> Studio,
>
> "You won't receive your car or home insurance back just because you
> paid in either retard."
>
> Your analogy is seriously flawed.
Nothing flawed about it, other than the comprehension levels of some
of the people reading it.
> Wealthy or poor, if you drive a car
> you have the potential to have an accident and need insurance.
True. So...
> However, if Social Security worked as you propose, then someone
> meeting your definition of wealth would have no chance of ever
> collecting.
And so do you think they would rather have the Social Security instead
of the wealth?
> So, really, what you're suggesting is that someone who
> doesn't drive should still be paying car insurance to help pay for the
> insurance of those who do.
No, what I'm suggesting is *everyone* who works, pay insurance for
*everyone* who works.
Then the insurance be paid out to those who need it, instead of those
who don't.
You can't collect Social Security if you have never worked, or paid
in.
So your analogy is false.
Keith in Köln
> Geesh Frank!
> That made sense! Do you expect a Moonbat to comprehend or understand
> this? Studio is looking like a deer in the headlights right now!!
It's better than that; a deer that's driving the semi that's gonna run
some weasels over.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment