Topic: What Do You Score On This Survey?

[IronDioPriest]

So it's ok to take from the system if your noble goal is to crash it, but it's not ok to rely on the existing system until it can be replaced with something else because you're forcing someone else to pay for it.

You've pretty much lost me with this reasoning.

[LadyVirginia]

My point: We will be one week before total and complete national insolvency and Nancy Pelosi and her bunch of dumbasses will be refusing to cut one cent out of SS/Medicare/medicaid.

I agree.

The truth is that even with a phase out no one, except for a few, will prepare and there will still be millions SHOCKED that the checks are done.

[Weisshaupt]

So it's ok to take from the system if your noble goal is to crash it, but it's not ok to rely on the existing system until it can be replaced with something else because you're forcing someone else to pay for it.
You've pretty much lost me with this reasoning.

What are you going to "replace" it with? If its being replaced with anything that is not - "pay your own way in life"  then I want no part of it.  And if it is pay your own way, why can't it start today? Why can't someone on SS start taking care of themselves  as an honest person using their own money? ( and NO SS is NOT your own money, it was money stolen from you that you want back - but the people who actually got your money are higher on the pyramid and long gone.. accept it as the loss that it is, or go and shake down the corpses in the cemetery and stop looking at me like I am somehow responsible for making up your loss) )  And yeah, a lack of SS might mean they  have to make changes. But the changes are no different than the ones that are being imposed on and asked of  my generation.  Really, "retirement" as the prior generation have known it will be rare to non-existent  in mine, and I see no  reason the prior generation is entitled to the continue with the practice as they have been accustomed to it.  Live with your kids- and pull your weight in their household. Live with other Seniors. Make whatever arrangements you need to make it work, but do it on your own dimes. Dimes any responsible person should have been collecting for the last 50 years - especially during the most prosperous period in human history.  

No responsible person should have ever relied upon SS. It was publicly  announced, morally obvious, and a  mathematical certainty that it could not be depended upon.  If you  ignored that warning, and decided that depending upon the money the prior generation promised its children would pay was a good idea, then you made your own bed.  No generation can morally  indenture the next, and the next generation is not, in any way, obligated or bound to such promises. And if you relied upon those promises and can't find a way to make ends meet, and can't provide enough value (through labor, emotional ties , or collected wisdom)  to others such that  they will take you in voluntarily, then yes, you deserve to die starving on the street and good riddance. Or are you really arguing that the prior generation needs time to adjust because "they didn't know"?

 Its fine to take what money you can from the system - to steal from the thieves while it lasts  and you can ,  but its wrong to pretend that money is your due - that the thieves original victims or the thieves themselves owe it.  They told you up front you would be lucky with anything you got. You are participating in a corrupt and immoral ponzi scheme, and just because you are on part of the pyramid that means you can get  paid, doesn't make such payment right or noble.  It is what it is - and that is a means to recoup some of your loss ( or get paid money you never paid in as the case may be)  At some point,  the Ponzi will end. When that happens, you will have gotten what you have gotten, and no body owes you crap. But I see no reason why anyone who got paid anything from the Ponzi is entitled to continue doing so, if the decision is made to end the Ponzi.  Any realistic "reform" is simply going to stop paying the responsible parties who didn't rely on SS in the first place, and reward those  leeches who squandered the opportunities  best and most plentiful time in human history offered them to save for their latter years, instead deciding to rely upon the Ponzi, and no I have no sympathy for them.

[Weisshaupt]

The truth is that even with a phase out no one, except for a few, will prepare and there will still be millions SHOCKED that the checks are done.

But the Checks will never be done.  The Dollar will be.
You will always get the check. After all, we have a printing press to the government can't run out of money. Just ask any liberal.
The money, which is the very symbol of the value of human lives and effort,  is being corrupted.  As Barnhardt says- we ARE the Gold.
But because the symbol of our efforts is devalued with each passing minute,  it will make it impossible to save for the future. The store of value is LOOSING value.  Negative compound interest works the same way positive compound interest does. Long term saving is a losing proposition..the longer you save money for the more you loose. .   And no investment will be able to match or track inflation because ZIRP is required for the govt to keep borrowing money sand  paying those checks.

At some point, the commodities we buy from oversea will  require ever higher numbers of dollars to purchase, and those dollars won't be held overseas, they will immediately come home and be poured in something or other.  Inflation will ramp more as a result  and the death spiral begins till even while you got every dollar the Fed owed.. the money won't buy a can of soup.

[IronDioPriest]

Whether the system can or should be replaced, and if so by what, is a different argument Weisshaupt. You're saying it's moral to take from the system if your goal is to crash it, but immoral to take from it if you are among those who believed your money was "invested" by the government on your behalf.

That is rank moral relativism. You are deciding based on your own moral judgment that you can take from a system and others are immoral for doing so. That's just BS. I say so with genuine respect, but I cannot place your cognitive dissonance in any reasonable frame.

[Weisshaupt]

Whether the system can or should be replaced, and if so by what, is a different argument Weisshaupt. You're saying it's moral to take from the system if your goal is to crash it, but immoral to take from it if you are among those who believed your money was "invested" by the government on your behalf.

That is rank moral relativism. You are deciding based on your own moral judgment that you can take from a system and others are immoral for doing so. That's just BS. I say so with genuine respect, but I cannot place your cognitive dissonance in any reasonable frame.

No, I believe the unquestionably  Moral course of action would be to not draw on the system at all, because you know its dirty money.   I also expect very few people will take that course.
Perhaps the confusion arises because  there is suspicion I think I am advocating a moral or noble course  when I say "Go on the Dole. "  It is neither.  Its a path to an end,  but the end does not justify the means, and I don't pretend it does. I believe participating in any scheme to forcefully take money and enslave others  is wrong no matter WHY you do it.  But that is real life. You aren't always given a moral choice, and you have to chose between two or more evils. Each election is like that.. and we vote for Bush , of McCain, or Romney not because we like them, but because we believe in the larger scheme of things it would slow the rot. We have another purpose, and we hope that our end goal will be met, and accept the stains on our souls for what we have done. 
 They  are making it impossible to act in this society to as a honest individual. You can  either play the role of the victim or you can ( immorally) play the part of a looter.  The Moral course is to pay your own way, and deciding NOT to do that and loot the system  is not a "moral" response to that environment. It is however, a rational one, and probably the only way the end of the system itself can be brought about.  This is a war, and Morality is usually the first casualty in a war zone.   When I say go on the dole its with the same understanding that one might tell you to kill the enemy on the battlefield.  Thou Shalt Not Kill I am sure still applies, but then there are other factors and bigger issues.  The Ends don't justify the means, and I didn't mean to pretend or imply that they do.   

If and when I do go on the dole and someone accuses me of "abusing" the system, of taking what I don't deserve - I will tell them straight out that they are Damn right I don't deserve a dime, and I am a perfect example of why that system should be destroyed, and I (and everyone else) should be cut off from my checks as soon as possible. I would celebrate an event that ended my (and everyone's) dependence upon such immoral and evil means. And Yes, I think a moral distinction can be drawn between a person who knowingly  sins (and admits of the sin) because they believe  it will hasten the ending of that entire system of sin and one who openly states  that its RIGHT that  others should be ground under their boot, because they are owed.. and believe a perpetuation of the sinful system is in order ( just till they get theirs of course!)   The latter is a  declaration that taking from others by force  ISN'T a sin; its a  a  justification offered to make what they do in taking payments to appear morally right,  but its an outright lie. .  Calling SS an "investment made on your behalf" is an empirically and demonstrably  false statement.  Who in the first generation of this ponzi made any investment at all? They received  payments directly form the contributions of the first SS Taxes,  but NEVER paid in a single cent.  Calling SS an investment, is as bad as calling Obamacare "Insurance" - when the very quality that makes it insurance ( risk of future events)  has been removed by a mandate to cover pre-existing conditions.  Was Benrie Madoff''s operation an "investment" as well? Or was his operation a fraudulent, criminal and sinful sham undeserving of the term? The intent to obfuscate and justify the sin and  its perpetuation IS immoral in my opinion.

So yes, I advocate taking those payments, not because it is right or moral, but because it is necessary for achieving what I consider to be a higher (moral) goal aimed at removing that necessity in the long run. Just as killing enemy soldiers may be necessary to ensure survival and continuation of a Nation even though it involves directly ignoring one of God's own commandments. As I already break his commandments because I do not honor my Mother or Father, because they are not honorable people. Ultimately I will stand before God and he will judge what is to be done with me given the sins I committed because I felt it was  "necessary" - but I won't pretend to his face they weren't sins because of the larger goal I pursued.

[IronDioPriest]

...You're saying it's moral to take from the system if your goal is to crash it, but immoral to take from it if you are among those who believed your money was "invested" by the government on your behalf.

That is rank moral relativism. You are deciding based on your own moral judgment that you can take from a system and others are immoral for doing so. That's just BS. I say so with genuine respect, but I cannot place your cognitive dissonance in any reasonable frame.

No, I believe the unquestionably Moral course of action would be to not draw on the system at all....

...So yes, I advocate taking those payments, not because it is right or moral, but because it is necessary for achieving what I consider to be a higher (moral) goal...

You basically just said what I said, and contradicted yourself to boot.

[charlesoakwood]

Charles Oakwood
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,8523.msg102007.html#msg102007
It is not feasible to rip an elderly person's support from them and expect them to sustain themselves.
Advocating the immediate sensation of SS is advocating the death of thousands of people.
Advocating the immediate cessation of SS is advocating murder.

Weisshaupt
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,8523.msg102009.html#msg102009
Those "thousands of people" ...No, I have no sympathy for them  at all.


Charles Oakwood
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,8523.msg102012.html#msg102012
If one is aware that death will be an outcome of SS being halted then those persons death will not be an accident.

Weisshaupt
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,8523.msg102016.html#msg102016
...CO is right people will die. ...
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,8523.msg102019.html#msg102019
There is no doubt  some will die,
...
Advocating anything other than the immediate and compete repeal of the program - especially when it serves selfish personal interests, is simply evil.

You advocate the immediate and complete repeal of SS with full knowledge that doing so will be the cause of many deaths.
Homicidal thoughts justified for the greater good?

ETA - deleted

[Weisshaupt]

You basically just said what I said, and contradicted yourself to boot.

No. I don't believe so.  There are multiple levels of actions and intent here, that you seem to want to collapse into the single  action of cashing a check.
 

The Basic action of drawing from the Ponzi is sinful because it is knowingly participating in a system that harms others, and remains so regardless of a person's intentions or larger goals.

However, how one responds to this action also has moral implications separate from the act itself.
A repentant individual who admits his sin is more moral than an individual who compounds his first sin with a second by trying to justify, hide or otherwise pretend the sin is not a sin by lying  (" I am owed" , "Its an investment", etc)

Finally there is a larger goal  or motive  and that is  separate from the means used to accomplish it,  and also has moral implications.

advocating or acting to perpetuate a system of sin for personal and selfish reasons is an immoral and sinful act.
advocating or acting to end a system of sin is a moral act.


I do not pretend I know how these things will be judged or what weight the Almighty would apply ( if any) to each in his Judgement. It is entirely possible my moral calculus in this instance will be found wanting, and the course I see as more moral would be found to be less moral.. and if that is what you mean by "moral relativism" - then sure  I am saying one immoral course is LESS immoral than another immoral course ( I am used to the term being applied in a situation were all acts are considered morally neutral  and/or equivalent making such comparisons between different courses impossible and moot )

[Weisshaupt]

Advocating anything other than the immediate and compete repeal of the program - especially when it serves selfish personal interests, is simply evil.

You advocate the immediate and complete repeal of SS with full knowledge that doing so will be the cause of many deaths.
Homicidal thoughts justified for the greater good?

People in the current generation or recipients will die if SS is repealed now because they will lack the resources needed to survive. .  People in non-recipient generations will die later if deprived of the resources they need in retirement because they were confiscated to keep SS running.   I don't think either of us know or can guess the actual numbers that will be so affected.   It can probably be safely assumed that the non-recipient generations will be living in poorer and harder times, and will have significantly reduced opportunities for saving for retirement. As a result, the resources in the society available for taking care of those who can't take care of themselves will also be greatly reduced, and therefore those who do find themselves without a means of support will be much less likely to find that support than their modern counterparts currently receiving benefits, for the collapse in wealth and property is only now beginning.  Further,  given that those currently receiving benefits have lived through the most prosperous years in human history, they as a group, are far more likely to have other means of supporting themselves in retirement when stripped of the supplemental SSI payments, than  a generation deprived of that prosperity will have.  We are actually better equipped now to absorb those people back  into our lives and homes  and other lifestyles  if SS were ended now, than if we push those problems into the future by preventing the current generation from saving the money currently placed in SSI.  For these reasons, I think that more people will die and be unsupported in the future if SS is maintained for those currently drawing benefits,  but  say its a wash because people have "more time to prepare" (though how more time helps in a negative interest environment, I have no idea)

The point is the  deaths occur in both scenarios.  In no scenario are the deaths avoided, because the SAME resources are being used.. either to support the current retirees or to support the future ones. Those resources can't be used for both, so one group or the other must be sacrificed.  So, since the deaths are a foregone conclusion in either scenario, the primary difference becomes one of the perpetuation of Evil. In one scenario  the evil of forcing people to contribute  to the well being of others ends, and in the other it is perpetuated.   In one scenario people die because they are deprived of resources they did not earn, and failed to act and take responsibility to save for their own retirement.  In the other scenario people die, but they die because they were prevented , by force, from retaining what they earned so they could save it for retirement.

The System itself is Homicidal of its nature. People gonna die.  Our only selection here is in the choice of victims. They may either be irresponsible individuals who deliberately squandered their opportunities during a very prosperous time in favor of a system of forced redistribution, or people who attempted to act responsibly  to provide for their old age, but were forcefully hindered in doing so.  Granted, in one scenario we know what has happened, and the other is speculative,  but I think we both know that it is also realistic given current data and economic history. 

[IronDioPriest]

advocating or acting to perpetuate a system of sin for personal and selfish reasons is an immoral and sinful act.
advocating or acting to end [the same] system of sin is a moral act.

That is moral relatvism Weisshaupt. If in order to attempt to end or perpetuate the system, the system must be used in the same way (cashing the check) for either goal, and people with both goals commit the same act with the intention of accomplishing their own preference, then that is a quintessential example of moral relativism. Two people with disparate goals don't get to commit the same immoral act, and have one call the other immoral for doing what they themselves do.

I'm sorry, I reject that. You don't get to say "crash the system" by taking advantage of every handout Unca Shugga has to offer, and then call others who believe they are being taken advantage of if they don't receive what was promised immoral. That's just bunk, my brother.

To be honest, even though I share your vision of the end of the welfare state, I've had issue all along with your advocacy of going on the dole in every way possible, and now that we've had this conversation, it is more clear to me why.

[charlesoakwood]

Advocating anything other than the immediate and compete repeal of the program - especially when it serves selfish personal interests, is simply evil.

You advocate the immediate and complete repeal of SS with full knowledge that doing so will be the cause of many deaths.
Homicidal thoughts justified for the greater good?

People in the current generation or recipients will die if SS is repealed now because they will lack the resources needed to survive. .  People in non-recipient generations will die later if deprived of the resources they need in retirement because they were confiscated to keep SS running.   I don't think either of us know or can guess the actual numbers that will be so affected.   It can probably be safely assumed that the non-recipient generations will be living in poorer and harder times, and will have significantly reduced opportunities for saving for retirement. As a result, the resources in the society available for taking care of those who can't take care of themselves will also be greatly reduced, and therefore those who do find themselves without a means of support will be much less likely to find that support than their modern counterparts currently receiving benefits, for the collapse in wealth and property is only now beginning.  Further,  given that those currently receiving benefits have lived through the most prosperous years in human history, they as a group, are far more likely to have other means of supporting themselves in retirement when stripped of the supplemental SSI payments, than  a generation deprived of that prosperity will have.  We are actually better equipped now to absorb those people back  into our lives and homes  and other lifestyles  if SS were ended now, than if we push those problems into the future by preventing the current generation from saving the money currently placed in SSI.  For these reasons, I think that more people will die and be unsupported in the future if SS is maintained for those currently drawing benefits,  but  say its a wash because people have "more time to prepare" (though how more time helps in a negative interest environment, I have no idea)

The point is the  deaths occur in both scenarios.  In no scenario are the deaths avoided, because the SAME resources are being used.. either to support the current retirees or to support the future ones. Those resources can't be used for both, so one group or the other must be sacrificed.  So, since the deaths are a foregone conclusion in either scenario, the primary difference becomes one of the perpetuation of Evil. In one scenario  the evil of forcing people to contribute  to the well being of others ends, and in the other it is perpetuated.   In one scenario people die because they are deprived of resources they did not earn, and failed to act and take responsibility to save for their own retirement.  In the other scenario people die, but they die because they were prevented , by force, from retaining what they earned so they could save it for retirement.

The System itself is Homicidal of its nature. People gonna die.  Our only selection here is in the choice of victims. They may either be irresponsible individuals who deliberately squandered their opportunities during a very prosperous time in favor of a system of forced redistribution, or people who attempted to act responsibly  to provide for their old age, but were forcefully hindered in doing so.  Granted, in one scenario we know what has happened, and the other is speculative,  but I think we both know that it is also realistic given current data and economic history. 

You are saying it's OK to advocate an act that will directly cause the deaths of many people because, among other reasons,  they are going to die anyway.  And,  "Those resources can't be used for both, so one group or the other must be sacrificed.", by sacrificing SS the greater good will be served. 

Why do you persist in advocating an action that will be homicidal while adamantly resisting any notion that there are other government entities that may be immediately cancelled with direct economic benefit and be the direct cause of no deaths?

 

[Weisshaupt]

That is moral relatvism Weisshaupt. If in order to attempt to end or perpetuate the system, the system must be used in the same way (cashing the check) for either goal, and people with both goals commit the same act with the intention of accomplishing their own preference, then that is a quintessential example of moral relativism. Two people with disparate goals don't get to commit the same immoral act, and have one call the other immoral for doing what they themselves do.

I haven't ever said cashing the check was moral for either individual. I in fact said the exact opposite: that doing so was explicitly immoral.  But that is one Act.

Is lying about the nature of the system to justify your immoral act, an immoral act in itself? If not, why not?

Is advocating the perpetuation of an evil system an immoral act in itself? If not, why not?

I've had issue all along with your advocacy of going on the dole in every way possible, and now that we've had this conversation, it is more clear to me why.

Going on the dole when you don't need to is immoral.  Just as killing people in a battle is immoral. Do you have a different battle plan if a real civil war doesn't happen?
Or is the plan to just knuckle under and passively accept that you are a slave?

[Weisshaupt]

You are saying it's OK to advocate an act that will directly cause the deaths of many people because, among other reasons,  they are going to die anyway.  And,  "Those resources can't be used for both, so one group or the other must be sacrificed.", by sacrificing SS the greater good will be served. 

Why do you persist in advocating an action that will be homicidal while adamantly resisting any notion that there are other government entities that may be immediately cancelled with direct economic benefit and be the direct cause of no deaths?

Advocating the system continues is advocating deaths Charles.

The money still comes from the same place no matter which other programs are cancelled. Unless the actual tax burden is lessened the the non-recipient generation, you will have had NO EFFECT on the future deaths that will result.  They still won't get their social security and they will still be Taxed at the same rate to "save" the system for current recipients  and pay the debts already contracted. .  And even if  the tax burden  were somehow actually  lessened, and Social Security as a system is "saved", all you have really done is prolonged the evil, and the problem. You buy another generation  or two!, or three!  of the Ponzi. But somewhere down the line the ponzi will still fail, because that is the nature of such things, and human nature to corrupt and make them worse.    Social Security is INHERENTLY HOMICIDAL and INHERENTLY EVIL.  It  will  eventually force this choice of which generation will suffer. Which people will die. 

[charlesoakwood]

You are saying it's OK to advocate an act that will directly cause the deaths of many people because, among other reasons,  they are going to die anyway.  And,  "Those resources can't be used for both, so one group or the other must be sacrificed.", by sacrificing SS the greater good will be served. 

Why do you persist in advocating an action that will be homicidal while adamantly resisting any notion that there are other government entities that may be immediately cancelled with direct economic benefit and be the direct cause of no deaths?

Advocating the system continues is advocating deaths Charles.

The money still comes from the same place no matter which other programs are cancelled. Unless the actual tax burden is lessened the the non-recipient generation, you will have had NO EFFECT on the future deaths that will result.  They still won't get their social security and they will still be Taxed at the same rate to "save" the system for current recipients  and pay the debts already contracted. .  And even if  the tax burden  were somehow actually  lessened, and Social Security as a system is "saved", all you have really done is prolonged the evil, and the problem. You buy another generation  or two!, or three!  of the Ponzi. But somewhere down the line the ponzi will still fail, because that is the nature of such things, and human nature to corrupt and make them worse.    Social Security is INHERENTLY HOMICIDAL and INHERENTLY EVIL.  It  will  eventually force this choice of which generation will suffer. Which people will die. 

"Advocating the system continues is advocating deaths Charles."

No, allowing SS to continue allows retirees to live their lives in their usual and customary fashion and will have no direct impact on their death.   Immediately eliminating SS will directly cause many deaths; therefore, advocating the immediate elimination of SS is advocating geriatricide.  You are advocating geriatricide.  Geriatricide is immoral and evil.

[IronDioPriest]

That is moral relatvism Weisshaupt. If in order to attempt to end or perpetuate the system, the system must be used in the same way (cashing the check) for either goal, and people with both goals commit the same act with the intention of accomplishing their own preference, then that is a quintessential example of moral relativism. Two people with disparate goals don't get to commit the same immoral act, and have one call the other immoral for doing what they themselves do.

I haven't ever said cashing the check was moral for either individual. I in fact said the exact opposite: that doing so was explicitly immoral.  But that is one Act.

Is lying about the nature of the system to justify your immoral act, an immoral act in itself? If not, why not?

Is advocating the perpetuation of an evil system an immoral act in itself? If not, why not?

I've had issue all along with your advocacy of going on the dole in every way possible, and now that we've had this conversation, it is more clear to me why.

Going on the dole when you don't need to is immoral.  Just as killing people in a battle is immoral. Do you have a different battle plan if a real civil war doesn't happen?
Or is the plan to just knuckle under and passively accept that you are a slave?

It occurs to me that you have a great deal invested - quite literally - in the current way of American life coming to an abrupt end in your lifetime - to the point where at least a part of your fulfillment, and perhaps even satisfaction in life, will come when everything collapses around us and your investment pays off.

I don't judge you negatively in any way for preparing in every way possible for what you believe to be a certain fate. In fact I admire you for it. But nonetheless, I think the fact that you have such a great deal invested in societal collapse influences your reasoning in ways that someone who does not have so much invested cannot relate to.

[Weisshaupt]

"Advocating the system continues is advocating deaths Charles."

No, allowing SS to continue allows retirees to live their lives in their usual and customary fashion and will have no direct impact on their death.   Immediately eliminating SS will directly cause many deaths; therefore, advocating the immediate elimination of SS is advocating geriatricide.  You are advocating geriatricide.  Geriatricide is immoral and evil.

Please indicate why you think my reasoning about the future and probably much earlier  deaths in my generation caused by being forcefully prevented from saving for our futures is invalid? Are you not  advocating the people in my generation die in their geriatric years  so your generation can have a "usual and customary " retirement ?  Or do the deaths that result from your generations theft of mine  not count in your mind for some reason ?  I die after you  in my 50s with no health care, penniless and savings so your generation gets the retirement they expect and that is NOT geriatricide? No you didn't kill anyone- just put them in a situation where that is exactly what will happen.

What do you think the likelihood is that  my generation going to be allowed to live out our retirement years in the" usual and customary"  fashion? If you agree  such retirements are  unlikely for my generation , then  why should the current generation be entitled to " usual and customary" retirements  at my generations expense? Because otherwise you might share in some of the suffering and disruption your generation caused mine and that is unacceptable?

[Weisshaupt]

It occurs to me that you have a great deal invested - quite literally - in the current way of American life coming to an abrupt end in your lifetime - to the point where at least a part of your fulfillment, and perhaps even satisfaction in life, will come when everything collapses around us and your investment pays off.

I don't judge you negatively in any way for preparing in every way possible for what you believe to be a certain fate. In fact I admire you for it. But nonetheless, I think the fact that you have such a great deal invested in societal collapse influences your reasoning in ways that someone who does not have so much invested cannot relate to.

I suspect its rather a matter of timeline. I have to try to survive for at least the next ten years, just so my children reach adulthood. If current longevity rates hold, that gives me roughly another 30-40 years on this planet. If a major social and economic  disruption doesn't occur, then the Socialists win, and I either submit to being a slave and sucker and allow my work to be stolen for the next 30- 40 years  , or I take on a new life as a looter..  I either chafe with hatred at the theft, or I stop the theft by living without working and being the best drag I can be on the unholy evil  bastards. I don't see any other options open to me.  Do you?

Being Older, you will necessarily and in all probability  miss the worst.

There are is  no real retirement savings potential for me - with Real inflation at  -6% and  compounding each year,  I have to spend what I have saved now and place it in hard assets in an effort to simply preserve it. And that is risky. Gold and Silver are volatile, Housing is more so. With the savings gone, there is no real prospect of retirement for me - ever. And virtually zero for the generation following. My Kids only chance will be the assets I manage to leave them.   Which is why CO's expectation of "usual and customary" irks me as selfish and callous.  History suggests the best case scenario will be a Japan like -long decline- Meaning 10-20 years of ZIRP. So even if I work and have a job and can somehow earn enough to save in the stag-flationary environment- there simply is no way to grow the money. Even if things get better unexpectedly in 10 Years, that is 10 Years of savings and compound interest gone.  75% of America is already living paycheck to paycheck and unable to save anything.

My generation's retirement savings will be necessarily stunted by ZIRP, the economy  the massive Federal debt and money printing along with an ever increasing tax burden under socialism.  Social Security will certainly have reached breaking point by then assuming the other, bigger  problems are somehow avoided (and I can't see how)  My generation and subsequent generations are screwed.  There simply is no way my generation can get what savings we have intact 30 years into the future, and I consider myself lucky to have had 20 good earning years behind me already before this happens.    The generation behind me is mired in massive College debt, and can't get a job.  Most won't get a real paying job till they are in their 30s, they will still have massive student debt to pay off when they do and they will have forfeit almost a decade of earnings and climbing on the economic ladder.  They have much  less potential to survive and save for retirement than I have.
And remember this is the best case scenario where a major social/economic upheaval and collapse DOESN'T happen. It really is my greatest fear. Really IDP I have NOTHING I look forward to, and being killed or dying of a disease would be a relief. Its Kobayashi Maru everywhere I look.  I've done the math. The point of no return has been passed, and aside from a massive civil war,  this is the future I have to look forward to. Khattam-Shud.

No one has been able to point out the flaw here.  All they can do is just state I don't know the future, and I don't .. An alien species shows up and hands us free energy and this goes out the window.  But I am not going to plan my life on the hope that happens- and that is the sort of off the wall scenario we need for this to not happen at this point. 

As to satisfaction at being right? Not really. I have kids, and that easily overrides any feelings of satisfaction I might have at watching my "investments" "pay off" - which really means I retain some semblance of  a "usual and customary" middle class working lifestyle. My dreams of being wealthy, having the leisure time to pursue hobbies and interests, of being financially secure enough to not worry about it - those things that I really wanted are simply no longer on the table and never will be again.. Unless, perhaps I get so fed up and I move to Chile or someplace more free and start over from scratch including learning a whole new language. (again assuming no massive world-wide collapse)

However, if I am able to sustain myself, I admit I will probably gain a great deal of satisfaction at watching those who believe they have a right and entitlement to enslave and steal from others driven by reality into the abyss.  That is the primary driver of my lack of sympathy towards those who, given every opportunity to avoid it, somehow managed to leave themselves dependent upon SSI and the forced and brutal theft of others to sustain themselves. Same for the Welfarians and so forth.  If I live to see reality serve justice to these entitlement minded swine, that I might enjoy.  Everything else I do is going to be tinged with despair.  I will rejoice at the birth of my grandchildren, but it will be damped by the realization that they will suffer more than I did, and I am unable to leave them even half the opportunities I had.

 
,

[charlesoakwood]

[quot author=Weisshaupt link=topic=8523.msg102051#msg102051 date=1373063078]
[quot author=Charles Oakwood link=topic=8523.msg102049#msg102049 date=1373059643

"Advocating the system continues is advocating deaths Charles."

No, allowing SS to continue allows retirees to live their lives in their usual and customary fashion and will have no direct impact on their death.   Immediately eliminating SS will directly cause many deaths; therefore, advocating the immediate elimination of SS is advocating geriatricide.  You are advocating geriatricide.  Geriatricide is immoral and evil.


Please indicate why you think my reasoning about the future and probably much earlier  deaths in my generation caused by being forcefully prevented from saving for our futures is invalid?

You agree that immediately eliminating SS will be a direct cause of death.  You advocate the immediate cessation of SS, you advocate geriatricide.    

You said "Those resources can't be used for both, so one group or the other must be sacrificed."   What you are advocating is that I die in order for you to prosper, that's straight out of Marx. Or was it Pol Pot?  


Are you not  advocating the people in my generation die in their geriatric years  so your generation can have a "usual and customary " retirement ?  Or do the deaths that result from your generations theft of mine  not count in your mind for some reason ?  I die after you  in my 50s with no health care, penniless and savings so your generation gets the retirement they expect and that is NOT geriatricide? No you didn't kill anyone- just put them in a situation where that is exactly what will happen.

None of the above, I'm saying your proffer, if implemented, will directly result in the deaths of law abiding citizens.


What do you think the likelihood is that  my generation going to be allowed to live out our retirement years in the" usual and customary"  fashion? If you agree  such retirements are  unlikely for my generation , then  why should the current generation be entitled to " usual and customary" retirements  at my generations expense? Because otherwise you might share in some of the suffering and disruption your generation caused mine and that is unacceptable?

Again, I am saying, one thing, that you are advocating geriatricide and by your own words you have agreed.  In my world geriatricide is immoral and evil and until Obama it was illegal.  In some states it is still illegal.

[Weisshaupt]

[
Please indicate why you think my reasoning about the future and probably much earlier  deaths in my generation caused by being forcefully prevented from saving for our futures is invalid?

You agree that immediately eliminating SS will be a direct cause of death.  You advocate the immediate cessation of SS, you advocate geriatricide.    

You said "Those resources can't be used for both, so one group or the other must be sacrificed."   What you are advocating is that I die in order for you to prosper, that's straight out of Marx. Or was it Pol Pot?  

You are ignoring my point. Did a Liberal hack your account? . At the very best you are advocating that I be enslaved so that others  may prosper, and yes, that IS right out of Marx.  And as a consequence of being enslaved, more of my generation will die.  Continuation of SS means not only death but also enslavement for  my generation. Do you deny it? And no one in your generation  would die if they  provided YOUR OWN FUNDS FOR YOUR OWN CARE. If anyone  dies, it is because of their own  irresponsibly and refusal  prepare to pay their  own way, and now  instead propose  enslaving  to avoid the consequences of their  own actions.   Under your plan my  generation will die REGARDLESS of their choices because they will be denied the chances to save your generation enjoyed because of your forceful theft and confiscation for your own benefit.


None of the above, I'm saying your proffer, if implemented, will directly result in the deaths of law abiding citizens.

And your proffer  will directly  result in the deaths of law abiding citizens 20 years hence, and add slavery and theft to the crimes they "lawfully" committed against their own children. You do know that even when slavery was legal in this country it was still Morally wrong and against God Law, right? You have no right to take what you did not earn, and you did not earn Social Security.

Again, I am saying, one thing, that you are advocating geriatricide and by your own words you have agreed.  In my world geriatricide is immoral and evil and until Obama it was illegal.  In some states it is still illegal.

And Again I am saying , you have done the same - condemning those in my generation to be without support in their old age and to die as a result.  YOU advocate geriatricide, along WITH theft and SLAVERY ala Karl Marx. Cutting them off from what is not theirs is not killing them. These are adults - and they are RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN UPKEEP. If they  die  it is because they are irresponsible, selfish, worthless eaters who refuses to do what was required to ensure they could  to provide for and  feed themselves. They have no inherent right to force others to care for them at gunpoint. Or are you arguing that these seniors have no personal responsibility to care for themselves? Are you arguing that they DO in fact have a right to enslave others? And what do you base that right on?  It is not geriatricide to harm or  kill an armed  thief. It is self defense. It is justice. You are proposing using the government as a weapon  to attack me, steal from me, and deprive me of my future. I have every right to defend myself from such abuse, lethally if required.  Really, CO did a liberal hack you account, because you sound just like one - declaring they are entitled to the labor of others because they are weak and stupid. 

You do realize that when the dollar collapses these same people will die? That their only hope is the voluntary support of someone like me. But mark my words, I will not lift a finger to help ANYONE with a thieving, entitlement attitude. If someone doesn't  respect the rights of others- there is no reason anyone should respect their rights. And that includes their right to live.  If I advocate "geriatricide" is it only because there is a immoral and criminal group of old people trying to pillage and steal from others, to enslave them, and condem them to a early death just as real  as the ones you say I am contemplating.  A gang of people like that - no matter what age, race or ideology  is a scourge upon all decent, hardworking , moral people  and deserves to be put down like the barbarian scum-dogs they are.

Go on, tell me why I owe them a living via  my hard work and labor  because they irresponsibly  put themselves in a position of dependence- put themselves in a position to die if cut off from a source of income they neither deserved or earned. If they don't care enough about their own lives to ensure they can live honestly and by their own efforts,  why am I obligated to help?