I've formed an opinion of Ron Paul: He's a dick.

**4matic** · 12-13-2007, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Bean

I care about what it costs me a hell of a lot more than what it saves your mom. Someone who could slash and burn BS programs like this would be the greatest president in history.

So it's all about you? Typical republican; the politics of selfishness.

**bean** · 12-13-2007, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by 4matic

So it's all about you? Typical republican; the politics of selfishness.

Republican has become neo-con. I'm far more libertarian than that. And calling me selfish in a derogatory manner does nothing to make me care about your mom any more.

**Tourette Dude** · 12-13-2007, 09:47 PM

Let me guess you are in your 20's and no matter what bullshit you said or did mommy was there to say "There, there little micro Bean you can do no wrong and no one matters as much as you do"

.....Generation Narcissism

**4matic** · 12-13-2007, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Bean

Republican has become neo-con. I'm far more libertarian than that. And calling me selfish in a derogatory manner does nothing to make me care about your mom any more.

My mom is an 83 y/o widow living on Social Security. A former professional ice skater btw. I feel sorry for you. Such contempt for humanity.

**MeatPuppet** · 12-13-2007, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by 4matic

Medicaire Plan B saves my mom $125 a month on medication. Paul would rescind that? Dick..

There was a time, not too long ago, when children were thought to have abandoned their parents if they didn't take care of them in their old age. Why we now expect the government to do what used to be the families responsibility is beyond me.

Just a thought.

Edit to add: I don't mean this in an incendiary way. I just think that expecting the government to fill a roll that has been, throughout human history, filled by the family is harmful to the family, and by extension, to society as a whole. I have a hard time thinking ill of a person who wants to reverse this trend of relying more and more on the government for every aspect of our life, from birth to grave.

**4matic** · 12-13-2007, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

There was a time, not too long ago, when children were thought to have abandoned their parents if they didn't take care of them in their old age. Why we now expect the government to do what used to be the families responsibility is beyond me.

Just a thought.

That's crap.. What if there is no family? You make that distinction based on what? Civilized cultures take care of their senior citizens regardless of family. How many western families live with three generations like developing nations? Capitalist culture promotes individualism and we owe it to our seniors to support them. Name me a western civilized culture that does not support its senior citizens? Countries with the absolute highest standards of living support their senior citizens. You propose we should be like China or India?

doughboyshredder · 12-13-2007, 10:51 PM

It continues to amaze me that people who seem intelligent don't understand the concept that it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to take care of you.

I feel for your mother 4matic, but meatpuppet nailed it right on the head. You expect the government (all taxpayers) to help care for your mother. Historically this would have been your responsibility. where did this sense of entitlement come from?

**4matic** · 12-13-2007, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

It continues to amaze me that people who seem intelligent don't understand the concept that it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to take care of you.

I feel for your mother 4matic, but meatpuppet nailed it right on the head. You expect the government (all taxpayers) to help care for your mother. Historically this would have been your responsibility. where did this sense of entitlement come from?

You don't get it.. What if I wasn't here? Does my mom beg for scraps on the street like Mexico? In the interim I'm working to secure my own future so I don't need the government.

And just so we are clear on this. I don't think ANYONE making over $200k dollars a year should get any form of Social Security. I have sat with people worth hundreds of millions of dollars and they show me a Social Security check... We shake our heads and laugh.

**Tippster** · 12-13-2007, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

I feel for your mother 4matic, but meatpuppet nailed it right on the head. You expect the government (all taxpayers) to help care for your mother. Historically this would have been your responsibility. where did this sense of entitlement come from?

This is where.

Originally Posted by 4matic

That's crap.. What if there is no family? You make that distinction based on what? Civilized cultures take care of their senior citizens regardless of family. How many western families live with three generations like developing nations? Capitalist culture promotes individualism and we owe it to our seniors to support them. Name me a western civilized culture that does not support its senior citizens? Countries with the absolute highest standards of living support their senior citizens. You propose we should be like China or India?

We no longer live in an Agricultural society. Wake the fuck up. We're the richest society on the planet yet have the lowest level of social programs and benefits in the western democracies. That's shameful.

**4matic** · 12-13-2007, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

Historically this would have been your responsibility. where did this sense of entitlement come from?

What do you mean "historically? Like during the great depression? The 1800's?

Just when was that in America? Before Social Security?

Do you know the history of Social Security? It was created to clear the workforce for younger workers. Not to be a single source of pension. Times have changed but the needs of seniors have not..

**Brocktoon** · 12-13-2007, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by 4matic

And just so we are clear on this. I don't think ANYONE making over $200k dollars a year should get any form of Social Security. I have sat with people worth hundreds of millions of dollars and they show me a Social Security check... We shake our heads and laugh.

$200K? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you know how many doctors that treat your mom make right around that amount? And you want to create a disincentive for them to work 4 months fewer per year.

On the social security question, I've been contributing since I got my first paper route in 1986. Your mom can keep all that money if she'll get her hands out of my pocket. Your mom's generation, the Greatest Generation that we've been sucking off since 1945, is the one that decided your kids should pay for her welfare.

Look to the future and stop making these impotent appeals to emotion. There will always be old ladies with a sob story. That doesn't give us the right to burden our progeny with debt and an unsustainable system.

**Tourette Dude** · 12-13-2007, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

It continues to amaze me that people who seem intelligent don't understand the concept that it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to take care of you.

I feel for your mother 4matic, but meatpuppet nailed it right on the head. You expect the government (all taxpayers) to help care for your mother. Historically this would have been your responsibility. where did this sense of entitlement come from?

WHHHHAAAAA!!!!! I PAY TOO MUCH MONEY IN TAXES..............THATS RIGHT..... ME..... ME..... ME!

You know its called civility, humanity and empathy. We are not solitary creatues by nature. Humans are creatures that thrive in groups. Its funny that ALL other developed counties in the world have developed social saftey nets and seem to be doing quite well AND with lower debt to GDP ratios, better stanards of living, longer lifespans..... So it is you that can't understand that a social saftey net is not the evil destroyer of the Individual. It actually allows the individual to thrive because it fosters social stability.

Are you the love child of Newt Gingrinch and Frank Luntz?

**4matic** · 12-13-2007, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Brocktoon

$200K? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you know how many doctors that treat your mom make right around that amount? And you want to create a disincentive for them to work 4 months fewer per year.

Let me make this clear. Anyone with an income over $200K cannot DRAW Social Security or Medicare benefits. But, you know what? Most will say they earned it so they deserve it.. Selfishness.

**MeatPuppet** · 12-13-2007, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by 4matic

That's crap.

No, that's human existence until about 70 years ago.

What if there is no family?

You were talking about your mother, so...that means that your mother has family. Personally, I think that kids have a greater responsibility to their parents than does society.

You make that distinction based on what? Civilized cultures take care of their senior citizens regardless of family. How many western families live with three generations like developing nations? Capitalist culture promotes individualism and we owe it to our seniors to support them. Name me a western civilized culture that does not support its senior citizens? Countries with the absolute highest standards of living support their senior citizens.

Look, I don't necessarily disagree with what you wrote. But I would think myself to be very selfish if I were to ask other people to pay for the needs of my parents so that I didn't have to spend more of my own money on them.

Have you ever known anyone who you helped out, and then you helped them out again, and again. Then, after a while, you realized they weren't taking care of themselves because they knew you would help them, so you stopped helping them and they get mad at you for not helping them? That's the situation we have with the federal government and the American people. Yes, it speaks well of us, as a people, that we help out the needy. But it should be a temporary situation. It shouldn't be something the needy rely on. It's just not healthy for anyone involved. The only exception I would make to that is if there are elderly people who have no family. We should take care of them when they are no longer able to take care of themselves.

You propose we should be like China or India?

Well, since you bring it up, yes. The traditional values of those two countries think very highly of the elderly. They are respected and taken care of by their family. Sadly all that is changing since modernization has begun to set in.

**4matic** · 12-13-2007, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Brocktoon

Your mom's generation, the Greatest Generation that we've been sucking off since 1945, is the one that decided your kids should pay for her welfare.

Look to the future and stop making these impotent appeals to emotion. There will always be old ladies with a sob story. That doesn't give us the right to burden our progeny with debt and an unsustainable system.

That's just bizarre.

**MeatPuppet** · 12-13-2007, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Tippster

We're the richest society on the planet yet...

...we expect other people to take care of our parents when they get old so we don't have to put a crimp in our lifestyle.

**Tourette Dude** · 12-13-2007, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

...we expect other people to take care of our parents when they get old so we don't have to put a crimp in our lifestyle.

I don't see where there is a correlation between S.S and nursing homes?

**MeatPuppet** · 12-13-2007, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by Tourette Dude

I don't see where there is a correlation between S.S and nursing homes?

S.S. and nursing homes? I'm sorry, you lost me.

**Brocktoon** · 12-13-2007, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by 4matic

That's just bizarre.

What's just bizarre is that you think I should pay for your mom's meds.

What's even more bizarre is that you think my kids should.

**Bizarro-Squatch** · 12-13-2007, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Brocktoon

That doesn't give us the right to burden our progeny with debt and an unsustainable system.

The unsustainability is the problem. If we stop cutting checks now, I think it will do more harm than good. I don't like social security, I think it's incredibly inefficient, but I recognize why and how it came about and how that made it what it is. Like it or not, we're stuck with the mistakes of our past.

Unfortunately I think the best option is to kill it now, for the future. Everyone born 2008 and later will pay no social security tax, and receive no benefit. Either that or start phasing it out slowly. Step down payments and step down benefits. Our political system is biased against long-term social benefits with high short-term costs, though.

All in all, I think Paul is part good ideas, part crazy. Granted, I think policitians benefit more from taking a party line and sticking to it, rather than the logical compromises that I think are the best outcome. C'mon, private roads? Private utilities suck, and that's a much more flexible market/industry. Gov't exists for a reason. Yeah, it should trim the fat, but not the lean as well.

Although truthfully, I think he might be a good President. A dick, maybe, but he's not going to be as successful as he'd like. It's not like he's going to get rid of the FAA in 8 years. I think the best case is that his extremism is tempered by the rest of the political infrastructure, and the government unbloats itself a little bit.

**Tippster** · 12-13-2007, 11:26 PM

So you're saying that if folks don't have children, or if their children cannot or will not support them through their old age, we should what...

Euthanise them?

It's called a SAFETY NET for a reason.

**Tourette Dude** · 12-13-2007, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

...we expect other people to take care of our parents when they get old so we don't have to put a crimp in our lifestyle.

Your statement seems to imply that the social saftey net is a excuse for people to disregard any responsiblity when it comes to caring for parents as they get older.

I don't see that as a driving factor.

**house** · 12-13-2007, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Bizarro-Squatch

I think the best case is that his extremism is tempered by the rest of the political infrastructure, and the government unbloats itself a little bit.

exactly. he can't singlehandedly dismantle government institutions like S.S. and medicare/aid, but perhaps his desire to do so will help the U.S. citizenry back off the teat a little. nobody can deny that would be a good thing (except for the leeches, heh

).

**Tourette Dude** · 12-13-2007, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by Tippster

So you're saying that if folks don't have children, or if their children cannot or will not support them through their old age, we should what...

Euthanise them?

Hey! They could be a new form of biofuel or maybe food..........

Yes....... SoylentGranny(TM).....mmmmmmmmmm

**4matic** · 12-13-2007, 11:39 PM

There is a big myth about retirement promoted by the investment industry. That we need 80% or whatever of current income to be happy in retirement. The fact is most seniors live on only Social Security and are mostly content with their lives. At least that's the research... Well, you have an enormous population of baby boomers that have little or no savings for retirement and no hope for improvemnet in those savings. Many baby boomers will absolutely need Social Security and Medicare and we damn well better want them to have it. Without a safety net the US will be a wasteland of destitution in the coming decades.

Is that what you want?