"If The Truth Shall Kill Them, Let Them Die." ~~ Ayn Rand

😂😂😂

👍⬆️

Didn't live at ground zero of that in her youth?

Social security is her own money. Oy vey are you guys dense.

I had this conversation with a neighbor yesterday.

Social security is that portion of your earnings mandated by law that you must lend to the government with the promise of getting paid back as long as you retire at an age that is nearly the equivalent of the average life span.

Poor old Boxer from Animal Farm.

Interestingly, the majority of the national debt is owed to - drum roll please - Social Security.

That's right, Uncle Sam raids your piggy bank and leaves an IOU, then buys Treasuries to earn interest on, and when cashes out to stick money back in to your piggy bank, Ol Uncle Sam skims the interest paid on the note to spend on Ukraine and what not.

My dad was a Vietnam vet (drafted) and a w-2’d worker until his death at 54 from cancer. He never saw a penny of his own social security and neither my sister nor I got a single penny because we were already adults. That’s a f**king scam and a half.

It is a scam.

When enacted with a retirement age of 65 the average life expectancy was 60.

They expected to never have to pay anyone back.

It is a very large scam. The government forces me to give my hard earned money to them, rather than put it in an account of my own choosing to grow it for my future. That being said, if I make it to the point of getting my money back, I absolutely will accept it back. And yes, if I don't get to get it back, the government will confiscate it. Governmental Ponzi scheme.

The US wasn't the only one that set up SS back in the day. A lot of countries were doing the same thing expect their model benefited the retiree and took one look at what US and wondered what the heck was wrong with that country.

The SS trust fund accounts for around 20% of the national debt - but then innumeracy is the GOP brand these days.

To what single entity does the US government owe more than 20% of the national debt?

Bless us with the fruit of your superior mathematical mind.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word 'majority'?

Perhaps you cannot shed light on your apparent disagreement that the majority of US National Debt is owed to the Social Security administration despite your firm grasp of numeracy so you answer with sarcasm.

20% of the US National Debt is owed to Social Security - 80% of the debt is not.

Which is the greater (bigger) number?

Mom baked an apple pie and cut it into 10 pieces

Dad ate 2 slices.

Mom ate 1 slice.

Grandpa ate 1 slice.

Grandma ate 1 slice.

Uncle ate 1 slice.

Aunt ate 1 slice.

Cousin ate 1 slice.

Brother that never moved out even though he's 28 and wastes all his time dyeing his hair green and screeching on imgflip instead of getting a job and supporting himself ate 1 slice.

Sister ate 1 slice.

Who ate the majority of the pie?

You are arguing a semantic difference in language expression?

Okay.

The Social Security Administration holds the majority percentage of the national debt.

Is that better for you?

How about; the US Government owes the Social Security Administration more money than anybody else they owe money?

You could have simply asked for clarification if you misunderstood.

But then your snarky comment would have had to stay in its holster.

By the way, Dad ate the majority of the pie (20%).

Social security isn't a bank account, it's a welfare program that pays recipients with tax dollars collected from current workers.

She knew this and decided to be a taker.

Social security is taken from the worker over his lifetime and held in trust by the government to be repaid once the worker reaches a certain age.

It is a trust fund held in the federal governments bank account and invested into interest bearing treasury securities.

It is NOT a welfare program.

SNAP, TANF, Medicaid are welfare programs where one is given use of another's wages from labor being taxed.

You either did or did not know this and either way you are incorrect.

The first social security beneficiaries were paid using the taxes collected from workers at the time, and that's never changed.

The trust fund you're talking about is just a ledger the Treasury maintains - there is no bank account earning interest, that interest is just part of the national debt.

Every trust fund is just an electronic ledger but the trust is still owed their principal and interest from the government.

Even the money you deposit in your own bank account does not just pile up in the bank waiting for you to scoop some out, but you are still owed your money from the bank.

The government borrowed money from the trust fund (~3T) and owes the trust their principle plus interest.

Oy. Either you’re a teenager or not from the US. Or both.

Wrong on both counts - just someone who experimented with libertarianism back when I was young and dumb, and then figured out TANSTAAFL works in both directions after decades of running my own businesses.

She still claimed it was theft and socialism and thus bad, mmkay. She abandoned that moral highground the day the first check showed up.

If she were truly the captain of her destiny, she should have planned better for her retirement and refused those checks.

Because it would have been 'the right' thing to do.

She should refuse her own money and should have planned better? Either you are 15 or a foreigner.

OR holding her accountable to what she said. She said that her way, Objectivism, was the way the world worked and everyone should do what she said to do.

And yet.

And yet.

She refused to do it herself.

Why would she refuse her own money?

If she had been able to keep and invest 6.2% (current rate) of her pay, she would not only have received a better return on her money, but she could have retired whenever she wished and could have willed any remaining balance to an heir.

She had money taken from her.

She accepted the offer to make restitution payments.

Huh, it's weird she didn't invest that capital on her own, given her moral Objectivism stance.

It's almost like she didn't believe what she told everyone else they should believe.

You don't have the choice to invest the money taken as taxes.

Not weird at all.

If I stole $20 bucks from you and gave it to a hobo, you would want me to return that $20.

And you would accept it even if it took 30 years for me to start paying you 5¢ a month while you hope you live long enough to get all of it back.

I should have clarified- it's weird she didn't invest an additional 6% of her income to make sure she didn't have to depend on the welfare state.

Which is what happened. She spent years vilifying the social safety net system, and then took full advantage of it because she didn't bother to save for her retirement.

Social Security is not welfare.

Welfare is a system of handouts distributed to those that have not contributed, such as the chronically unemployed, stay at home single mothers, illegal immigrants, etc.

Which is what Mrs. O'Connor went on about.

She grew up in communism and saw the welfare system, and likely social security initially, as the beginning of the ushering in of socialism, and eventually communism, in America.

You have yet to answer yes or no as to whether you would want money taken from you returned to you.

According to her own philosophy and works, she was a taker knowingly stealing from workers' paychecks.

Two wrongs don't make a right - you can't receive restitution for theft by committing theft against a third party.

Do you cash them as well?

Don't be silly, I'm not old enough to collect social security.

But you will…god willing…Will you cash them then, kid?

Of course, boomer.

So why criticize her? If it’s money, partially free, partially you gave them why wouldn’t you take it?

Because she opposed the welfare state, which includes social security, on moral grounds. She claimed that it was socialism and thus evil.

Yet...when she could, she set aside that moral highground and cashed those checks. Her moralilty was more like a sales pitch to move her books, and the moment she could cash out, she did.

Gee, if only she were the only hypocrite author in the universe..

Social security is not welfare.

You pay in more than you will live long enough to get back.

Yes, social security isn't welfare.

But as I said, social security is a part of the welfare state. She spent her life making it out to be the worst thing ever. She told everyone that it was true and proper to live your life free of the nanny state only to do exactly what she told everyone else to not do.

All I can do is explain it to you.

I cannot understand it for you.

I know you think it's fine, and hand wave it away. But she espoused a specific set of values and when it came time for her to live the way she said everyone should live- she didn't.

The values? They were just convenience. And the social safety net she despised worked to her benefit anyway.

Ok.

She spent her life warning others of the insidious nature of socialism and communism and that welfare programs are the first step on the slippery slope.

Then, late in life, she was convinced by
others that social security was not welfare because she had paid into the fund that would pay her back in her retirement.

You say she this makes her hypocrite.

I disagree, but for the purpose of this next question I will say you are correct.

Now what?

Reclaiming my disagreement that she is a hypocrite, what are your thoughts on all the socialist and marxist individuals praising those ideologies while actively participating in capitalism? Hypocrites as well?

And the millionaires advocating for the social reform where we're all the same in a classes society (which Marxism contradicts).? More hypocrites?

* classless society

It is part of the welfare state by force.

The lazy (or wise?) see this early on and just never do anything all their life living off of the welfare state.

Social Security recipients can hold their head up with the knowledge that they are being paid restitution for being stolen from their entire 50+/- years of working.

Roughly half of all people will not live long enough to reach full retirement age.

Take it and take it early is my advice.

And also save 10% in your workplace retirement savings account. 😉

While it may be lazy, I offer no observation or commentary on that, it is most certainly hypocrisy. She spent a good chunk of her life railing against those social safety programs. She insisted that people needed to be free of any safety programs, yet she depended on them.

She told everyone how they should live, and when it came time for her to the thing she had been preaching about- she didn't. She didn't have the courage of her own convictions. Which means they weren't convictions, they were a con to get people to give her money.

It's hilarious how the cult of objectivism never remembers their queen was of the welfare variety.