Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I will not collect Social Security when I retire. I am 24 right now and by the time I am eligible to collect, there will be no more Social Security funds to draw from.

Humor us. Instead of dodging the real question that I asked, assume there are funds available when you retire. Now answer.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

Humor us. Instead of dodging the real question that I asked, assume there are funds available when you retire. Now answer.

I don't deal in the "what if" smc nor do I assume about alot of things. I deal with "what is most likely to occur". If I assume that there are funds available, it also ignores the possibility that I might be well off by the time I retire and won't even have to bother drawing SSN. What is most likely to occur is that there will be nothing for me in the future and I will work until I die. Anyone who thinks that they will be able to retire anytime soon is blind to reality. What is the point of drawing something that I cannot fully collect on? If I could draw all my money out from Social Security, then yes, I would. But getting a measly check that is barely enough to live on back from the fed when I am old and feeble and close to death is just a horrible fallback plan for someone who was too stupid to invest wisely for the past 40+ years. I have 40+ years to invest and save right, so no, I would not.

The people who originally put into Social Security are withdrawing more than they put in. This is something that will not be able to continue for long.

Why do you put so much faith in programs that are obvious wealth redistribution and have not provided much in return compared to the amount that is put into them? Social Security, welfare and all these other programs do not induce economic productivity. All they create is dependance on someone (namely the Fed) and punish the people who actually work and put into the system by forcing them to cover the costs. So why are you so adamant about programs that spend your money once it is taken away from you and then promise some of it back when you are near death?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I don't deal in the "what if" smc nor do I assume about alot of things. I deal with "what is most likely to occur".

You do realize that dealing with "what is most likely to occur" is a form of dealing with "what if," right?

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

If I assume that there are funds available, it also ignores the possibility that I might be well off by the time I retire and won't even have to bother drawing SSN. What is most likely to occur is that there will be nothing for me in the future and I will work until I die. Anyone who thinks that they will be able to retire anytime soon is blind to reality. What is the point of drawing something that I cannot fully collect on? If I could draw all my money out from Social Security, then yes, I would. But getting a measly check that is barely enough to live on back from the fed when I am old and feeble and close to death is just a horrible fallback plan for someone who was too stupid to invest wisely for the past 40+ years. I have 40+ years to invest and save right, so no, I would not.

All of the above, of course, has nothing to do with my question.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Why do you put so much faith in programs that are obvious wealth redistribution and have not provided much in return compared to the amount that is put into them? Social Security, welfare and all these other programs do not induce economic productivity. All they create is dependance on someone (namely the Fed) and punish the people who actually work and put into the system by forcing them to cover the costs. So why are you so adamant about programs that spend your money once it is taken away from you and then promise some of it back when you are near death?

Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I write that I have faith in any of these programs? I have written about a concept of "social solidarity" but not defended a single U.S. program. I asked YOU what federal spending YOU would cut, since YOU advocate for the federal government to only have its 17 responsibilities related to defense and regulation of currency.

You are more than welcome to make your arguments, but I would appreciate it if you didn't ascribe to me things I did not write. When I express my specific opinion about U.S. government programs, there will be no mistaking it.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

You do realize that dealing with "what is most likely to occur" is a form of dealing with "what if," right?

Yes. But is is a more solidly and probablility based "what if". What if an asteroid San Diego? What if zombies invaded? What if this happened? What if that happened? You can think of all the what if's all you want and deal with those. I just deal with the most likely ones to happen.

Originally Posted by smc

All of the above, of course, has nothing to do with my question.

Yes it does. You just don't like that answer I gave you. If you read the last part of the paragraph, you have my answer.

Originally Posted by smc

Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I write that I have faith in any of these programs? I have written about a concept of "social solidarity" but not defended a single U.S. program. I asked YOU what federal spending YOU would cut, since YOU advocate for the federal government to only have its 17 responsibilities related to defense and regulation of currency.

You are more than welcome to make your arguments, but I would appreciate it if you didn't ascribe to me things I did not write. When I express my specific opinion about U.S. government programs, there will be no mistaking it.

I answered that:

I answered your question. If you don't like the answers I give you, don't take the conversation in a different tangent and then complain about me not "answering" your question.

And yes, obviously you do support these programs to some degree, otherwise you would not have been pestering me about what I would do and trying to turn it into what I think about this or that. I have made myself pretty clear in my past posts in other threads about my stance on such things. If you are curious, I advise you to reread my previous posts.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Yes it does. You just don't like that answer I gave you. If you read the last part of the paragraph, you have my answer.

I meant to leave out all but the last part, which did answer my question. The rest is what I meant by irrelevant. I introduced the confusion with my error in quoting.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I answered your question. If you don't like the answers I give you, don't take the conversation in a different tangent and then complain about me not "answering" your question.

This is insulting. You ascribed to me things I never stated. It has nothing to do with whether I like your answer. Quote where I said what you ascribe to me, or acknowledge that you put words in my mouth.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

This is insulting. You ascribed to me things I never stated. It has nothing to do with whether I like your answer. Quote where I said what you ascribe to me, or acknowledge that you put words in my mouth.

I already explained my reasons for my response. If you were truly interested in what programs I would cut, we would not be having this discussion right now as it would have sufficed. By turning the direction of the discussion into whether or not I personally would draw Social Security (which has nothing to do with me wanting to cut the program), you invited the response that you got.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I already explained my reasons for my response. If you were truly interested in what programs I would cut, we would not be having this discussion right now. By turning the direction of the discussion into whether or not I personally would draw Social Security (which has nothing to do with me wanting to cut the program), you invited the response that you got.

You wrote: "I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely."

Since Social Security is the only one you mentioned that I could safely assume has a direct impact on you (i.e., I assume you're not on welfare, and you mention no others by name), I legitimately asked you about your personal relationship with drawing said Social Security -- based on your principled position in opposition to its existence. It was a completely legitimate question in the context of this discussion. By the way, no one has answered my specific question about which programs to cut.

Now you reserve for yourself the right to attribute to me statements I did not make because you don't like that I asked you the question.

The bottom line here, Postman, is that you put words in my mouth. I did not do that to you. You have now written more than one post trying to evade your fundamental violation of one of the tenets of legitimate and fair discourse, which is that everyone gets to state his or her opinion, not have it stated by someone else.

You owe me an apology, but more important you owe it to the Forum to have this discussion without putting words in ANYONE'S mouth.