Ann Coulter says welfare policies responsible for looting....

[Mr Khan]

badgenome said:

fordy said:

And who pays the employee? What I've said before is if something doesn't come around that replaces social security as a mandatory savings for retirement, employers are going to aim for the 10% unemployed who are willing to work for the wage minus the payroll tax. so if the government no longer gets it, and the employee no longer gets it, where do you think it goes to?

This is the problem with conservatives, in particular American conservatives, who pay some of the lowest taxes in the western world, yet they believe they have the right to whinge that they're getting raped by the government. Do you honestly believe government services are run by unicorns and pixie farts? Why don't you take a look at the good and honest battlers who are taking it tough to make ends meet and then come back with a serious face and tell me that you believe the rich are right to whinge about paying too much.

Uh... the employer pays the employee? I'm still not getting you here. I make whatever I make, and the government steals a certain amount of that. Then they demand that my employer matches that coerced contribution. The employer knows this is going to happen in advance, so they take it into consideration as the cost of hiring an employee to begin with. This, of course, affects what they're able or willing to pay an employee. So essentially, the worker ends up paying both his share and the employer's anyway. Sounds to me like you're insinuating that if social security is scrapped, wages will collapse or some such nonsense. If it were done away with, I imagine that at worst I would simply keep the amount the government has been taking from me all these years. At best, I could even see a raise if my boss appreciates me and just gives me what they've been paying to the feds. I'm sure you find that far-fetched, but it's less far-fetched than the idea that social security will not have collapsed by the time I reach retirement age.

Anyone who is forced to pay into a broken system that won't be there for them when they retire has a right to complain about it, I should think. This is the problem with leftists: they insist it is a fucking moral imperative that the government handle everything but never seem to get exercised when the system is wildly inefficient or downright broken. Whereas conservatives and libertarians, who don't even believe it is the place of the government to begin with, are the only ones who seem to think that if the government is going to stick its nose where it doesn't belong, it should at least do a halfway competent job at it. Do you not understand this? I don't think the government should run its services on unicorns and pixie farts; I think it shouldn't run most of them at all, at least not at at the federal level. This idea that the government is on the side of the little man is absolutely fucking laughable.

Not all of us disbelieve in efficiency, you know. I'd rather the system were sustainable, and i'm in the belief that our increased life expectancies mean we should have an increased working life expectancy

Sustainability is the name of the game for all social programs