So shortly after calling me a twit on Facebook, I had a Republican tell me that the Social Security he receives is actually an insurance program that he bought into, and it is in fact not a socialist program. This is me right now:
Politics and shit
- Thread starter Instrumentalist
- Start date
Social Security IS an insurance program.
The official name is OASDI (Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance).
If you're contributing directory into something acting like an annuity it's probably a type of insurance.
Contrary to something like Food Stamps which isn't directly funded by you.
So, while you made a thread hoping to make someone looks foolish to challenge you what you actually did was show your ignorance.
Congrats! :2gunsfiring_v1::2gunsfiring_v1::2gunsfiring_v1:
The official name is OASDI (Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance).
If you're contributing directory into something acting like an annuity it's probably a type of insurance.
Contrary to something like Food Stamps which isn't directly funded by you.
So, while you made a thread hoping to make someone looks foolish to challenge you what you actually did was show your ignorance.
Congrats! :2gunsfiring_v1::2gunsfiring_v1::2gunsfiring_v1:
Ron Paul uses the same (flawed) rationale.
Politics makes people believe and do stupid things.
I'm always amazed by how you swear up and down you know shit about finance. You're a webmaster who read a few textbooks. Congratufuckulations.
Car insurance is compulsory, does that not make it an insurance?
Seriously. Just stop while you're only behind by a little.
Or a least humble yourself and pretend to care that you don't know what you're talking about.
Invalid comparison
1. For starters, you only need car insurance if you drive a car on a public road. It's not universal.
2. You don't need insurance per se. In the UK at least, you can self-insure by placing a £10M bond with Lloyds of London.
3. There isn't ONE car insurance vendor. You can shop around for the one which offers the best deal. Try doing that with social security.
4. Insurance is a contract in which one party offers to indemnify another against a certain event or loss. Social security isn't a contract, it's defined by statute.
Of course, you could argue that Social Security passes the Duck Test for insurance, and is therefore insurance. I wouldn't agree with you though. It's a welfare programme.
In MOST American states car insurance is MANDATORY to drive on nearly every road (unless you're on your property, but let's talk about how many people have private roads).
It doesn't matter how many insurers there are... IT'S INSURANCE
I'll gladly debate someone else on here who happens to own an insurance brokerage on this topic though. lol (we'll see how long that goes on for...)
In the meantime I'm going to make some tea.
That was a typo on my part, which I've corrected - I meant public, not private. You don't need insurance to drive on a private road, of course.
And I didn't dispute whether or not it was insurance. Merely that your comparison is invalid, because car insurance isn't universally mandatory. Unless you're claiming that every human being has to drive a car.
Just because the government calls something insurance, doesn't mean it's the same thing.
This wikipedia page has a pretty good description of the differences if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_insurance
Medicare, PBGC and Welfare all meet the same criteria. I wonder if OP's Republican correspondent considers them insurance as well?
I have never claimed to know anything about finance.
Actually, I am a lot of things, and nothing you say about me personally makes your argument "work".
See amateursurgeon's post.
You're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I like to think I know more about socialism than most people.
You on the other hand, only regurgitate conventional ideas, and do it aggressively because you've never attempted to explain why those ideas are correct. Instead, you try to bully your way to adding value to a discussion, instead of doing it on the merit of your ideas.
I understand you're bad at socialization, insecure, and probably a little frustrated with your limited intelligence, but don't take it out on me dude. I'm just the messenger for reason.
It would be one thing if it was named the Freedom Security Program or something, instead having "social" in the title makes certain people's opinions even more hilarious.
"According to a new poll from CBS and the New York Times, 92% of tea partiers are scared that America is moving towards socialism — but in a strange twist, most of them seem to like it.
Despite the fear that socialism is coming to America, 62% of tea party supporters also support Social Security and Medicare."
"According to a new poll from CBS and the New York Times, 92% of tea partiers are scared that America is moving towards socialism — but in a strange twist, most of them seem to like it.
Despite the fear that socialism is coming to America, 62% of tea party supporters also support Social Security and Medicare."
1. Car insurance is done by private companies.
2. It isn't mandatory everywhere. New Hampshire for instance.
From what I understand, on the whole retirees receive more back from SS than what they put in, and that whoever is working now (meaning us) is always paying for the generation that is retired. And you can call it whatever you want, but at the end of the day whenever you give money to the government, and then receive it back, that is 100% a social policy.
Now on the other hand if the government allowed you to spend the money you put into Social Security on say private investments instead, THEN it becomes capitalistic. But I'm afraid sir that in it's current form, it just isn't.
:action-smiley-052::action-smiley-052::action-smiley-052:
Car insurance is not compulsory, rather required if you choose to own a car, and even then not every where, and even then in many states you can forego it with a bond.
And is anyone surprised by the fact that a Romney voter can't distinguish between socialism and capitalism?
It's hilarious how you guys only bring up Medicare/SS which, since you are young, won't benefit you for many years. I suspect that if you survive to middle age your attitudes will change like everybody else's do.
Now you're all about...yeah, let's starve the old people. What are they good for? I need mo' money!!! And sure, Medicare/SS are a bit of a Ponzi scheme...so what? What is your better and more reasonable solution that still keeps faith with the elderly?
Socialism: Roads, Public Schools, Police, Trash Collection (private firms contracted with city government, mandatory and regulated car insurance (private companies HIGHLY regulated by the state and yeah, only if you own a car which most adults to so whatever....).
I Like It!
I hate to find myself in a thread mostly agreeing with Danke.
Now you're all about...yeah, let's starve the old people. What are they good for? I need mo' money!!! And sure, Medicare/SS are a bit of a Ponzi scheme...so what? What is your better and more reasonable solution that still keeps faith with the elderly?
Socialism: Roads, Public Schools, Police, Trash Collection (private firms contracted with city government, mandatory and regulated car insurance (private companies HIGHLY regulated by the state and yeah, only if you own a car which most adults to so whatever....).
I Like It!
I hate to find myself in a thread mostly agreeing with Danke.
