Sure it talked about medicare but we werent interested in that part. But i will address it. Why does the government pay more for healthcare than people put in? Because the healthcare costs have disproprtionately been affected by inflation more than other services and goods. Even then, the government shortchanges doctors and many doctors reduce times of service or even outright deny service to people whose only insurance is medicare or medicaid. Some states have tried to fix this by allowing the medicare recepients to choose among private companies who gove the government a discounted bulk rate and then pay doctors the correct rate, but then this is government choosing favorites and corporate welfare, another problem.

As for the political process ever changing, yes, but not fast enough. Democratic elections are slow and inefficient when compared with voluntary transactions in a market for sending signals. Additionally they dont represent the values of the people involved proportionally. The arguement for markets vs government is that they better represent the individual preferences of each an every individual with correct propotional weights depending on the importance of the issue to the individuals. If i am unsafisfied with government i can only try to elect people who dont exist in a rigged system. If i am unsatisfied with a private company, or individual, I can choose to severe ties with them.

The problem is that people believe that the power rest in the President but totally ignore the other 2 section of our government.  The majority of the power sits in the House and Senate.  The President only have 2 real power, veto and go to war and even the go to war cannot happen unless Congress funds it.  The only way a President is effective is if he has a good representation of his party in the House and Senate.  If a President goes against his party lines then he will be a lame duck.  Because of this, Bernie and Trump have big issues.  Even Hillary will have trouble unless the Dems can pull back more seats in the House and Senate.

As for your assessment on Hillary, they all will say and do whatever it takes to gain power.  Anyone going for the President job will do that including Bernie.  The only key between any of these candidates is who will be the most effective in the office.

So by your own admission the current retirees are still getting more than they put in to Social Security - non adjusted for inflation.  Still if they keep living, they use up much more.

And even your volunteer firefighters get pain - by your data. Don't they deserve to making a living?  It’s hard to pay rent with ‘thank yous.’

And the military, by it's nature, I didn't argue if it was good or bad, but that people in it, retired from it, and married to members were all being supported financially by socialism.

Do you have a point or you just want to hate the future?

I believe my original statement was as quoted below*, but the link I provided said that the average couple gets less (after accomodating for purchasing power differences.) So I strengthened my statement to people today aren't getting back what they paid in. 

Volunteer firefighters are mostly young adults in high school or have other jobs. Like I said, my local fire-fighters are "paid" with gift cards. Some places give them measly stipends of like $1000 per year, but they are not paid wages. Again, you don't understand what a volunteer firefighter is. Does somebody who volunteers at a homeless shelter deserve to make a living? What about the people volunteering to Bernie Sanders' campain and whom are not paid?  Of course they do. They do it in their real job. Just like the volunteer firefighters. Even then, all of the funds are accured through voluntary donations and not taxation. So I don't see your point. 

By the way, socialism is the past. It died with the soviet union. As for welfarism, and social democracy, it is slowly corroding today. So I'd rather not live in the past, nor deal with hating it. The future is decentralization, free-markets, and less statism (the opposite of the 20th century.) 

As for my point, it is that you created a silly strawman that people who oppose socialism support the military. I was trying to show you that this is quite obviously not true for everyone. Some of the most anti-socialists (libertarians) also are the most anti-military. 

*"Most people won't see what they put in. " 

ehhhh i agree with most of what you are saying in the thread but you're wrong about volunteer firefighters.  They make quite a bit of money.  My brother is a volunteer firefighter.

 Not where I live now nor where I grew up. I personally know quite a few volunteer firefighters and none of them get paid a real salary. They get 'paid' in gifts and it is measly amounts. The exception are those who get EMT training and do EMT work.  Nor from what I've researched is it really common anywhere for volunteers to be paid a real salary. Are you sure he is a volunteer firefighter working for a fire-department funded through voluntary donations? Many firefighters who work part-time for career departments call themselves volunteers when they aren't really. 

Saw this......seems the guy missed the point, though his message is noble.

The two main enemies are free trade and population growth. Free trade enables American corporations to not have any loyalties to their founding country and seek cheap labor elsewhere. It is getting REALLY out of hand lately. Trump aims to do tariffs and corporate incentives to stay in the states.

The second is well.....us. The population of the world was under 2 billion by the turn of the century (1900). Now its over 7 billion. With ever dwindling resources, corporations have to well, get creative in getting them and making sure they are given to us, all at a cheap price.

Its not the corporations faults so much as us breeding to the point of corporations being "creative" to supply us. Population controls must be put into place, because being green means nothing if your having 3+ kids.

Trump is an idiot, but he does have a point that free trade is doing more bad then good.

The idea that our world can't handle higher population count is a myth ... 

Free trade gives us lower prices, it's the workers who should prove their own individual worth. What are they going to do or cry foul about next when automation replaces them ? 

And tariffs will make them not have any ties to their "founding country." It is not free-trade that motivates corporations to employ labor elsewhere, it is the high cost of labor in the U.S - induced by overregulation (most of which is just regulatory capture) as well as the highest corporate taxes in the world which does it. But it is really trivial to dispute the concepts of a protectionist with basic economic theory. Anyway this is why Trump supporters belong with Bernie supporters. They are both ridiculously ignorant about economics and espouse the same ridiculous policies. 

http://mercatus.org/publication/benefits-free-trade-addressing-key-myths