Yeah, I worked long hours at low pay and came nowhere near what you made on 40 hours. And somehow I was supposed to find the time to work somewhere else(which I couldn't because we were under DOT rules) and make up the difference between what you and I made. It's never about what the company did with you. You're a lapdog.
Obamacare
- Thread starter vantexan
- Start date
It's not a handout, it's what was promised in exchange for my paying in. What you really can't stand is I'll use my Social Security to live much better overseas than you could possibly live on it here. You could do the exact same thing and still be connected via internet. You expecting all of us to pay in but only liberals collecting is just silly.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
You boast that your political party enacted legislation forcing American Citizens to participate in an untried system, then you want to criticize those who hold you to those dictates??? Duplicity at its finest!
Oldfart
Well-Known Member
Excuse after excuse. Like I said, if you can live on 22k now, why didn't you live on less than you made while you were working? Because you were not willing to make the necessary sacrifices to retire with a nice nest egg. Now you say you will inherit money. Once again you slack off and wait on someone else's hard work and sacrifices to support you. Living on someone else's money. You are really pathetic.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
@Oldfart—-you have made your point—-time to move on.
Operational needs
Virescit Vulnere Virtus
He never moves on. He keeps beating that dead horse over and over and over and over.
You think you know everything but you don't. I don't live off $22k. I and my wife live off that and her pay. I'm starting today being a runner for UPS until the end of the year. And I'll be living on about $700 a month overseas starting in January and that includes giving my mom money and paying for my dad's tv. The rest will go to my wife to pay for helping her 25 yr old daughter go to college all the way through her masters degree. That's a 5 year commitment. And we'll eventually get the house paid off. Between our Social Security and two small pensions and renting out our house we'll do very well overseas. Comparable to someone making $100k here easily. And because there's 5 of us my inheritance at most will be $100k. And that's years down the road. I don't know how hard the UPS deal will be on me, my knees seriously ache and I have constant numbness in my feet. But I plan to make the most of it and come back every year until I just can't do it anymore. By the way when is getting an inheritance a bad thing? I won't be a trust fund baby.
Wrong. It's your completely hypocritical political stance. It's a cold historical fact that your party fought bitterly against the passage of the Social Security Act and Medicare and nearly succeeded. You are true republican fight bitterly against the passage of any social legislation then a few years after it's passed say "hey this is a pretty good deal" but instead of taking a personal stand against those programs you'll right there to take advantage of it because you life is better for it.
But you'll be right there to get yours because you stand to have a better life because of it. If you don't want to or need to participate in the ACA that's fine just as long as you have a way to pay your medical bills when they come due. That's all I hear out of you X guys, the escalating premiums copays and diminishing coverage offered by the company plan and with or without the ACA they will continue to rise and will continue to rise at about the same rate.
Obamacare has backfired. Democrat policies like welfare have backfired. Insurance rates have risen astronomically since Obamacare, nowhere near as fast before. And Social Security was the law of the land before I was born and I have repeatedly said it's the best idea Democrats ever had. By your logic if conservatives don't receive anything from SS then they shouldn't have to contribute either. Republican businessmen shouldn't have to match funds for anyone because they don't believe in it. Nor should Democrats follow any Republican enacted law. This is silly.
Oldfart
Well-Known Member
Just like Tex complaining about people and events that happened in the 90"s. Earth to tex. Its 2017. Time to move on.
No it's not silly given what those programs will do to better ensure the quality of you're life in the days ahead. But the best way for you to clearly demonstrate the strength of your conservative convictions is not to apply for the benefits. But of course in your mind's eye any Dem sponsored and passed program that directly benefits you now is great in your opinion as will those that will benefit you in the future. Everyone understands your conservative beliefs but what we don't see from you are specific measures being undertaken as a clear demonstration as to the strength of those convictions. It's the same empty talk we hear from conservatives who do not have enough personal wealth to support those ideals with corresponding action. Always keep in mind the most basic of all Republican ideals.......If you're not rich......it's your fault. Hey, wait a minute!...That's what old fart has been telling you all along.
One man, one vote. If the majority votes for it, it's law and we all abide by it. If you think for a minute I'm going to walk away from what I've been contributing to for almost 40 years you're crazy. And the Republican Party isn't monolithic. Some may advocate getting rid of Social Security but not all. I doubt the majority of Republicans are against it. But know this. When my SS goes twice as far where I'll be living I'll be sure to admire your gumption for staying here and fighting the good fight. Carry on comrade!
You'd like to make it the 90's but most of what happened was after 2000 right up until 2016.
Consider Social Security a business contract between the government and individuals. It wouldn't be the first time the government decided it wasn't working for them and decided to "renegotiate".
Is there a program as big as Social Security they've reneged on? Even if there's no longer a SS trust fund the payroll taxes and employer match would still pay 75% of promised payments. It's just a matter of tweaking a few things. People with income and/or assets above a certain amount get less on down to zero. Means testing.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
That would make it Socialism Security.
Oh I know, redistribution of wealth and all that. But if you benefited the most from our system and a lot of people helped you get to that point by having to accept less, then they should be taken care of first if there's only so much to go around.
No one is 'forced' to participate. If you DO participate, you get a tax break. Just like participating in a 401k, or getting a mortgage and deducting the interest.
AND there is nothing in the constitution against just instituting a tax on everyone, even if they've bought nothing
The roads you drive on every day are 'socialist' as are the police who protect you. Screaming socialism at every government program makes you seem a little bit off. After all, there is NOTHING in the constitution against 'socialist' programs, and in fact, the preamble gives the purpose of the entire constitution as providing for the 'general welfare' of the people.
