You can't collect Social Security if you have never worked, or paid in. So your analogy is false.
There are a lot of over 65 widows that would really disagree with you. On May 20, 2:47 pm, studio <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 20, 1:00 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
