Progressives want to kill the elderly and the sick

reply to post by aravoth


How do you know that you will never be able to use it? Have you gotten notice that you will never be able to use it? Or are you relying on FOX News and other conservative organizations to tell you that you won't be able to use it?

And yes, Conservatives want to end these programs federally, and instead, have you "invest" the money in some bull crap mutual fund or other ponzi scheme dreamed up by their wall street buddies.





I know, the "holy Ron Paul" says to end social security and medicare, but here's the reality of the situation, the government is actually liable for those funds, they can't default on them, However, what the "holy Ron Paul" wants you to instead give your money over to wall street, the same people who basically crippled this nations economy.

If the GOP and Conservatives get their way, the elderly and retired will receive nothing, absolutely nothing at all. Why? Because embezzlement, fraud, theft, and market crashes will make sure to evaporate everything that people invest. With absolutely zero and I mean ZERO way to get it back. If the government defaults on Social Security, well, everyone in the nation can sue the government to high heaven. If a wall street banker screws you out of your investment, well YOU made a bad investment and those are the risks you take.

I have invested in Social Security for 20 years now, with every single paycheck. There is no way in hell I want that money to be sent to some wall street thief just to evaporate with nothing I can do about it.

Here's where the "holy Ron Paul" and other conservatives and the GOP get this wrong, it's not an entitlement if you invest in it, it's an investment. It's not a ponzi scheme if you get out of it what you put into it.

This is money I have invested. This is basically my retirement. Why? Because I likely won't be getting a job where I get some liberal retirement package, or pension. So, no, I don't want that money given to some Wall Street banker which will guarantee that I will never ever see a dime.

Like I said, if the government defaults on Social Security, well, that's a massive class action lawsuit for every single person in the country who has put any money into the program, if wall street losses it, well you are screwed.

Who wants to kill the elderly and the sick? It's the people who would rather the rich get richer and the poor eat dog food.

I am all for reigning in government interference in people's lives, and for exploring possible alternatives to the current social security system, integrating greater privatization, etc. Absolutely. But what about people who do not have sufficient income to invest in a private retirement account, or pay for quality healthcare, yet must retire before the age of 75 - 80?

I don't think in partisan terms, myself. I think both "sides" have attributes and good ideas, as well as rigidity that, on their own, can't account for everyone in our society or represent everyone in our society. I have no problem with those who are able to do so investing in personal retirement accounts, retiring later, not getting social security benefits until later, etc. if that is their wish and within their capabilities. However, there are other people who can't do that and still live a viable existence financially, which is something they have earned by that point in their lives in my view. For those people, there needs to be some recourse in my opinion, and social security and other social welfare programs can fill that role I feel.

The left/right paradigm and push button labels like progressive, conservative, etc. just don't work for me, personally. 1) We all live in this country. 2) We all deserve to be represented, regardless of how much anyone else in the country disagrees with anyone else. 3) We are all different. Combine those factors and, in my opinion, the result is an urgent need for compromise. Not the supremacy of one worldview or over all others or one political philosophy over all others. If we seek the latter, then no matter what a significant number of citizens will be disenfranchised. In my opinion our republic needs more agility and flexibility in order to respond to the needs of its people. The endless competition between two rigid extremes - in my opinion - just paralyzes us, or, when one side is ascendent over the other, disenfranchises the other.

United we stand, divided we fall. Perhaps those are just pretty words now, though.

reply to post by Sparky1002

The only things conservatives value are ignorance and greed. Ever notice how many rightwingers bray about their "rights' when it comes to keeping money for themselves rather than paying their share of government taxes?

Do you know WHERE your tax money goes??? Straight into the pockets of the Bankers!

Please stop adding the banksters and contributing to the "lets you and he fight" paradigm

No I am not a right wing religious nut. Actually I am an agnostic independent. I am not going to clutter this up with how the Banksters and politicians have been ripping us off for the last hundred years.

So the short answer is:
There are three methods used by the Banksters to rip us off: direct taxes used to pay interest on government loans. Loans of "Fairy Dust" to the government, corporations and individuals that have to be paid back with our labor. And last the devaluation of our currency that allows and ever increasing spread between our wages and the price of goods.

I give the detailed explanation here Bloodsucking Bankers

As far as teachers go. In 1970, before we got EPA, OSHA and the rest of the alphabet soup, teachers were 4.4% of the population. By 1996 that figure had dropped to 1.1% while the Federal Government climbed from 14.9% of the work force to 16.9% in 1996.

I think I rather have more good teachers and doctors and less TSA, and DHS agents and health care bureaucrats thank you very much.


I wish the kind of heart, both right and left, would realize your desire to do good is used against you. Every time we increase the size of the federal government we increase the debt, the Fed uses that debt to increase the money supply and this increases the amount of money siphoned off by the bankers. That is why the Banksters LOVE Socialism. They hate true Capitalism, but they are all for Corporatism, the form of government we now have thanks to the Government/Corporate Revolving Door

Capitalism by the way is the exact opposite of the banksters scam zero percent "Fractional Reserve Banking" where the Banksters lend you "Fairy Dust" and take your wealth. With capitalism the WEALTH (not fiat currency) is reinvested to create more wealth. Think of saving seed to plant for next year or bartering a couple of cows to have a barn built, or saving up to invest in a small business.

Is it any wonder the Banksters want all of us to think Corporatism is Capitalism so everyone vilifies the system that makes people free and wealthy instead of slaves to the bankers and corporations?


Neo-Corporatism

...Today, corporatism or neo-corporatism is used in reference to tendencies in politics for legislators and administrations to be influenced or dominated by the interests of business enterprises (limited liability corporations). The influence by other types of corporations, such as those representing organized labor, is relatively minor. In this view, government decisions are seen as being influenced strongly by which sorts of policies will lead to greater profits for favored companies. In this sense of the word, corporatism is also termed corporatocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex.

Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization. Points enumerated by users of the term in this sense include the prevalence of very large, multinational corporations that freely move operations around the world in response to corporate, rather than public, needs; the push by the corporate world to introduce legislation and treaties which would restrict the abilities of individual nations to restrict corporate activity; and similar measures to allow corporations to sue nations over "restrictive" policies, such as a nation's environmental regulations that would restrict corporate activities....

reply to post by crimvelvet

Do you know WHERE your tax money goes??? Straight into the pockets of the Bankers!

Then why do you fight against welfare state? Why not fight against the FED, debt based monetary system, bankers and corporate fascism? THEY are the core cause of the problems, not welfare, social security or medicare. Imagine the solvency of all these programs if there was no FED and debt payed to bankers.

reply to post by AceWombat04

But what about people who do not have sufficient income to invest in a private retirement account, or pay for quality healthcare, yet must retire before the age of 75 - 80?

The people about to retire PAID 30.6% for Social Security and 5.8% for Medicare because the corporations consider it part of your wages and the self-employed like me actually get stuck paying that amount. This is separate from other taxes, therefore this money should be viewed as a PENSION plan. The fact is was raided for other purposes does not mean the money does not belong to the people who paid in.

...The development of employee pensions was temporarily thwarted by the Great Depression. Thereafter, in 1935,Congress passed the Social Security Act, which established a basic level of retirement income protection.... www.erisalawfirm.com...

RepubliCorp: The Future of the Repulican Party!

Okay lets jump back into the right left paradigm. It can be fun sometimes. I was listening to this radio show and they were having a conspiracy day. But this one woman didn;t understand that and she called in with a concern that she had, which was that she thought the progressives and President Obama want to take over and keep power forever. She even said that Obama wanted to serve as president for life. And even the radio host was like that is not even possible. He would have to get a 2/3 majority to Amend the constitution. Also the republicans control the house. But this was the same stuff people thought about Bush the son. "Oh he is gonna start a war he'll want to serve past his term, he'll suspend the election." I guess my point is I don;t think all progressives are evil.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The Progressives want to kill off the elderly to control costs in order to protect the State and it's Government program.

Has ATS become a magical place where facts and reality matter not but as long as you repeat something enough times, it becomes true? You can write this a million times but until you even have half a case to make, it is just something you keep saying. Sounds like a tick to me. Maybe you are saving your evidence and proof for page 10? I will look for it.

reply to post by Maslo

Then why do you fight against welfare state? Why not fight against the FED..

I have been actively fighting the FED for years. But until we get rid of the FED why do we keep FEEDING it???

Every new program is MORE money in the pocket of the banksters!

We know our government is very corrupt. We know the Corporate/banker cartel runs the government. We know the corporate cartels write the blasted bills.

WHY would anyone think any of the current bureaucracy is for the public good and not for the corporate good???

I can not find the actual quote, but an ATSer SanchoearlyJones stated his brother worked for EPA and was told point blank to leave the big guys alone and go after the Mom and Pop businesses. Everything in my research validates this statement.

If you bother to look you will see the major corporate consolidation brought on by current laws. With this consolidation you see consolidation of power and the formation of Cartels. Purdue University has a whole list of papers on the international cartels

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE... June 16, 1998

Today's hearing, on mergers and consolidations, is certainly a timely one. There can be no doubt that we are currently in the midst of an enormous merger wave that is sweeping the U.S. economy....

if you combined the value of all U.S. merger activity that took place in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and early part of 1996, it would approximately equal the value of merger activity that can be expected in 1998 alone. We will likely see close to $1.75 trillion worth of U.S. merger activity in 1998, equal to over one-fifth the value of our entire gross national product.

This merger wave is not slowing down; in fact it appears to be increasing. In the last year alone, the value of U.S. merger activity doubled, a bigger one-year percentage increase than any other year in the 1990s. The dollar value of the increase in merger activity from 1997 to 1998 alone is likely to surpass the value of all merger activity in the years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 combined, by a healthy margin. ... www.justice.gov...

reply to post by crimvelvet


Abolishing these programs would of course hurt the bankers (well..a bit), but it would hurt ordinary people dependent on them far more. So would this be worth the collateral damage?

Tax it all instead of just the first 100k.

Cut the social security benefits of everybody under 40 or so to 75% of what they would be.

That's a hard solution, but it's worth it to save the program.

reply to post by whatukno


I won't be able to use it because the deficit in Social Security and Medicare alone is more than double the value of the entire landmass of the continental United States.

I don't watch Foxnews because I don't have cable. And the" Holy Ron Paul", doesn't give a crap what you do with your money. Ending social security doesn't mean that the government forces you to invest your money. It means you invest it yourself. Unlike you, Ron Paul has never said that the government would "mandate" a retirement account for everyone.

I never said that progressives want to kill anyone (except afghani's apparently), the OP did.

LOL @

but here's the reality of the situation, the government is actually liable for those funds, they can't default on them

They most certainly can default on them. I think You're in for quite a shocker on that one.. Good luck with your lawsuit....

Social security is most certainly an entitlement. The payout total is larger than the money coming in. I don't care how long you've "invested" in Social Security. All the hyperbole in the world is not going to change the fact that it is a bankrupt program. Nor will it change the fact that Social security is not funded by the money you paid into it, it is funded by government bonds, which is nothing more than a statement of debt. If you actually knew what you were talking about and discussed issues based solely on the facts rather than emotional knee-jerking you wouldn't be having this argument with me.

Do I think you and everyone else deserves a retirement? Absolutely, but you don't deserve it so much so that you bankrupt every generation that follows you. I wholeheartedly support your right to a comfortable retirement, which is why I support your right to take care of it yourself.

It's pathetic that you trust your money with the same government that brought you 14 trillion dollar public deficits, patriot acts, global wars, DHS, and cash for clunkers... lol.

Who wants to kill the elderly and the sick? It's the people who would rather the rich get richer and the poor eat dog food.

When our country goes bankrupt because of the "good intentions" of the government, your bleeding heart will be of no earthly value to the elderly or the poor.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Bottomline, any american politician is a hypocrite. That's the reason Conservatives were against elderly Pensions, that's why they were against the new deal (which put the people first in front of BIG COMPANIES and THE STATE), that's why they are against government health care (which puts the PEOPLES health in front of PROFIT, regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea.
Conservatives jump around and "Oh no Big Government run away, Welfare is evil, schools should be private!!!" without realising the fact that this does not violate the constitution, what does is the PATRIOT ACT conservatives supported, and then when obama got elected you decided to read the paper you guys love, and realize it says that that is illegal. But many of you don't Realize the fact that u want the church in state is also another no no. I dont know what you believe, but the fact that you slam progressives without realizing that not all progressives are socialists who want the state in front of liberty and to kill old people and starve the sick, after all, removing pensions for old people and abolishing healthcare is going to save old people and heal the sick who cant afford either.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


If the State has no money (like the USA which is broke) it would pay its citizens to have private medical insurance.
Similar situations exist in Australia as well, where public healthcare for its eldery citizens is rationed out.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Your points are so off base. For starters, you are not a progressive, and don't understand the progressive doctrine. Conservatives are very easily manipulated into dug-in positions that too often contradict their own doctrines. You probably won't even take the time to consider that what I'm telling you is the truth, just because I'm not a conservative, but...
"Death Panels" have been around for decades. They aren't new, and they aren't progressive. They are CORPORATE. You want to get angry with Progressives because insurance companies scheme and toil to come between you and the treatment that you pay them for.
The Progressive agenda isn't about more government control, it's about living Human Beings in America choosing the destiny of our country, not corporations buying control of it.
Where does the government even come into your silly little equation? The new healthcare law says that we must all purchase insurance from Private Insurers. THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T RUN INSURANCE COMPANIES. They do give them a few more restrictions, but it's the companies that decide what they do to raise profits. The companies decide what care you will recieve. Don't you get it. You are too silly to see that insurance companies have been denying critical care and killing its customers for decades. You conservatives are so lacking of intellectual curiousity that it probably takes a mirror for you to figure out that your nose has two nostrils.
I could go on and on about how wrong you are, and why you're wrong, but I know that facts mean nothing to Conservatives, so what's the point......

Originally posted by Pitons
Elderly men have rights to live. They earned it. They built the country for the next generation.

Sick (ordinary ilness) have rights to healthcare.

Mentally ill, genetically defected who are uncapable of doing deeds to the society should be castrated.

As one who you would consider "genetically defected" I'm disgusted by you for making this statement. Oh, and by the way the word is incapable, not 'uncapable'. I guess I just did a "deed to the society"

The scary part is that social security is the only thing that will keep many Americans out of the gutter when they become too old to work.

1/3 of Americans have $0 in retirement, Half of Americans have less than $2000

Don't worry, not that the death panels and end of life counseling has been placed back into the ObamaCare package the EPA will find a little money to fund gubmint for a little while longer.

Don't worry, the EPA is not going to attack all your paychecks right away, just a few of the states in the beginning.

Wanna guess which states the EPA is going after first with it Cap and Tax regulations?

Oh well, I guess if you cannot get it done by legislation, you get it done by bureaucratic maneuvering.

Go get em progressives! Get those evil corporations that produce our electricity. No problems, I am sure I can scrape up more cash for a 5 times larger bill. NO PROBLEM!

By the way, you old people really must die. Regulations written in by an appointed Medicare head never approved of by Congress.

Hmmm, what does Obama need Congress for, he has the EPA, CMS and his other agencies to enact whatever he wants.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

By the way, you old people really must die. Regulations written in by an appointed Medicare head never approved of by Congress.

I don't think anyone should be kept alive - just to be kept alive.

I've got my "no artificial life support - no resuscitation" demands video taped.

In case there is any doubt where I stand.

reply to post by Annee


That should be your choice. Kept where it belongs, you, your family and your doctor, not with the government.