The Life of Julia - A Barack Obama Story

Quote from 124nic8 : You mean we can't rely on posters to not misrepresent the cites they post?

He didn't misrepresent it. It showed a bunch of government benefits, but didn't talk about how all those benefits come out of the collective hide of the taxpayers. For every Julia that benefits there is a Pat that pays for it.

Quote from andyfico : So you didn't read the contents of the link?

I looked at the first page. My comments were wrt assertions made in the OP about dependent invalids.

Quote from Xygonn : He didn't misrepresent it. It showed a bunch of government benefits, but didn't talk about how all those benefits come out of the collective hide of the taxpayers. For every Julia that benefits there is a Pat that pays for it.

And many Julias cause Julia paid for her SS.

Your assertion is a mega over-simplification.

The OP misrepresented Julia as a dependent invalid.

Quote from 124nic8 : I looked at the first page. My comments were wrt assertions made in the OP about dependent invalids. And many Julias cause Julia paid for her SS. Your assertion is a mega over-simplification.

If she paid for her own benefit, in full, all she really did was pay bureaucrats to oversee her bank account at some fee. I'd hardly call that a "benefit". Basically at every stage in her life it should say "Under Obama Julia receives X service" and "Under Romney, Julia keeps an additional Y dollars in her pocket".

There is no over simplification. Whenever someone gains a net monetary benefit from the government (above and beyond their tax contribution), it comes out of other taxpayers' hides (I chose the universally recognized gender neutral name Pat). If she did in fact pay more taxes than she gained in benefits, wouldn't she rather just have the cash?

The OP did not misrepresent anything. You misunderstood his meaning. You brought up the dependent invalid thing.

Quote from Xygonn : If she paid for her own benefit, in full, all she really did was pay bureaucrats to oversee her bank account at some fee. I'd hardly call that a "benefit". Basically at every stage in her life it should say "Under Obama Julia receives X service" and "Under Romney, Julia keeps an additional Y dollars in her pocket". There is no over simplification. Whenever someone gains a net monetary benefit from the government (above and beyond their tax contribution), it comes out of other taxpayers' hides (I chose the universally recognized gender neutral name Pat). If she did in fact pay more taxes than she gained in benefits, wouldn't she rather just have the cash? The OP did not misrepresent anything. You misunderstood his meaning. You brought up the dependent invalid thing.

No I didn't it was mentioned in the OP:

Quote from Krazen1211 : Julia is apparently some type of dependent invalid who needs the government to constantly funnel her money to do anything she wants to do in life.

Maybe you'd rather have the cash. Maybe even most would. But there's a completely valid reason why we have SS and why it's very popular.

Quote from 124nic8 : No I didn't it was mentioned in the OP:

Oops, I somehow misread it.

Quote : Maybe you'd rather have the cash. Maybe even most would. But there's a completely valid reason why we have SS and why it's very popular.

Which is? People like checks, and people that have paid into it their whole lives now would be cheated if it was taken away. I bet if you ask 25-30 year old people about whether they would rather opt out of SS or stay in, the majority would choose to opt out. I for one do not expect a dime from SS. Anything I do get will be a nice surprise to go along with my own savings/investments.

Quote from Xygonn : Which is? People like checks, and people that have paid into it their whole lives now would be cheated if it was taken away. I bet if you ask 25-30 year old people about whether they would rather opt out of SS or stay in, the majority would choose to opt out. I for one do not expect a dime from SS. Anything I do get will be a nice surprise to go along with my own savings/investments.

There are many.

1. Originally peoples' life savings was stolen from them during the GD.
2. A lot of young people like that their parents' retirement is insured.
3. Others like that they won't be out on the street if their savings is wiped out due to medical (or other) disaster.
4. Many people have little confidence in their ability to manage investments and rightly so.
5. Such investments can be wiped out (again) if the system collapses.

Quote from 124nic8 : There are many. 1. Originally peoples' life savings was stolen from them during the GD. 2. A lot of young people like that their parents' retirement is insured. 3. Others like that they won't be out on the street if their savings is wiped out due to medical (or other) disaster. 4. Many people have little confidence in their ability to manage investments and rightly so. 5. Such investments can be wiped out (again) if the system collapses.

If you are afraid of the stock market put all your money in TIPS. Problem solved.
If you are afraid of the government and the stock market put all your money in gold (I wouldn't do that).

Imagine if you got to put 7.65% of your paycheck with 7.65% employer matching into TIPS instead of SS/Medicare. Would you not prefer that?

What happens if SS gets wiped out when the "system collapses"? Everyone relying on the government gets to roll it up real tight and sit on it.

Quote from Xygonn : Imagine if you got to put 7.65% of your paycheck with 7.65% employer matching into TIPS instead of SS/Medicare. Would you not prefer that?

I would prefer it for myself (if starting from scratch) cause I know how to manage my money (now). But I knew far less when I was younger, and far more than most now.

Quote : What happens if SS gets wiped out when the "system collapses"? Everyone relying on the government gets to roll it up real tight and sit on it.

We hit the reset button and start over. People will still work and fund SS.

Quote from 124nic8 : We hit the reset button and start over. People will still work and fund SS.

Talk about over-simplification...

Do you really think that if / when SS fails, anyone in their right mind would be willing to start that failed program over again?

Quote from OhNoItsDEVO : Talk about over-simplification... Do you really think that if / when SS fails, anyone in their right mind would be willing to start that failed program over again?

Yes, cause it would be like the GD all over again; elderly peoples' savings wiped out through no fault of their own and out on the street if SS is not continued.

You don't seem to understand that SS was implemented only due to a failure of capitalism when it collapsed the last time.

Quote from 124nic8 : You don't seem to understand that SS was implemented only due to a failure of capitalism when it collapsed the last time.

Wasn't SS implemented because a significant portion of Americans weren't saving enough for retirement?

Quote from OhNoItsDEVO : I particularly liked this one... Quote : This allows her to volunteer at a community garden.

Is community garden a liberal code-word for socialist government operated labor camps? Am I missing something here?

Quote from Lilian : Wasn't SS implemented because a significant portion of Americans weren't saving enough for retirement?

No, it was implemented cause most peoples' life savings were wiped out by the bank failures during the Great Depression.

Quote from Lilian : Is community garden a liberal code-word for socialist government operated labor camps? Am I missing something here?

I believe the insinuation is that she's not an invalid if she can garden...

....... nevermind that the very first "step" is Head Start which has never been proven to provide any sort of lasting benefit. Oh, and what's so special about the "American Opportunity Tax Credit"? Don't other credits (very old ones too) essentially offer the same "relief"?

Let's not bypass this gem "After graduation, Julia's federal student loans are more manageable...." Meaning they cap the monthly payment, which means she'll pay more in interest over the life of the loan...

"Julia's son Zachary starts kindergarten. The public schools in their neighborhood have better facilities and great teachers because of President Obama's investments in education and programs like Race to the Top.""

Really, 37 years from now? Wow these guys are great fortunetellers.

"Under Mitt Romney: The Romney/Ryan budget could cut programs like the Small Business Administration by 20%." And? The vignette talks about small business tax breaks, which have nothing to do with a government AGENCY (overhead).

Under President Obama: Julia enrolls in Medicare, helping her to afford preventive care and the prescription drugs she needs.
Under Mitt Romney: Medicare could end as we know it, leaving Julia with nothing but a voucher to buy insurance coverage, which means $6,350 extra per year for a similar plan.

Well 65 years from now I highly doubt that "Medicare... as we know it" will still be around, if at all.

And last but not least:

Under President Obama: Julia retires. After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably, without worrying that she'll run out of savings. This allows her to volunteer at a community garden.
Under Mitt Romney: Julia's benefits could be cut by 40%.

Well, 67 years from now, who here thinks that the "stick head in sand" method is going to pay off? Is SS magically going to right its own ship?