I had a GOPer say I want to steal wealth and redistribute it...

[Green_Lantern]

Then he said he collects Social Security(says it's forced on him) and praised Dubya for letting Medicare subsidize private health plans.

He is a retired business owner who ran a homebuilding company so I know he likely took advantage of govt. subsidies for residential development.

I gave up when he said most seniors would be millionaires if SS was privatized.

[rocktivity]

1. You should have asked what he thinks the GOP has been doing

especially in view of ten years' worth of non-trickling down tax cuts.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[SpiralHawk]

2. He claims he's "Forced" to take Social Security? What a load of RepubliRubbish.

No one forces it on you. He can cause his payments to cease today with a phone call. Will he do it? No. Because he's a republicon, and that means hypocrite as we see evidenced over and over and over.

[Newest Reality]

3. So he might think he suffers

from hemorrhoids, but that's just his head in the wrong place?

[leftstreet]

4. Tell him you'd prefer the wealthy hand it over willingly

:-)

[liberal N proud]

5. No one forces him to take Social Security

IF he hates it so much, he could always tear-up the checks.

Tell him to stop watching FOX news.

[Ilsa]

6. Explain to him that Social Security is insurance, not an investment. nt

[Rambis]

7. You betcha all those private accounts gone bust

after the stock market tanked?:banghead:

[Arkana]

8. Did you tell him to hand over his wallet?

[johnaries]

9. It's ALREADY been redistributed - upwards.

The rich have gotten vastly richer, while the rest of us have lost buying power. Where did the rich get their increased riches? From the rest of us.

As for privatization of SS, how can anyone support it after this recession that the GOP put us in?

[Deep13]

12. +1

[The Wielding Truth]

10. He doesn't have to take SS he could send it back or give it to charity,

or just had it over to Exxon. He should be doing what he wants us to do.

[Deep13]

11. It's sad when people start losing their minds.

These people never stop to think:

1. How the rich got that way: taking wealth that other people created in their employ, or

2. Why they find it such a moral outrage to take from the luxury of the rich, but don't give it a second thought that people sleep in the streets, go hungry or go without medical care or that a good number of the foregoing are children.

[Cal Carpenter]

13. Well that wealth was stolen from the value of working class labor

So 'redistribution' ain't stealing, it's taking it back.

Fuck these people who want to protect the uber-wealthy. It's not like they're gonna go hungry or homeless, which is more than a large portion of the population can say with much confidence these days.

[gratuitous]

17. +1

It's not "stealing," it's getting back the wealth created by labor.

Wages have been largely stagnant in the last 30 years while worker hours and productivity are way up. All that wealth created by labor has gone somewhere, but it sure as hell hasn't made it into the workers' pockets.

[Cal Carpenter]

18. Yep and this can't be repeated enough

Almost every aspect of our culture emphasizes this idea the rich are worthy and deserving and if the poor and working class want more from themselves they are asking for 'handouts' or 'entitlements', and rarely are the wealthy challenged on their right to amass so much off of the work of others.

We need a little re-education, we need a lot of class consciousness.

So say it loud and say it proud - the uber-wealthy have STOLEN that wealth from the backs of the poor and working class through corporate profits and favorable political conditions.

They only call it class war when we fight back...

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Yep. And how many of his workers got public assistance of some sort?

Food stamps, reduced or free lunches, Medicaid, EITC, etc. You just know this fuckhead paid as little as he could get away with and let the taxpayers subsidize his workforce.

[kctim]

14. He means he was forced to pay into social security

and is now forced to collect from it instead of collecting from what he would have chosen himself.

Common freedom of choice argument.

[Ikonoklast]

15. Common libertarian argument.

Except when they make 'bad' investment choices, then it's "Bail me out!".

Oh, and there is no power on Earth that can 'force' one to accept Social Security payments. If the person in question had any real convictions, he would decline to accpet the check.

I give you props on trying.

[laughingliberal]

16. "Except when they make 'bad' investment choices, then it's "Bail me out!"."

Zactly!

End corporate welfare!

[kctim]

20. Well, actually

The Libertarian would be fine with living with the choices they made, it would be the Republican who thinks they are a Libertarian that would be asking for a bail out.

Oh, and you're second line makes no sense at all. Who the heck is going to decline receiving their own money back? Saying he has to decline the checks if he has any real convictions is as silly as saying liberals should pay for everybodys healthcare instead of waiting for a law, if they are to have real convictions.

A better example is: IF the person had any real convictions, he would have stood up for them by NOT obeying and paying into SS. Instead, he fell in line with all the other sheep and did as he was ordered to do. He has no room to complain.

[wizstars]

21. I would tell him that he does, too...

your difference is in which direction stolen wealth would be distributed.

I had one tell me that raising taxes on the wealthy was "taxing success." I asked her what she wanted to tax--failure??!? Good Luck with that...