Originally Posted by Guest

Let me get this straight. Some would suggest that social security should now be based on need. First define "need"? Second explain why anyone who has been forced since 1934 to pay into a fund that they could only activate at retirement now be told that can't withdraw their share? And contrast that with someone who has never had a productive day in their lives live high off the dole? Third, explain why contributors to this fund should be penalized because Congress has for so many years mismanaged this fund while said contributors watched helplessly? Fourth explain why an individual who has pay careful attention to his/her financial planning and to accumulate a worthy estate be mis-characterized as greedy. Fifth why is it that this government gets to pick winners and losers? Sixth what happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave and a citizen rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Originally Posted by Guest

Let me get this straight. Some would suggest that social security should now be based on need. First define "need"? Second explain why anyone who has been forced since 1934 to pay into a fund that they could only activate at retirement now be told that can't withdraw their share? And contrast that with someone who has never had a productive day in their lives live high off the dole? Third, explain why contributors to this fund should be penalized because Congress has for so many years mismanaged this fund while said contributors watched helplessly? Fourth explain why an individual who has pay careful attention to his/her financial planning and to accumulate a worthy estate be mis-characterized as greedy. Fifth why is it that this government gets to pick winners and losers? Sixth what happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave and a citizen rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Your FIRST question asks why anyone who has been paying into Social Security since 1934... Hey, that would be one mighty old employee in 2015, wouldn't it?

People live "high off the dole"? Not most I have seen. They have enough to live on but certainly not taking cruises or Caribbean vacations like so many Villagers do a few times a year.

Someone who has accumulated a worthy estate does not need the safety net of Social Security. Consider it a tax you paid while working and will not be seeing again.

Most Villagers have a good life, all have liberty, and with the exception of the Tea Party Grumps, Villagers have the happiness they pursue.

Originally Posted by Guest

Your FIRST question asks why anyone who has been paying into Social Security since 1934... Hey, that would be one mighty old employee in 2015, wouldn't it?

People live "high off the dole"? Not most I have seen. They have enough to live on but certainly not taking cruises or Caribbean vacations like so many Villagers do a few times a year.

Someone who has accumulated a worthy estate does not need the safety net of Social Security. Consider it a tax you paid while working and will not be seeing again.

Most Villagers have a good life, all have liberty, and with the exception of the Tea Party Grumps, Villagers have the happiness they pursue.

Social security was not passed as a "means-test" tax and redistribute scheme. That is a recent far-left invention and favorite of the socialists.

Imagine the hard worker in one house having his wealth confiscated and given to several of his neighbors because they failed to live below their means and save for retirement. That's exactly what you are proposing. How about we all work and save enough for retirement or some of us don't retire? Perhaps not everyone that wants a house to live in all by himself can have that provided by the government (his neighbors). Perhaps the government should not have their hand so deeply in so many of our pockets. How about we all provide for ourselves and the far-left socialists should learn to become self-reliant, rather than rely on their neighbors for their survival.

Originally Posted by Guest

The above posting was in jest, obviously. Not even a Florida or New Jersey educated person could make that many obvious errors in spelling.

Get real, people, and write something with some reasoning to it.

Thank you for flagging spelling for me. I suspect by your comment someone's grandkids are paying for your healthcare. Healthcare is one wotd is it not.

The above posting was in jest, obviously. Not even a Florida or New Jersey educated person could make that many obvious errors in spelling.

Get real, people, and write something with some reasoning to it.
_________________

Thank you for flagging spelling for me. I suspect by your comment someone's grandkids are paying for your healthcare. Healthcare is one wotd is it not.
_______________

I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Your power of reasoning is lacking as much as your knowledge of spelling. Obviously, a product of New Jersey education or possibly Texas. Or just conservative inbreeding?