worthless without the comparative expenditures relative to GDP. The economy was one HELL of a lot smaller in 1959.
Don't ask me how I know.
 
2012-04-10 12:23:19 AM

X-boxershorts: If "they" want a constant state of war in America, then "they" need to farking pay for it. Like they did for Korea.


I'll agree with that. But you already knew that.

All those tax cuts since Reagan? That's my (and your mom's) retirement being squandered on foreign military expeditions that aren't paid for except for the excess paid into the general fund by your mom's and mine retirement and health insurance taxes (FICA).

If you are talking about SS as your only retirement, you will have a rude awakening coming. SS is not meant to be a sole source retirement program. Furthermore, it is an off-budget item that has its own funding stream. Only in years of SS surplus is money used to buy treasuries (and the money shipped over to the general fund). The treasuries are added to the pile already there and these IOUs make up the the SS trust fund.

Ryan's budget ignores that debt.

[citation needed]
I am pretty sure that he is not defaulting on the SS trust fund. I am pretty sure that when SS is in a deficit (as it has been for the last couple of years) the treasuries will be redeemed in order to pay for the budgetary shortfall.
 
2012-04-10 12:27:36 AM

X-boxershorts: Your chart is worthless without the comparative expenditures relative to GDP. The economy was one HELL of a lot smaller in 1959.
Don't ask me how I know.


Which is exactly the point I was trying to make. Tax rates are not the sole determination of tax revenue. Yes, they have an impact, but there are usually more significant forces at work.
 
2012-04-10 12:28:38 AM

HeadLever: X-boxershorts: If "they" want a constant state of war in America, then "they" need to farking pay for it. Like they did for Korea.

I'll agree with that. But you already knew that.

All those tax cuts since Reagan? That's my (and your mom's) retirement being squandered on foreign military expeditions that aren't paid for except for the excess paid into the general fund by your mom's and mine retirement and health insurance taxes (FICA).

If you are talking about SS as your only retirement, you will have a rude awakening coming. SS is not meant to be a sole source retirement program. Furthermore, it is an off-budget item that has its own funding stream. Only in years of SS surplus is money used to buy treasuries (and the money shipped over to the general fund). The treasuries are added to the pile already there and these IOUs make up the the SS trust fund.

Ryan's budget ignores that debt.

[citation needed]
I am pretty sure that he is not defaulting on the SS trust fund. I am pretty sure that when SS is in a deficit (as it has been for the last couple of years) the treasuries will be redeemed in order to pay for the budgetary shortfall.


At 52, I a subject to Ryan's SS voucher plans.

You have done little research beyond your echo chamber on this budget.

Go ahead, fark me again, see how I like it. See how I react.
 
2012-04-10 12:29:56 AM
fark this shiatferbrains....pink is too good for him. I'm goin to bed.
 
2012-04-10 12:37:24 AM

X-boxershorts: At 52, I a subject to Ryan's SS voucher plans.


I think that the voucher is for medicare/medicaid. Not Social Security.

Go ahead, fark me again, see how I like it. See how I react.

?? I am just telling you like I see it and providing backup as necessary. I don't see anything from you, though you certainly got the talking points down. I was hoping to read up a little bit on some of the points you were making.

fark this shiatferbrains....pink is too good for him. I'm goin to bed.

This is the 3rd time you have threatened me with the pink. Not sure what that is, but it apparently is not working very well.
 
2012-04-10 01:03:42 AM

tgregory: People should give without the expectation of being "compensated".


But they don't. If wishes were horses, if my grandma had wheels, etc. Welcome to the real world.
 
2012-04-10 09:53:29 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: tgregory: People should give without the expectation of being "compensated".

But they don't. If wishes were horses, if my grandma had wheels, etc. Welcome to the real world.


People should have a choice in most of thier giving. Forced charity is not charity at all. However, on the other side, we do need a saftey net as well as there will be those that do fall through the cracks.
 
2012-04-10 05:48:44 PM
FDR would fight against the current Social Security system

Is that before or after making the Depression worse?
 
2012-04-11 05:19:19 AM
Animatronik 2012-04-09 07:14:36 PM

Well SS is undeniably a Ponzi scheme, but assuming X-boxershorts is younger than me, he's the one who's going to suffer while my generation garnishes some of every one of his paychecks.

Spoken by a guy who mistook a Brit for a Yank. (popsy)
 
2012-04-11 10:17:08 AM

Kittypie070: Animatronik 2012-04-09 07:14:36 PM

Well SS is undeniably a Ponzi scheme, but assuming X-boxershorts is younger than me, he's the one who's going to suffer while my generation garnishes some of every one of his paychecks.

Spoken by a guy who mistook a Brit for a Yank. (popsy)


Association fallacy
 
Displayed 47 of 197 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report