Posted on 12/11/2012 6:16:54 AM PST by Kaslin
I hear ya. But what’s lost is lost; we go on.
Great article. I agree with everything he said.
He really means FEDERAL INCOME TAX ~ and he also means BY THE STANDARDS OF THE INDUSTRIAL AGE.
Traditionally (the time before you were born) at least half the working age adults would be unemployed ~ and neither would the children nor the elderly. That'd be about 70% of the total population outside the rope when it came to any sort of income tax.
Here's a snapshot of today's demographics: 0-14 years: 20.1% (male 32,107,900/female 30,781,823) 15-64 years: 66.8% (male 104,411,352/female 104,808,064) 65 years and over: 13.1% (male 17,745,363/female 23,377,542) (2011 est.).
We (husband and I) paid for YOUR mammy and grandpappy’s social security income all those years. We made good money, and the government TOOK a huge chunk out of it to cover YOUR mammy and grandpappy’s living way back when, and for welfare for the current crop of Obama voters’ recent ancestors. - Calling me a sucker at this point may make you feel superior; but I assure you, you aren’t. In fact, you’re snotty. - We are 66 and 69 and STILL WORK; and can make it fine, thank you very much, without So-So Security if we have to. - In your arrogance, one day, you may be reminded of your current self-congratulatory attitude.
“I used to think that if and when we have an economic collapse people would wake up and realize the Dems/Progressives/Communists screwed us. After the election, I no longer believe that. Any collapse will be blamed on CAPITALISM. People will buy it and things will get worse.”
Your observations are good. No matter how bad things may get, the left (and a growing number of Americans, approaching a majority) will ALWAYS blame “capitalism”, “the greedy Republicans”, “the evil corporations”, and of course, “the white racists”.
Pat Buchanan has written another fine piece here. For a couple of decades now he has been prescient about the future — yet because the problems he sees are not “resolvable” through current neo-conservative doctrine, he is often ridiculed here on FR.
Like many here, Mr. Buchanan sees “the crash” that is coming, with hard times for traditionalists and conservatives ahead.
If there is to be a solution, it will involve facing reality squarely on, understanding the implications, and embracing new objectives about what is coming down the pike and how to deal with that.
We have to confront the reality of “the divided nation”, and whether that nation could, or even should, survive intact. But the two “sides” have become so ideologically opposed, I don’t see how a reconciliation could be achieved, even if one is possible. Some kind of “split” may be coming, through which “the red folks” (and their respective states) may have at least a chance of survival. Without such a split, everyone goes down.
Let’s look back to one of the great disasters of history — the Titanic.
After the ship hit the iceberg, it sank from the bow downwards. As the bow filled, it pulled the stern of the ship out of the water into the air.
But the opposing forces between the weight of the sinking bow and the rising stern became too great for the ship’s superstructure to withstand, and it literally “tore itself in two”, just below the waterline (the “great noise” that those in Walter Lord’s book heard, but could not see).
Afterwards, the bow sank away. The stern momentarily settled back to the water, then it, too, sank to the bottom.
What if there had been a watertight bulkhead high enough on the stern side of “the break” high enough to keep the water out? Could the stern of the ship then survive?
This is the challenge facing “the reds”, and the leaders of the red states. That is, to “build a bulkhead” amongst themselves, strong enough that when the inevitable collapse comes, the “blue state bow” of the foundering ship (containing the “pilot house” of Washington, D.C) will split off and sink away, leaving the stern to float away on its own.
This will involve some measure of “quiet collaboration” between the Red States, so that when the national government collapses (possibly into chaos), that a new governmental framework can be quickly put in place to unite as a new confederation.
Traditionalists and conservatives must understand what is coming.
Then we must “build that bulkhead”.
I hope that is in deed happening because there will be vultures, the UN, ready to pounce and “save us” if we’d simply surrender our sovereignty to a “one world order”. A red state confederation may be our only salvation. Fine idea.
You may or may not have paid for my grandpappy’s retirement supplement. Neither you nor I nor anyone knows. Now you want me to pay for yours because, why, intergenerational turnabout is fair play? No, wait, you can get by on your own. Good, then what are you so excited about?
Calling you a sucker doesn’t make me feel superior. Realizing you are one and I’m not, at least as regards this particular issue, does. I only say it out loud because I think you should know.
I hope I will be reminded of this one day when I’m tempted to argue other people’s money is by right my own. I hope the contrast between me now and me then will make me ashamed.
IF “I” don’t know for certain that we paid your grandpappy’s social security stipend those years ago when we were paying taxes through the nose, what, then, gives you the cockiness to ASSERT THAT I NOW WANT “YOU” to pay for MINE? - Likewise, how do you KNOW that YOU personally are paying for MINE? - You can’t have it both ways. -
It will never come up hopefully, because while you will be required pay for 50 years or so, I assume that you have taken the vow to refuse accepting social security.
I haven’t taken a vow or anything. I just always assumed it wouldn’t be there when it was time. I haven’t ever knowingly taken any other kind of handour, including unemployment “insurance,” for which they similarly try to trick us into thinking we “paid into the system.”
You need to vow that you will never accept Social Security since you are going to play so high and mighty about other people that accept it in their old age, when they are tired and weak and old, after having being forced to pay for the privilege their entire working life of 50 years, all the while voting for the most conservative politics that they could.
Listen, me calling other people suckers for buying into the lie that the payroll tax is somehow tied to eventual SS benefits is not me playing high and mighty. Certainly it isn’t me playing high and mighty about people accepting benefits. Did you read my post, or only the word “sucker,” which apparently turns FReepers into kindergarten teachers. Quote me where I said they shouldn’t accept benefits. I wish people wouldn’t, but that’s something different.
You and others can’t wait to lecture, though, and as such slide my simple point. Which is not anyone in particular must not accept benefits. It is that you are not entitled to benefits on the basis of having paid into the system. You did not pay into the system. There is no such system. In order for you to be paid someone else’s taxes must be collected. You are a sucker if you buy into the mythical connecting between SS taxes and SS benefits. That’s all.
“after having been forced to pay for the privilege their entire working life”
See what you did there? People can’t help themselves, and gubmint banks on it. The implied argument is that other people must be forced to pay you for the privilege of growing old, just like you did for others before you and yet others will have to do for the generation that pays for you. You cast it as a moral connection, others as accounting. Neither hold for me, but the paperwork argument of paying into the system and getting you investment back when you retire is the weaker. And it is through it that the state makes suckers out of us.
Just vow that you won’t accept Social Security.
You can also post that method for how to evade paying the taxes for 50 years.
I think he was just sardonically pointing out reality, not calling you, per se, a sucker. It’s not like any of us had any choice in the matter.
The GOP has to push an amendment to the Constitution for term limits. That's just for starters.
Okay, but what system? Based on every other recession, depression, panic, crisis, etc. it’ll be blamed on the free market and laissez faire policy. Bank on it.
“Just vow that you won’t accept Social Security”
Just go eat a sandwich. (I can play the irrelevant, nonsequitur command game, too.)
“You can also post that method for how to evade paying the taxes for 50 years”
What? Have I been advising tax evasion? Did I say you’re a sucker for paying payroll taxes? Not any more than for paying any other tax. That was my point: that the money supposedly paid into the SS system isn’t special. That it is equivalent to any other federal tax.
I never said you are a sucker if you pay SS taxes. You can avoid them as cleverly as possible, but ultimately you don’t have a choice. They have an implicit gun to your head. What makes one a sucker is thinking the tax entitles you to something in return.
Well, as long as you plan on accepting SS after paying the bill for 50 years, then I guess it is OK if we all do as well.
No; ya’ll won’t get to. I’m sorry. - That other guy can send me some extra dollars, too. :O)
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.