Elon Musk To Step Down As Head Of Twitter

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

No, I am on SS Disability. I get a monthly check from the US government. My description was intended to point out that I did not ask to be included in Social Security; I was forced to participate in Social Security; the "premiums" were taken directly out of my pay before I ever had a chance to see them; when i had a claim against that insurance policy

This is where your perception fails.

SS is not and never has been insurance, nor was it ever considered - by the Supreme Court - to be anything even remotely resembling a legally binding contract.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but, well, reality, is.

I'm not saying it is right, or even OK, or that you don't have a point.

But your point doesn't refute, negate or invalidate mine.

If you are receiving government benefits, that money is being stolen from other citizens against their will, just as it was from you, and no, in my opinion someone in your shoes shouldn't have the power to exert control over your receipt of said benefits.

I was forced to take, it took 18 months to prove my claim; now someone thinks because I actually made a claim against that insurance that was forced on me by the US government, I should be denied my right to vote!

Look, I'm not going to make the claim that someone who has paid into the system for many years then starts taking SS benefits is the same as someone who just takes benefits without having ever paid a dime into the system, but the way the system is structured, it doesn't differentiate.

If your payments had gone into some kind of dedicated Trust Fund in your name that earned interest, you'd have a real argument to make. But the way it is, all FICA taxes go into the General Fund, not into any dedicated account with your name on it. Also, Congress is under no legal obligation to pay you a dime. There is no contract. There is no Trust Fund. In fact, when the Supreme Court magically reversed itself on this issue (after FDR threatened to stack the court), this was the way they rationalized it - since it wasn't a contract, these taxes went into the General Fund just like any other tax, and Congress was free to do whatever it wanted with the money, up to and including never paying you one thin dime.

Please, by all means, make a logical argument that the recipient of welfare - that is what it is - should be able to vote themselves more welfare.

That is what has gotten us into this mess, and it is looking more and more like we won't be able to get ourselves out of it without a really, messy bloodbath.

a reply to: tanstaafl

If you are receiving government benefits, that money is being stolen from other citizens against their will, just as it was from you, and no, in my opinion someone in your shoes shouldn't have the power to exert control over your receipt of said benefits.

Nice to know where I stand in your opinion. I remind you, I turned vehemently against Roe v. Wade because the pro-abortionists made the same argument: "You shouldn't be able to talk about abortion because you're a man." Now you're taking from the same playbook.

There are a lot of people out there who worked their entire lives, hard, often multiple jobs, and tried their best to stand on their own two feet, but who life (and the greed of the government) knocked us to our knees. We're not your enemy... well, we weren't, but it seems you may be ours. You know how that works.

You want a logical argument? How about, "I am still just as much of a US citizen as you are, and you'll take my right to speak out and vote over my cold, dead body." That logical enough for ya'?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

If you are receiving government benefits, that money is being stolen from other citizens against their will, just as it was from you, and no, in my opinion someone in your shoes shouldn't have the power to exert control over your receipt of said benefits.

Nice to know where I stand in your opinion.

You're going way off track. This is nothing to do with you. It isn't a personal attack on or judgement of you.

I'm simply stating the philosophy that those who are dependent on others should not be able to dictate terms (in this case, 'vote') to those they are dependent upon.

If you cannot see the pure and simple logic of that... well, 'not my fault'.

I remind you, I turned vehemently against Roe v. Wade because the pro-abortionists made the same argument: "You shouldn't be able to talk about abortion because you're a man." Now you're taking from the same playbook.

Sorry, not even remotely the same.

There are a lot of people out there who worked their entire lives, hard, often multiple jobs, and tried their best to stand on their own two feet, but who life (and the greed of the government) knocked us to our knees. We're not your enemy... well, we weren't, but it seems you may be ours. You know how that works.

You are the one taking everything personally, ass-u-me-ing that I see you as the 'enemy' (or worse, seeing ME as the enemy simply for believing that dependents shouldn't dictate terms to those they depend on) for absolutely no reason. Hint: I'm not, not even close. Again, you're waaaay off base.

Long before there was government welfare, people who needed help got it from family, friends, and a whole lot came from their churches. All of that assistance was given freely and voluntarily.

Today, the vast majority of those who take government benefits like SS end up taking more than 2 or 3 times what they put in, and many live their entire lives off the government teat. SS is the mother of all ponzi schemes - are you sure you want to be defending it???

You want a logical argument? How about, "I am still just as much of a US citizen as you are, and you'll take my right to speak out and vote over my cold, dead body." That logical enough for ya'?

Logical? No. Comical, in how extremely over the top your reaction is to the oh so simple concept stated above.

I haven't said anything about your Right to speak have I?

Newsflash: there is no Right to vote, it is and always has been a privilege that comes with Citizenship. For a long time, there were numerous qualifiers to being able to enjoy said privilege. The primary one was age, and was 21 for a very very long time (in my opinion, we should raise the age to 25, since kids a hundred years ago matured waaaaaay faster than they do today). Landowner was another one, that was intended to address the glaring (but for some reason unknown to me invisible to some) problem with allowing the uneducated to vote.

It comes down to trying to find a way from preventing the masses from voting themselves 'bred and circuses'.

I'm sorry you are reacting so irrationally to this concept, but I do understand that some people who are ensnared in this government trap are very defensive and will go to great lengths to justify it in your mind, as I had a very good friend who was in the same boat, and he also refused to grasp the fact that he was living off of the charity of others. If you find that offensive, that is your problem, not mine, but it is your reality, and to quote a popular conservative news pundit, 'reality doesn't care about your feelings'.

a reply to: tanstaafl

It's kinda hard to not take that as a personal attack, when it is obviously an attack on a group I am a part of. What you suggest is to make one group second class citizens, subservient to the other. I will never accept that. It goes against everything America has ever stood for.

And I will not be lumped into such a group. Not by the government, not by pundits, and not by you. I worked my butt off during my life, probably harder than you... paid my taxes, did everything "right." During all that time, money I needed was taken from me by force to support this program that insured my security should I retire or become disabled. I never chose to pay it; I was forced to pay it. So now after I paid for the insurance I didn't want, and I have a claim. And then you pop up and say that makes me less of a man? Less of a citizen? Unworthy of a vote?

OK, call it charity. But I deserve it, because people decided I did. That's not something you can just up and take away, or something you can start adding restrictions to. If you didn't want it, you should have helped stop it.

I think maybe what's coming will turn out to be more beneficial in the long run than not. Just gonna suck while it's happening.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

It's kinda hard to not take that as a personal attack, when it is obviously an attack on a group I am a part of.

Again... it is not an 'attack', it is a simple statement of fact.

Again... reality doesn't care about your feelz.

And yes, I know that sounds 'cold-hearted', but again, reality doesn't care about how you choose to feel about a hard cold fact of life.

What you suggest is to make one group second class citizens, subservient to the other. I will never accept that. It goes against everything America has ever stood for.

When has America ever 'stood for' taking from Peter and giving to Paul?

And I will not be lumped into such a group. Not by the government, not by pundits, and not by you. I worked my butt off during my life, probably harder than you.

But apparently you failed to provide for your own retirement and/or buy appropriate insurance for certain potentialities (like becoming disabled). Whose fault is that? And no, again, this is not an attack, it is simply a question.

...paid my taxes, did everything "right." During all that time, money I needed was taken from me by force to support this program that insured my security should I retire or become disabled.

Social(ist) (In)Security was never intended to be something that would privide your for a full blown retirement. That is not how it was sold to people when it was shoved down our throats by FDR, and it isn't how it was structured in the laws implementing it.

I never chose to pay it; I was forced to pay it. So now after I paid for the insurance I didn't want, and I have a claim. And then you pop up and say that makes me less of a man? Less of a citizen?

Ummm... no? I never said anything remotely like either of those. Again, you are reading far more into my words solely because my words are somehow 'offending' you.

Unworthy of a vote?

Not unworthy. Disqualified. There is a difference.

OK, call it charity.

It is what it is.

But I deserve it, because people decided I did.

Seriously? So if people got together and decided you should be euthanised, you'd agree with them, because - you know - they voted for it?

3 men on an island, you and two others. You and one of the others have shoes, the other doesn't. The one without shoes convinces one of the other one who does to vote with him that you should give him your shoes, because 'he desrves them more than you because he is older'.

You're actually OK with that?

That's not something you can just up and take away, or something you can start adding restrictions to. If you didn't want it, you should have helped stop it.

Right. Give me a break.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You stated you would take away my right to vote. That makes me a second-class citizen.

You know, there actually are some reasons why people might still vote Democrat. You're one of them.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

You stated you would take away my right to vote.

No, I stated that

a) there IS NO 'Right' to vote (You don't have the Right to VOTE in Mexico, but you DO have the Right to BREATHE in Mexico, voting is a privilege inherent to your political status), and

b) I didn't say 'I would take it away', I said you should be disqualified from exercising said privilege.

That makes me a second-class citizen.

In your mind, I guess, maybe. Many Citizens have never voted in their life, and never missed it, and never felt like 2nd class Citizens, so, I guess it depends on what you feel is most important. Is the privilege to vote yourself bread and circuses more important to you than your actual Right to Life, Liberty and Property?

You know, there actually are some reasons why people might still vote Democrat. You're one of them.

Wow. That is one of the most pathetic attempts at an insult I've ever seen, and I'm very disappointed it is coming from you.

Your inability to swallow your pride enough to at least admit I have a valid point, whether you agree with it or not, is a very, very serious defect in your personality that I strongly encourage you to re-evaluate.

a reply to: tanstaafl

there IS NO 'Right' to vote

The right to vote does indeed exist; it is one of the few rights that require a government to give it... and as a result, yes, that government can take it away. I happen to cherish that right.

I didn't say 'I would take it away', I said you should be disqualified from exercising said privilege.

Semantics.

Many Citizens have never voted in their life, and never missed it, and never felt like 2nd class Citizens

And that is their right as well. But they still have, as citizens, the right to vote.

Is the privilege to vote yourself bread and circuses more important to you than your actual Right to Life, Liberty and Property?

For your information, I do not vote based on "bread and circuses." I vote based on what I think is best for the citizenry of the country.

A part of that is a social safety net. Now, you may be fine and dandy with letting us "useless eaters" just starve in the streets; I am not. If you want to make a point that our present system is wasteful and riddled with fraud, OK, I'm right there with you. It took me 18 months to get that first check, after I was physically unable to work. I was lucky; I was somewhat prepared. I know of many who lost their homes and were driven into abject poverty by the time their claims came through. What other insurance policy does that? What other insurance policy would be allowed to do that?

And before you go off on that wild tangent again, yes, Social Security is an insurance policy. It spreads risk among the public. Those who work and pay taxes support those who cannot, be that for age or disability reasons. That is exactly what insurance policies do: they take a large pool of subscribers and spread the risk among them, so those who are hit with extreme expense are not wiped out. The only difference is that Social Security is a bare minimum policy and not upgradable, it is administered by the Federal government, and participation is mandatory.

You, sir, as a citizen of the United States of America, decreed that I would be forced to pay those premiums throughout my lifetime. Don't give me that crap about "I didn't support it"; you are a citizen just as I am and the citizenry voted (albeit indirectly) to implement it. That's a contract between me and the United States of America, of which you are a member. I upheld my end of the contract, and now you are upholding your end of the contract. You can call it out for being "forced" all you want; any other contract can be forced as well. It's called contract law.

Don't believe me? Sign a mortgage contract and refuse to fulfill your end. You will lose your house. The bank will take it from you by force if necessary.

Now you want to take away the Constitutional right to vote (and yes, it is enumerated in the US Constitution) from those who made a legitimate claim on the contract you are responsible for because it is costing you too much? My right to vote allows me to have a say in how my country is being run. I still pay taxes, and as long as I do so, I will not be denied the right to have that say. "No taxation without representation"... we fought a bloody war over that.

Bottom line: I paid into that system for my entire life. Now you get to fulfill your end of the contract, and you don't get to take away my rights because of it, Karen.

That is one of the most pathetic attempts at an insult I've ever seen, and I'm very disappointed it is coming from you.

An insult? I made no insult to you; you insulted yourself the moment you decided you were above contract law. On the other hand, you have insulted me greatly.

After years of standing proudly on my own two feet, busting my butt often for low pay and poor working conditions, never complaining, I was stricken a little early by health issues. Do you have any idea what it feels like to have to come crawling to the government so you can freakin' afford to eat and have somewhere to call a shelter? That is humiliating! At my hearing, the judge asked me about the numerous times I had minimized my health issues to doctors, and I think my response says it all: "Your Honor, for a man who has worked his entire life and always stood on his own two feet, it is hard to admit when one becomes useless."

It has taken years of friends and family working diligently to convince me I have anything left to offer society, for me to be able to admit I am on SS Disability without hanging my head in shame. Now you come up in here trying to shame me again?!? Because you think the pittance I receive is somehow harming you? Go take that attitude, shove it where the sun don't shine, and take a long walk off a short pier.

It behooves any people to care for their less fortunate. The true measure of a society is that willingness to care for those who lack the advantages of others. I said that when I was working two jobs and taking a full load in college at the same time; I say it again now that I am on the other end of the system. There are many ways to destroy a country, and the fact that you want to do it one way instead of the present way doesn't make you any less focused on destroying the country.

TheRedneck