Oh yeah ..... the 'entitlements'

[Stinky The Clown]

You pay into it all your life.

You

Pay

Into

It

All

Your

Life

Its your money. Maybe J. G. Wentworth will help you keep it.

How much would you have if you invested it in good, sound, prudent financial instruments?

It is your compact with YOUR government.

You bet your sweet fucking ass you're entitled to it.

With fucking interest.


eta: Sorry ... for those to whom this may sound like drivel: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08obama.html?em

Nice, huh?

[RB TexLa]

1. I pay and pay for our local fire department, if I never have a fire (need) for them

should they have to come to my house a certain amount of times anyway because I paid for them???? :crazy:

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. You go to a store right? They send fire inspectors to make sure the place is safe

they make sure that the hydrants near your house WORK

They also check all those systems at your place of employment, unless of course that is your home.

And they train, train, train, for the day you may need to call 9.11

And if you say NEVER, you will NEED them, GUARANTEED

Or you telling me you have NEVER, EVER placed a 9.11 call in your life? Nor do you intend to, even if you are SICK and NEED the help or a fire starts?

Unfrigging unbelievable

That said, from you it is no longer surprising, it is more like expected

[RB TexLa]

3. Those are benefits I receive from them as a benefit to the public just as I receive

a public benefit from social security even if I am one day fortunate enough to not have need for or receive a check from them.

You know, the words "I deserve" can be very dangerous.

And I have never called 9-1-1, I do not expect of others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. SO if you are having a heart attack you do not intend to call 9.11

and if you fall and break a hip, you will drive yourself to the hospital

Okie dokie

How about a stroke?

[RB TexLa]

6. Heart attack or stroke I'd probably die. The hip thing could happen at any time

my wife is perfectly capable of driving me and saving the cost of an ambulace ride. If it saves me money, I can handle the pain, or pass out from it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Or die on the way to the hospital

from SHOCK

At least you know the risks

:crazy:

Or get all kinds of complications that you MIGHT be able to avoid with the capable care of Emergency Medical Techs and Paramedics

I have asked before... you sure you are a liberal? And what the hell are you doing here? Your philosophy of life is RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN.

All to themselves... since we don't live in society:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

In fact, reminds me off..... Atlas Shrugged... and the Ann Ryand Crazies that don't believe they live in a society either, where we all owe something to EACH OTHER

[RB TexLa]

12. Because I chose to take a risk to save money you accuse me of that?

If you'd bother to read instead of making up lies, I do not have any problem paying for the public benefit of these services. I do not care to pay for a $2,000 ambulance ride for myself.

But I'm sure you'll just make up another God damn lie won't you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Well that god-damned ambulance ride also saves the rest of us certain risks

from your wife driving you to the hospital... and taking certain risks that she'd not take otherwise.

There are CERTAIN and FEW situations when calling 9.11 is not the best of choices... but those are EXCEPTIONS... not a rule

And if you break your hip and we move you wrong, aka your wife moves you wrong, you can end up PARALYZED, or dead

Now dead, not much increase in social costs, paralyzed on the other hand, is far more expensive than... the 2000 you want to save... most likely with less severe complications, but still the kind that COST the rest of us in social costs.

By the way ALS and a broken hip... can you say 5,000? And what you don't have insurance? By the way with NATIONAL single payer health care you'd not pay a red cent, or a small deductible, but I am sure you knew that

And yes, you do have a right wing POV, quite libertarian... blue dog, to be precise, with a strong whiff of an Ryand

[uppityperson]

16. Good luck there.

He has also said he would leave "pull the plug" decisions up to his doctor entirely. Doesn't want to discuss with family or have them have any say with it if it happens. Seems rather an independent loner, or writes like one.

[RB TexLa]

19. No, that's out of caring for my family members so they never have to make that decision

and the living will calls for a hospital administrator to make the decision not a doctor.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Wrong. Living will calls for YOU to make that decision

NOT a doctor, NOT an administration

Having filled that recently... And having relatives in the Medical Field

[RB TexLa]

24. Oh do tell me what my attorney wrote up and what I signed for me then

Geez.

I'm sure you'd know better than I, wouldn't you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. YOU SIGNED WHAT YOU SIGNED AFTER YOU MADE THAT DECISION

do you need that spelled out that badly?

Living wills state what YOU want done... not a doctor, not an administrator

WHY THEY ARE CALLED LIVING WILLS... what part of WILL are you missing?

[RB TexLa]

26. And I made the decision to have a hospital administrator decide medical treatment

and or pulling the plug or not if I can't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. As I wrote, YOU MADE THAT DECISION, not the lawyer

now to have an administrator make MEDICAL decisions in the end MAY NOT work. WHY? That is practicing medicine without license, but that's ok, I am sure your lawyer explained that to you

[RB TexLa]

35. My wife doesn't have a medical license,so she couldn't make those decisions either according to you?

I know people who have declared their next of kin to make such decisions for them if they can't, you best get to work getting people to go out and arrest those people for practicing medicine without a license.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Wrong. Living will calls for YOU to make that decision

NOT a doctor, NOT an administration

Having filled that recently... And having relatives in the Medical Field

[uppityperson]

27. So not even your doctor but the administrator of a hospital makes the decision?

The administrator? Executive, management person who has no clue about you, your desires in life, your wishes for yourself, or even what your doctor thinks, that person gets to decide on life or death for you?

That is even wilder than I remembered.

Why top management person?

[RB TexLa]

28. Doctors can't be trusted to not put the burden of such a decision on a family member

which is the thing I want none of them to ever have to go through because of me.

[uppityperson]

30. Administrators look for ways to make money and not spend it.

Good luck with leaving the decision in the hands of someone whose only interest in your continuing life is how much they can make or how much it will cost them.

Personally I'd rather have everyone in my family clear on what I would prefer to have happen in various scenarios than leave it up to a person with only a vested monetary interest in me.

[RB TexLa]

31. No matter how clear you make it, there is always room for interpretation of

circumstances and differing interpretations among family members.

My only concern is that my wife never has to make those decisions, I don't care about how the decisions are made or what decisions are made.

[uppityperson]

32. That is why I have told my family members MY decisions and they will do what I wish.

Not what anyone else wishes. It is not up to my family members to decide. It is up to me.

I guess you have made it clear that you don't care what happens to you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. There was one on AOL that was like that, called LoneWolf

same style, same language, same attitude

[Hekate]

5. Maybe you could get a special arrangement with them and pay only when you call them. Full cost ...

... of their excursion, payable right then before they connect the hoses.
:shrug:

Hekate

[RB TexLa]

7. There is a public benefit to paying for them, just as there is a public benefit to paying for SS

even if I don't recieve a check one day. I don't mind paying for either of them.

[Hekate]

17. That was not clear to me from your earlier statement. I myself believe in taxes paying for ...

... services for the common good, infrastructure, public schools, and stuff like that. Oliver Wendell Holmes said it well: Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. I deeply regret the way the savage Vandals of the Bush admin tried to destroy the common good.

Hekate

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. There was a time that was done in this country... and our "friend" would have

approved

You bought insurance from a fire company... and if a fire broke, and the OTHER fire company in town showed up... nobody fought it

One reason why we got this ahem socialistic experiment (apart of Ben Franklin) was the Chicago Fire.

:-)

But our friend has no clue

Now having called 9.11 last year for dad (broken hip) I know that we had to pay for some of the services... that shocked my brother who would not have had to pay a red cent in Cleveland, but his taxes are a tad higher... ah service fees, they will get you either way

:-)

[RB TexLa]

9. No I would not approve, and I am not your friend I have never even met you

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. You know why I used quotation marks then?

and what you are saying is exactly the kind of philosophy common at the time of PRIVATE fire services

[RB TexLa]

14. No, I have said I do not mind paying for the public benefit of such things

My using them for my own personal gain is a seperate issue. But hey, you can just make up what you want to say I think.

[nadinbrzezinski]

And you are a fool, they are there for a reason

so you will not call 9.11 if there is a fire in your home either? After all why bother?

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. And you are a fool, they are there for a reason

so you will not call 9.11 if there is a fire in your home either? After all why bother?

[uppityperson]

18. Naw, he'd just stand around pissing on the fire.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. That is A DUZZY

[sandnsea]

29. I just responded to that

rather, to someone at TPM who doesn't understand why they're called entitlements, and is upset over two sentences because the NY Times blew it all out of proportion.

“We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part of those plans,” Obama said. “And I would expect that by February in line with the announcement of at least a rough budget outline we will have more to say about how we’re going to approach entitlement spending.”

Of course, the mere mention of the word “entitlement” was all it took to set the media off and running. A discussion, Obama is going to have a “discussion around entitlements” and “entitlement spending”. Two sentences. That’s what the media has managed to spill gallons of ink over in the last 24 hours.

http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=143

[Igel]

34. "Its your money"? Nope.

It's the SSA's money at that point, and the deal is that you pay not so much for your retirement as for the SS funds being paid out to current recipients.
Even with the "trust fund" money this is the case. You pay for current recipients, and our kids will pay for us when we're recipients.

That said, it's an entitlement. It's money that we've been deemed entitled to receive by law. It's independent, largely, of the amount you pay in (although there's a correlation between income and your monthly allocation, there's no necessary correlation between your earned pre-retirement income and the amount you collect post-retirement). If you die without a dependent, it's not like it's money owed to you.

The money comes from a tax duly enacted by Congress, but one that's been earmarked by Congress for a specific purpose. Same with Medicare--there's a special tax for that purpose--not that the tax fully covers Medicare, IIRC. In fact, if you wanted to be snarky in your accounting you could say that Medicare's eaten part of the trust fund. Let's not be snarky.

*That* said, it's not a compact with our government any more than the gasoline tax or any other tax is a compact--or any specific law, for that matter. It's just a tax, one that attaches a label to the funds as they enter the Treasury bank account. The Congress can dispose of what makes it special by a majority vote stripping off the label, stripping off the earmarking.

The Congress decided that in the event of excess funds there was a special kind of bond that Congress could issue to the SS fund, the only thing that the SSA can do with the money other than use it for expenses and recipients. If Congress wanted to default to the SSA on that type of bond, it wouldn't affect any other kind of bond, and wouldn't affect any other bond holder (since there are no others); if Congress wanted to pay it all off and then immediately merge the trust fund with general revenues, it could do that ... a de facto default.

There's no code of law preventing Congress from revoking SS or the FICA. They created it, they can revoke it. They don't out of political reasons, not because of any great moral claim, not because there's some statute imposed on Congress and the US by a supranational entity that would come in and spank Congress if they did so. They may claim morality, but that's squishy--at some point politics is likely to trump that particular bit of morality, and there'll be a new "new morality" trumpeted.

[blendermax]

36. Obama wants to give Israel another 30 billion for shiny new military hardware

which Israel never has to pay a dime for. what the heck is up with that??

these are the same outright grants Israel has been getting for decades compliments of US taxpayers.

talk about your wasteful entitlements. Israel is one giant welfare recipient.

[ColbertWatcher]

37. Good catch. I hate that term, too. n/t