equality isn't fair

[Harrekin]

There's literally nothing you could say to people on the right that would convince them otherwise

So... Blame it on the right and do nothing about it?

Sounds like Obama.

 

[Padawanbater2]

So... Blame it on the right and do nothing about it?

Sounds like Obama.

Talking doesn't work, so there's no other option but to move on without them. I'm not going to spend my life trying to convince the unconvincible, there is no point

 

[Harrekin]

Talking doesn't work, so there's no other option but to move on without them. I'm not going to spend my life trying to convince the unconvincible, there is no point

So... How you gonna "move on without them" when they now control both Houses of Congress?

I guess they mustn't be as "obsolete" as you claim so why not be mature and try open the dialogue again?

 

[Rob Roy]

Not sure what you mean



If someone spends decades decrying prison food and writes books based on that, then gets jailed and eats said prison food, I would absolutely call that person a hypocrite, same as Rand

Okay. So would you then say that people who say they support peace are hypocritical when they do not chastise any kind of government which is based in coercion ?

 

[Rob Roy]

SS is theft?

No, I wouldn't welcome home invasion..

SS is theft if any person that doesn't want to participate has the money taken from them without their consent.

A consensus of people that agrees said theft is okay, doesn't change the meaning of theft when it is applied to that particular individual.

 

[ChesusRice]

Padawan, to answer the two questions that were put forward about the cost of healthcare and education, I'd say the Govt are to blame.

Unlimited student loans + Private Colleges
There are good Private Colleges and then there are the Shit Private colleges
It's the shit private colleges

Unlimited insurance payouts + For profit hospitals

Nationalised healthcare and subsidised (yet limited funding per person per place to stop colleges scalping the taxpayer) education are simply a pen stroke away and provide the same/better results as your current system with a demonstrably lower price tag.

No, she was forced to participate in a system, so why should she not use the system she was forced to participate in?

In her idealistic world she wouldn't have claimed SS, however she wouldn't have been forced to participate in it either.

I don't even agree with the old slag but you're nitpicking the wrong parts.

An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

 

[ChesusRice]

SS is theft if any person that doesn't want to participate has the money taken from them without their consent.

A consensus of people that agrees said theft is okay, doesn't change the meaning of theft when it is applied to that particular individual.

You dont work or pay taxes.
Why you complaining?

 

[londonfog]

SS is theft if any person that doesn't want to participate has the money taken from them without their consent.

A consensus of people that agrees said theft is okay, doesn't change the meaning of theft when it is applied to that particular individual.

Claim to be a clergy member and you can opt out of SS
. File IRS Form 4361 which should do the trick.. Good luck in the future.

 

[ChesusRice]

Claim to be a clergy member and you can opt out of SS
. File IRS Form 4361 which should do the trick.. Good luck in the future.

take the name
Reverend Slacker

 

[Harrekin]

An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

So the money that was taken from her and put into her SS account isn't hers for retirement?

If you're forced to pay into a pension, would you not claim it at the end?

 

[ChesusRice]

So the money that was taken from her and put into her SS account isn't hers for retirement?
I like sticking a potatoe up my ass when Im going down on some bloke at the pub
If you're forced to pay into a pension, would you not claim it at the end?

How much did she put in?
My guess a lot less than she got out

 

[SmokeyDan]

Not sure what you mean

Well, although no tax payer has a choice but to pay taxes, and cannot choose what the taxes they pay will or will not go toward funding.

So any left leaning person, and I chose the anti war persons, can only choose to not fund the war by not working and contributing to it.

They can get on the government hand out list to help them get along until the war ends.

They'll survive, they won't contribute one cent to the war, and they will be able to keep their money where their mouth is.

This person has the same choice and control as Ayn Ryand.

You declare her a hypocrite for a choiceless act. With only a drastic decision left to her to comply with her out spoken past.

You either use the same standard for the taxpaying liberal anti war person, or you are a hypocrite.

 

[Padawanbater2]

So... How you gonna "move on without them" when they now control both Houses of Congress?

I guess they mustn't be as "obsolete" as you claim so why not be mature and try open the dialogue again?

There is no point. You've seen how the threads in this section go, does anyone here ever admit when they're wrong? Why would you think national politics would be any different? The only way to get anything done is by force. The republican party has become ultra obstructionist.

Okay. So would you then say that people who say they support peace are hypocritical when they do not chastise any kind of government which is based in coercion ?

No. Ordinary citizens don't make the policy, they simply live under it.

Can you identify any form of government that is not based in coercion?

SS is theft if any person that doesn't want to participate has the money taken from them without their consent.

A consensus of people that agrees said theft is okay, doesn't change the meaning of theft when it is applied to that particular individual.

Are you saying all taxes are "theft"? I don't want to fund American imperialism yet 30% of my taxes pay for it. This is the cost of living in our society

 

[Padawanbater2]

Well, although no tax payer has a choice but to pay taxes, and cannot choose what the taxes they pay will or will not go toward funding.

So any left leaning person, and I chose the anti war persons, can only choose to not fund the war by not working and contributing to it.

They can get on the government hand out list to help them get along until the war ends.

They'll survive, they won't contribute one cent to the war, and they will be able to keep their money where their mouth is.

This person has the same choice and control as Ayn Ryand.

You declare her a hypocrite for a choiceless act. With only a drastic decision left to her to comply with her out spoken past.

You either use the same standard for the taxpaying liberal anti war person, or you are a hypocrite.

The choice she made was using it, not paying into it. She had the choice not to use it, she did, after decades of condemning it. That's why she was a hypocrite.

 

[Harrekin]

The choice she made was using it, not paying into it. She had the choice not to use it, she did, after decades of condemning it. That's why she was a hypocrite.

So if you were forced to pay into a pension (even though you didn't want to) would you not claim it when you come to retirement?

 

[SmokeyDan]

The choice she made was using it, not paying into it. She had the choice not to use it, she did, after decades of condemning it. That's why she was a hypocrite.

If you are forced to endure the burdens of a system you vehemently disagree with, accepting the benefit of that system is not hypocritical.

After all, specifically about social security, it was sold to us as an individual lockbox. Government taking control of some of our money, to keep for us until later.

This is so absurd, I'm not going to keep it up, I'll give you the last word.

When choice of participation is removed, one cannot be condemned for such participation.

 

[NoDrama]

How much did she put in?
My guess a lot less than she got out

You would be wrong,
Ayn and her husband started contributing at the inception of SS (1935) she collected less than 12 years of benefits. So they put into the system for 35 years each, but only one collected, her husband died at age 50. Assume $360 a year between both of them in 1935 thats $15 each per month. Run that 35 years at compounding 4% interest ( avg interest) and you come to about $29,000. Convert that from 1935 inflation and you get $$503,861.24 put in, Assume that medicare average + SS benefits come to avg $28,000 a year(link) and you would get $336,000 of benefits received, vs $500K put in.

 

[UncleBuck]

SS is theft if any person that doesn't want to participate has the money taken from them without their consent.

you have to give them consent in order for them to withhold a single penny you freeloading mooch.

 

[UncleBuck]

The choice she made was using it, not paying into it. She had the choice not to use it, she did, after decades of condemning it. That's why she was a hypocrite.

she also had the choice to not pay into it, but she did anyway.

 

[UncleBuck]

You would be wrong,
Ayn and her husband started contributing at the inception of SS (1935) she collected less than 12 years of benefits. So they put into the system for 35 years each, but only one collected, her husband died at age 50. Assume $360 a year between both of them in 1935 thats $15 each per month. Run that 35 years at compounding 4% interest ( avg interest) and you come to about $29,000. Convert that from 1935 inflation and you get $$503,861.24 put in, Assume that medicare average + SS benefits come to avg $28,000 a year(link) and you would get $336,000 of benefits received, vs $500K put in.

you can't even do 10 - 8.70 and you are unaware that 110 =/= 610, i can say without even looking that your math is for shit.