It's logical, you see - and that's why liberals won't like it: it goes against their feelings.
Yes. If you were really entitled to them I wouldn't be so annoyed at being over taxed to supply them.
You won't get any argument until you include those "entitlements" that were made on someone else's dime. No one would take me seriously if I promised them my son would pay them long after I am gone. Now would they?
Preppy, I'm sure you're familiar with that saying about how people that would never consider committing robbery are perfectly okay with it, when the gov't does it for them.Grrr.
Truer words were never spoken.
Thank you. I am really tired of having my Social Security referred to as an entitlement. I worked hard my entire life and paid for what I now collect. It is nice to see someone set the record straight!
It's my pleasure, Vicki.
You troublemaker! You are disrupting the narrative.
The truth is the truth...period.
WSF - I'm doing my best. :)Stephen - You betcha!Humble Wife - thank you.
Thank you sir! So tired of people who have no clue who pays for social security.
You're welcome, threecollie. Unlike most (apparently), I've always known it's a taxpayer-funded Ponzi scheme.
Amen, there. But the more people that the government can put on the dole, the more people who will vote to keep that government in power. Like the old saw goes: A government that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.
Taxpayer funded scheme... that reminded me of the MYRA (or whatever the initials will be). Just another way to take money from people (voluntary at first, or opting out from mandatory) so the machine keeps rolling towards the cliff.
Exactly so, ML. (But it's some other Paul, just for the record. Heh.)True, Max. They'll just keep inventing new ways of taking in money until it's all gone - and hoping, all the while, that it doesn't run out while they're in office.
Too bad it's labeled 'right wing rants raves'It should just be 'facts'.gfa
True dat, Guffaw!
Post a Comment