Social Security Sucks

I work for my money and I want all of it. I don't want to give some up so the government can pay me back when I retire. I know how to invest money on my own, why should I give any of my earned money up? We need to stop depending on big brother. In this day and age everyone should know how to take care of their own money. If you frivolously blow your paycheck that's your own choice/problem.

Discuss.

>>1
It's not all about you.

>>1

sure you do.

We must defend the ideals of the American Socialist Republic.

>>1
Problem is, people is stupid enough to make that a common problem, and we can't have a country full of begging old fogeys

>>5
Then let them die.  See how fast people start planning for their future when they face death in a ditch.

>>2
The hell it isn't. It certainly isn't about you. Why shouldn't I have a choice of what I do with my hard earned money? I'm not against charity, but I should have a direct say on who I give it to. I'm also not saying get rid of all taxes because the govt is providing services. Social security involuntarily risks my income. What I get back in the future will depend on the deadbeat generation of that future... If you like your money going up in smoke, please volunteer all you income, gather your like minded friends and get them to do the same.

On the other hand, it is unfair to immediately remove social security because there are people depending upon it, I'm just saying it needs to be phased out, the sooner the better.

You are too stupid to spend your money properly. If you were richer this would prove you are more responsible with your money and thus you should be able to keep a higher percentage.

>>8
This is actually true...  Poorer people do make greater use of social services.

So let's make money.  I need artists who can draw naughty pictures.  That is all.

Social security was a ripoff to begin with.  When it was created, the age to collect was higher than the average age of death.  I've heard lots of people try to blindly argue that it was simply some mistake, but please, you are basically arguing that the politicians who created it were idiots which imply that social security is an idiot plan which more justifies the removal of it.  The reason why social security is having problems it is, is due to the fact that modern medicine has increased the average lifespan.  So people are now living long enough to actually collect, which was never expected.  So they started increasing the age of collection, but medicine kept making people live longer.

The real reason for the creation of social security was a leech fund.  You spend a little bit of every paycheck into the system as soon as you start getting paychecks in life.  You finally reach the age of collection, then you die shortly after, collecting less than what you paid into it.  Since there are no official accounts for the return of the money you pay in, therefore if you do not collect all of the money you paid in it in essence vanishes into the system.  Unfortunately the system is people who can scrape those few bills you failed to get back into their own pockets.  I mean, there is a reason a law was passed forbidding audits on government social programs.

What does this equate to?  Simply put, social security is a cash cow and vote buying machine.  The politicians who support it the most enthusiastically are the ones scraping off the top.  They even get a bonus to this situation too.  Any rival politician who sees what is going on and tries to stop this illegal leeching is accused of "taking away the people's money!"  The baby boomers get scared and they don't vote for the guy trying to actually fix things.  Sad, truly sad.

However, the good news is that retirements are coming faster than the original creators expected and the system will soon bankrupt and die.  I personally have been saving and investing all my working life in preparation of NOT receiving social security.  My only regret is not being able to file a DOS charge against the government since I'm still having to pay for "my" social security retirement fund which I will never see.

>>8
Sorry, but wtf are you talking about? This is a discussion about getting back that chunk that is taken out of your paycheck regardless of whether you're rich or poor.

Rich -> Keep more money
should be
Rich <- Keep more money

>>1
So, your main point is that you don't like taxes?

>>13
>>7

Oh god damn it you retards, just shut the fuck up.  Firstly, that money doesn't just vanish into some idiot's private account; it goes to the government  (who contrary to your belief can spend money wisely) to help with the services YOU use every day.  Besides, I know that all of you spouting this nonsense will be scrambling for your check at the end of every month without fail in thirty or more years, and you will think you have a right to it.

Besides, it's been proven that the bigger the government is, the better off society is.  Look at FINLAND.

Whenever I mention finland, the argument is automatically over.  Go back to hell you racist ethno-centric greedy ameritards.

>>15
You are right, Finland is a fantastic success. So every government should be like Finland's? A republic? I'm voting republican then. I also noticed Finland is a 100% white nation with very low immigration and a low density population, so I shall also become a white nationalist.

Finland isn't a socialist nation as it's tax rate is around 60% and not 100%, so I will support a liberal democracy which finds the best method of taxing a capitalist economy to prevent poverty and fund education etc etc..

Are you with me on these policies? Together we can make the United States a better country for our children and our children's children, we may have to endure hardship to begin with, but what is another war compared to a utopia that will keep our descendants safe and happy indefinately?

>>16
Hahahah!  But you know it works, right?  We need more socialist policies!

>>17
I don't doubt that anarcho capitalism wouldn't work in Finland.  They aren't a success because they're socialist, they're a success because they don't have near the amount of problems that any other nation (like, for example, the United States) has.

Most european semi-socialist countries are the same way, and Japan was that way too until their government got completely corrupt and started doing stupid public works with no point.

>>18 I don't doubt that anarcho capitalism would work in Finland.
fixed

So you're saying it's the people and not the system that makes a nation work? 

http://www.world4ch.org/read/newpol/1133849156/ needs you.

>>20

...

gb2/vip/

>>17
Socialism means taxing everyone 100%. Finland's governmnet is republican and inherantly conservative, thus they only tax people 60% and leave the rest to a capitalist economy, because they're better off that way. Labelling everything good and great in the world as socialist only goes to show that you are a troll.

What next? Penicillin is socialist? Jesus is socialist? Orphanages are socialist?

>>20
It's both fuckwit.

>>22
Labelling everything good and great in the world as socialist only goes to show that you are a troll.

What next? Penicillin is socialist? Jesus is socialist? Orphanages are socialist?

Fucking true. My thoughts exactly.

i think people here have their definitions of socialism mixed up. some people are calling a welfare based (but still capitalist inclined) country socialist while other are calling wikipedia defined socialism socialism.

>>25
Truth too. And I may add we're bound to misunderstandings if we keep using words like "liberalism" or "conservative" because they mean different things in different countries.

Conservative and liberal are very ambiguous, but conservative is generally defined as liberty, democracy and war against despotism and liberalism is generally defined as forcing people to do what they don't want in order to please minorities.

>>27
In my country, conservativism = right wing, economic liberalism, democracy, and bonanza; the other side is called socialism and it's not what Wikipedia says, but it's left wing, fag worship, shitty policies ("don't let facts get in the way of a good social program"), corruption, ruining the country by selling it to independentists, piss our allies, lick France's ass, and pact with terrorists.

>>28
Oh, I missed the main point. In my country, "liberalism" is seldom used, but if it is so, it's generally understood you're refering to the right wing, not the leftard scum.

Generally defined? >>27, you desperately need to get out of that country of yours more often. NEWSFLASH: you aren't the world.

And that's a pile of steaming propaganda too. "War against despotism"? Oi.

s/>>27/>>29/

>>30
Nor are you. What's your point again?

No, I'm not, >>32, but having lived in quite a few countries, and reading many national newspapers from countries other than my own, I realize that your definition is woefully simplistic.

>>33
My definition only applies to my country, and I posted it on a FYI basis, just to give an example of why you shouldn't be using the word "liberal" too easily. It is a fact that it doesn't mean the same everywhere, and this is what I was demonstrating.

>>30
Oh yeah I forgot, Liberalism is also generally defined as avoiding the facts and blatherring out dogma like a parrot on crack in the hopes of converting the stupid who don't understand the facts.

Sort of like the national SOCIALISTS of germany telling stupid people they are superior etc..

>>35 is a VIPER

| >>35 is DQN

fixed

>>35

you, and all human beings, need to stop cynically using general terminology to describe aspects of the opposing side that they know perfectly well can be used to describe different things about their own camp. 

>>38
But can you see their tactics, they do exactly as you criticse me for doing. You criticise wrong, I am in no way a national socialist, if some politician I supported betrayed my libertarian democratic egalitarian beliefs I wouldn't follow him blindly. If he used force to intimidate voters, I would file charges and prove that I am vigilant. I prefer rational debate and recognise the merits of their ideals, which I also share.

But Liberals do not do care about the ideals they spout, can't you see the tactics they use? Liberals do exactly as you have failed to criticse me for doing. If you prove me wrong, then you are right, but their ignorance is astounding. The message is clear whenever you try to speak to them, all short and sweet.

"If you disagree with me you are a [insert nasty group here], end of discussion."

It isn't hypocritical of me to compare them to nazis, if I want them to engage in debate with me about issues we disagree apon.

I prefer rational debate and recognise the merits of their ideals, which I also share.

Good to hear. But that means you first have to stop labelling people you don't agree with as "liberal". There's nothing wrong with liberal attitudes, but it's apparent you detest everything the word "liberal" represents. So, once you attach the label, you no longer need to consider their arguments. After all:

their ignorance is astounding.

>>40
I can tell you are a liberal. How? You think the ideals held by liberals = liberalism. They aren't. The ideals are independant and commonly shared by both conservatives and liberlemmings.

With this in mind it should be easy to distinguish between the good and bad in liberalism.

I agree with the good in liberalism, the need to help the poor, equal opportunity and heavy criticism of those in authority for instance.

However I disagree with the bad, political correctness, social engineering, socialism and the machiavellian/cultlike psychological tactics they always use in their arguments as I mentionned.

There are conservative assholes who think fascism is really great, but considerring the fecundity of liberal assholes I now consider such assholes to be liberals. Which is why I see the Hitlers as liberals, they bear striking resemblances with the majority of liberals.

>>41
As a lefty I declare this truthful.
Liberals, the people, just fucking suck. Coddlers of deviancy, all of them. KEEP IT IN THE FUCKING CLOSET. Do I stroll around in public places dressed as a giant blue bunny? Fuck no, and Mielekki help me I'll slap the people who do.

>>42
CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT ALERT!!!
CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT ALERT!!!

>>43
Oh god...  Christian democrats are teh suck.

Christian democrats may suck, but only because they believe in god. Liberals suck because they dress up in tight leather, get aids and celebrate congo majongo festivals even if they don't enjoy it in order to seem "multi-cultural", but then get offended and go into a national-SOCIALIST-brown-shirt-sieg-heil-esque rage when someone puts tinsle on their window at christmas.

Raise tax so people get more welfare? Why not lower tax so that those who actually work can earn a decent standard of living and promote marriage so there are less single parents?

Liberals have no intelligence or morality!

This thread is full of ass (lame right-wing trolls)