Save your breath. Third parties have blueprints for building a house starting with putting the roof together first. What about the foundation, you say? Screw that! Start the house with the roof first.
It's the "principled" thing to do. </S>
Posted on 04/18/2005 11:29:00 AM PDT by freepatriot32
Save your breath. Third parties have blueprints for building a house starting with putting the roof together first. What about the foundation, you say? Screw that! Start the house with the roof first.
It's the "principled" thing to do. </S>
And I think you are right. When I look at this, the XIV Amendment keeps coming to mind. One group of people can take advantage of something another group cannot, and on what rational basis?
"Young bucks should start refusing to pay or find legit ways to avoid paying ANY social security nationwide."
Whaddyamean SHOULD?
I'm not paying into a system con men and illegal aliens will suck dry. Work outside the U.S. and you get your money tax free (at least the first 80K, anyway)! Come the systemwide collapse, I'm looking forward to the passage of the new Social Security, wherein the retirees who have collected government checks the longest get free government cans and free government pillows, so they can sit comfortably on the corner and beg those still able-bodied enough to work.
That is exactly it, the LP seems to be getting smarter for once. Instead of coming out with huge reforms that few support at the moment. You make all the little reforms that people are supportive of. And you get creative with them. So you are always moving in the direction of individual liberty...
Those fabian collectivists were quite successful using this strategy. Even as the vast majority of Americans weren't supportive of their final goals, especially early on.
One example is the drug issue, most people don't support all drugs being legalized today. So you shut up about that.. and you bring out proposals that they do agree with. For example most Americans think its stupid to throw people in prison for smoking marijuana. So you open that up bit by bit.
I have serious problems with libertarianism and the LP, but they can be very good for local government, and at least the LP is committed to limited government, which is more than I can say for either of the major parties.
ROFLMAO.
Subtly put.
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that you old f***s keep raising our taxes to pay for YOUR bills. Some of us would gladly strand you because you keep stealing from us, and if someone steals your wallet, you ain't exactly glad to see them coming over for dinner. Medicare alone is going to account for a majority of income tax receipts in the next 20 years...yet Congress votes in a drug benefit for the wealthiest American demographic? WTF? WE'RE unreasonably complaining?
You lie to yourself about how rich the over 65 crowd is, when in reality 97 percent of that group barely make it month to month and many are homeless because they lost their homes due to property taxes after they retired.
You pulled that 97 percent number so far out of your ass you should have typed it in brown. First off, for U.S families with head age 45–54, median gross financial assets were about $4,200, and median net financial assets were about $l,700 in 1995. Families with head age 55–64 had median gross financial assets of about $6,900 and median net financial assets of about $4,800. Median financial assets are greater for older age groups, peaking in the age group 65–74 at about $12,500 of net financial assets, then declining to about $10,300 for families with heads age 75 and older. Second off, since 1989, median net worth declined for all age groups under 55 and rose for all those above 55. Moreover, the annual average increases in median net worth were substantial only for families headed by a person OVER age 65--4.7 percent for those aged 65 to 74, and 3.5 percent for those aged 75 and older.
Who said that first part? Merrill Lynch. Who said the second? Your AARP pals. And the AARP happens to agree with Merrill Lynch as to those wealth statistics. So does the Fed. So does the U.S. census bureau. And since you're spouting off about how the so many seniors "are homeless because they lost their homes due to property taxes after they retired," I defy you to back that bluster up. First, let's hear what "many" means. Is that 50% of seniors or less? 30%? 5%? Speak up!
Quit blaming the old people for something that is the fault of the government.
Who set up all these entitlements so they didn't have to pay for squat out of their pockets, then ran the government into the ground? Saying "it's the fault of the government" seems to betray a lack of understanding of how laws are made and who constitutes the largest voting bloc. I thought wisdom was supposed to come with age. Must be just another AARP-spread rumor.
What about the oldster who paid for their kids to go to private school, while paying taxes the whole time, with all their grandkids in private school, or homeschooled?
I do NOT disagree.
Tough. What about a 25 year old sterile from cancer treatments?
I have no problem with that, Robot. As long as it isn't at the expense of the taxpayers.
Libertarians would probably say the government has no business in marriage anyway. You don't need a license (government approval) to have children, why do you need one to get married?
Kick ass. And he ain't even blue!
Yes . . . heaven forbid that those benefitting most from a service bear the burden of most, if not all, of that service's cost.
Thanx Lib, you said it better than I could.
Stop embarrassing yourself and get some education. What was the SS tax rate over those hypothetical 48 years, and what was the earnings cap? (Hint: the information is available on the SS web site). You'll soon learn that those who "Paid in for 48 years" paid a whole lot less of their income than Gen X and younger have to pay.
This attitude of disdaining gradual attainable steps is why Liberty is receeding instead of advancing. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Disabled people, young or old, are a miniscule part of entitlement spending. They are not the problem, rather it is the bulk of financially comfortable retirees.
If they government didn't sanction marriage, how would they know who to hit with the marriage penalty come tax time?
;)
Thanks. I have to admit that if I'd posted everything I thought about Calex's comments, it'd have been zotted. I'm pretty sure he's come a-flaminbaitin' before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.