dreamdancer 0 #1 January 29, 2011 do as i do, and not as i say... QuoteAyn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well. Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor). As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.” Her ideas about government intervention in some idealized pristine marketplace serve as the basis for so much of the conservative rhetoric we see today. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” said Paul Ryan, the GOP's young budget star at a D.C. event honoring the author. On another occasion, he proclaimed, “Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism.” http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits%2C_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #2 January 29, 2011 Interesting factoid, if true, but the author still reaches the wrong conclusion. If one were forced by the government to dump his or her money into these "benefit" programs, what is hypocritical about wanting to recoup some of that money? Especially when one finds altruism for its own sake as disgusting as Rand did? That's merely an academic argument for my generation, though, since I'm pretty sure the Social Security Ponzi scheme will collapse before I get a chance to get the payout my taxes support. I'd rather not have the program in place at all, but since it's there, I'm not going to turn down money that is essentially mine that the government has been holding in a "lockbox" for my working life.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #3 January 29, 2011 Quotedo as i do, and not as i say... You're not a parasite until you take out more than you put in; and I'd argue that doesn't even happen until you get out more than you would from the same money invested privately. When I ran the numbers (assuming the rate doesn't increase, the wage cap doesn't increase faster than inflation, and benefits continue to keep pace with inflation) I found that if I wait until I collect the maximum benefit I'll need to outlast my statistically expected lifespan by nine years to get back what I put in to Social security with a 0% inflation adjusted rate of return. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 January 29, 2011 I'm pretty sure that as much there are Canadian citizens who don't like socialized medicine, given that there is no choice offered they still use it. Did Rand have a choice as to whether or not her money was confiscated to pay for something she didn't want? The hypocrisy would be if she received any benefits that she didn't pay into. "Hey, geezer, you're receiving social security!" "Yeah. I am. Unfortunately, I was not given the option of whether to pay into it or receive it." A hypocrite is someone who chooses to act in a way contrary to their stated morality. Calling Rand a hypocrite would be like calling a rape victim a hypocrite for having sex even though she had promised her virginity until marriage. It isn't fair because it was forced on both of them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #5 January 29, 2011 So what do you say to the arguments, after your OP, that Rand was not hypocritical because she was simply accepting essentially a return on payments she was forced by law to make? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #6 January 30, 2011 QuoteSo what do you say to the arguments, after your OP, that Rand was not hypocritical because she was simply accepting essentially a return on payments she was forced by law to make? at the very least she should have set an example for others of her ilk. she was a moocher, a hypocrite and a crap science fiction writer...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #7 January 30, 2011 Quoteshe should have set an example for others of her ilk. By doing what? The benefits weren't free to her; she had personally paid into those accounts. Explain. In detail, preferably. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #8 January 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteshe should have set an example for others of her ilk. By doing what? by turning them down, obviously. that would have set the appropriate example to her followers. she wanted to be a leader - but didn't have the balls.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 January 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo what do you say to the arguments, after your OP, that Rand was not hypocritical because she was simply accepting essentially a return on payments she was forced by law to make? at the very least she should have set an example for others of her ilk. she was a moocher, a hypocrite and a crap science fiction writer... uh, a moocher would take benefits that she didn't pay more. I contributed close to 20k to SS and MC last year. If I could keep that for myself, that would be worth over 100k in retirement. Using the benefits I was forced to purchase isn't mooching. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #10 January 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteshe should have set an example for others of her ilk. By doing what? by turning them down, obviously. that would have set the appropriate example to her followers. she wanted to be a leader - but didn't have the balls. You're deliberately ignoring the part of my post that said "The benefits weren't free to her; she had personally paid into those accounts. " Why should she turn down benefits she's paid for? That doesn't set an example of being anything other than a twit. Your whole point is stupid, and you're making yourself look silly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #11 January 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo what do you say to the arguments, after your OP, that Rand was not hypocritical because she was simply accepting essentially a return on payments she was forced by law to make? at the very least she should have set an example for others of her ilk. she was a moocher, a hypocrite and a crap science fiction writer... uh, a moocher would take benefits that she didn't pay more. I contributed close to 20k to SS and MC last year. If I could keep that for myself, that would be worth over 100k in retirement. Using the benefits I was forced to purchase isn't mooching. i suppose if you have house insurance and never make a claim you're going to want all your money back. insurance doesn't work like that i'm afraid.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #12 January 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteshe should have set an example for others of her ilk. By doing what? by turning them down, obviously. that would have set the appropriate example to her followers. she wanted to be a leader - but didn't have the balls. You're deliberately ignoring the part of my post that said "The benefits weren't free to her; she had personally paid into those accounts. " Why should she turn down benefits she's paid for? That doesn't set an example of being anything other than a twit. Your whole point is stupid, and you're making yourself look silly. and you missed the part where i said she should have set an example - instead she's proved herself a moocher and just another loony rightwing hypocrite.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #13 January 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what do you say to the arguments, after your OP, that Rand was not hypocritical because she was simply accepting essentially a return on payments she was forced by law to make? at the very least she should have set an example for others of her ilk. she was a moocher, a hypocrite and a crap science fiction writer... uh, a moocher would take benefits that she didn't pay more. I contributed close to 20k to SS and MC last year. If I could keep that for myself, that would be worth over 100k in retirement. Using the benefits I was forced to purchase isn't mooching. i suppose if you have house insurance and never make a claim you're going to want all your money back. insurance doesn't work like that i'm afraid. She's not mooching if she's already paid for it. You're still embarrassing yourself with lousy analogies and silly evasions. Why not just stop? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #14 January 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what do you say to the arguments, after your OP, that Rand was not hypocritical because she was simply accepting essentially a return on payments she was forced by law to make? at the very least she should have set an example for others of her ilk. she was a moocher, a hypocrite and a crap science fiction writer... uh, a moocher would take benefits that she didn't pay more. I contributed close to 20k to SS and MC last year. If I could keep that for myself, that would be worth over 100k in retirement. Using the benefits I was forced to purchase isn't mooching. i suppose if you have house insurance and never make a claim you're going to want all your money back. insurance doesn't work like that i'm afraid. She's not mooching if she's already paid for it. You're still embarrassing yourself with lousy analogies and silly evasions. Why not just stop? she was a moocher and a hypocrite - and a crap science fiction writer.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danornan 64 #15 January 30, 2011 Kevin, It seems with you, it's ALL or NOTHING! Isan't it possible to go in increments. Or are you 100% everything you propose? Ayn had some very good ideas and by your take, it is all for nothing because of 2 small examples. Who can live up to your standards?Dano Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #16 January 30, 2011 Quoteshe was a moocher and a hypocrite - and a crap science fiction writer. Yes, when all else fails, you resort to Tourette's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #17 January 30, 2011 In three months from now I will be losing my job. LOL ... I was supposed to lose it back in the Spring of 2010, but I kept on getting extended. But the end is near, soon I will be an unemployed bum. Fortunately I have been given plenty of warning and I have controlled my spending, reduced debt and saved some money for my pending rainy days. Anyway, in all this time during my employment I was forced by the government to pay into their mandatory "Employment Insurance" program. There will be a waiting period from when I finally lose my job and whenever the severance the company gives me expires until I am eligible to collect "Unemployment Benefits" from the government (and of course if I find a replacement job during this waiting period, then I will not be collecting anything). But I was forced into paying into this government "Employment Insurance" program. There was no opting out, it was mandatory payroll deductions. So while it goes against a lot of what I stand for, you better believe I will collect the payments if I ever become eligible to collect them. You can call me a hypocrite if you want (as I am sure you will). I don't give a shit. If you force me to pay into your nanny state insurance, you better be prepared to pay out if the day ever comes that I become eligible. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #18 January 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteshe should have set an example for others of her ilk. By doing what? The benefits weren't free to her; she had personally paid into those accounts. Explain. In detail, preferably. She paid TAXES, not premiums. We all get to pay taxes for things we don't believe in.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #19 January 30, 2011 QuoteShe paid TAXES, not premiums. I get regular statements from the government detailing my (forced) "contributions" to Social Security and explaining the resultant payments I am eligible for in the future. Forced contributions to Social Security are in no way related to Federal Income Tax and you know that. Edit to add some info from the official SSA (also known as Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance website) Quote Background OASDI is the familiar Social Security social insurance program into which participants make payroll contributions based on earnings. Benefits are paid to insured workers and eligible family members when they retire or become disabled and to the survivors of deceased workers. Extensive information about the OASDI program can be found in the following publications: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/microdata/mbr/Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #20 January 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteShe paid TAXES, not premiums. I get regular statements from the government detailing my (forced) "contributions" to Social Security and explaining the resultant payments I am eligible for in the future. Forced contributions to Social Security are in no way related to Federal Income Tax and you know that. STRAWMAN - no one said it was related to income tax. The "Payroll tax" is a tax, the "Medicare Tax" is a tax, and the Social Security website itself, http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10003.html, makes it very clear that what YOU (and Ayn) paid are TAXES. The United States Supreme Court decided in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that no one has an accrued property right to benefits from Social Security. Ayn Rand is not contractually entitled to her SS and Medicare. When it was to her advantage to oppose it for others, she did. Now she claims it for herself. Hypocrite.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #21 January 30, 2011 You are correct. It is not only a tax - the revenue the government received is not earmarked for retirement benefits. In the case Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Supreme Court ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way." Social Security revenue is a giant money jar that our government has been raiding and putting IOU's into since its inception. Most americans incorrectly assume it is being run like a retired benefits program. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #22 January 30, 2011 On another note, she was a heavy smoker who did not believe that smoking caused cancer. So she did that thing that some Conservatives do, in which they don't believe in science when it tells them something they don't want to hear. And then she got lung cancer. Go figure. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #23 January 30, 2011 Rand was a very smart woman, and her books are well worth reading. Her theses on objectivisim are well reasoned and thought provoking. However, like every other "-ism" they are best studied as a part of a philosophical whole, rather than taken as a set of absolute rules. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #24 January 30, 2011 Quote i suppose if you have house insurance and never make a claim you're going to want all your money back. insurance doesn't work like that i'm afraid. So to follow this along, if her house did burn down, she should set a good example on not collect on the loss? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #25 January 30, 2011 Quote She paid TAXES, not premiums. We all get to pay taxes for things we don't believe in. This is blunted by the fact that SS benefits are based on contributions. That resembles premiums more than taxes. OTOH, MC provides the same benefits regardless, so it acts purely like a tax. BTW, are you collecting on these? And how long have you been in the country, paying into them? Talk about potential mooching. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
