quote:
I googled "life expectancy" - wasn't misleading anyone. Do you think infant mortality would change the argument? I don't, and didn't before looking for this -

Percent of population surviving from age 21 to 65:

1940 - 57%
1990 - 78%

And that's just to 1990.

You were misleading. You made the statement using life expectancy at birth which supports you stance. Including adult life expectancy does not support your stance as well, so you ignored it and used numbers that helped you instead of ones that didn't help you as much.

quote:
Well, this escalated quickly. Are you okay?

The government has no money of its own. Do you understand that? The government decides how much of your money it will confiscate, and then it turns around and decides how much of your money you'll get back, and in what form you'll receive it. It does this for everything. Social security is just another tax, and social security benefits are just another form of government benefits.

I'm great! Thanks for asking. And to your point - Here, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of the mindset of the socialist. We have polar opposite ideas of what the function of our government was intended to be (and was for most of our history) and what it has turned into. Social security was created as a defined benefit program and sold that way. Why not just take all of it and not pay any benefits then? You are not suggesting that are you? Of course not. You think they should be able to steal some of it. Maybe most of it even. I say they should not be able to steal ANY of it.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by David_DJS

Member since Aug 2005

18002 posts

Posted on 3/28/24 at 1:21 pm to lazlodawg

quote:
Yes, a defined benefit program. Stick with that.

Nevermind the intended demographic. Okay.

quote:
You were misleading. You made the statement using life expectancy at birth which supports you stance. Including adult life expectancy does not support your stance as well, so you ignored it and used numbers that helped you instead of ones that didn't help you as much.

Are you seriously arguing that life expectancy in 2024 isn't much different than it was in 1935 - for any slice of demographic you want to take?

quote:
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of the mindset of the socialist. We have polar opposite ideas of what the function of our government was intended to be (and was for most of our history) and what it has turned into. Social security was created as a defined benefit program and sold that way. Why not just take all of it and not pay any benefits then? You are not suggesting that are you? Of course not. You think they should be able to steal some of it. Maybe most of it even. I say they should not be able to steal ANY of it.

This is like the guy that argued more people receiving government checks = smaller government, and fewer people receiving government checks = bigger government.

I'm the one that wants government in all its forms the frick out of my life, and that makes me a socialist. And you're on here arguing for more dependency on the government, and you're, what, the rugged individualism form of capitalism?

quote:
Social security was created as a defined benefit program and sold that way.

Yeah, defined benefit program for those at/near the age of life expectancy and older, where the federal government is the provider, and lets throw in a little wealth redistribution while we're at it. Sounds like socialism to me, Mr. Capitalism.

quote:
You think they should be able to steal some of it. Maybe most of it even. I say they should not be able to steal ANY of it.

You're misunderstanding my argument. I'm for abolishing social security. I recognize that ain't happening in one step, and the worst thing for an effort to right size/them eliminate the whole program is to have more and more people dependent on the government. We need fewer and fewer, which is consistent with raising the age of benefits.

0 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board