HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Oh Look... The Children O...

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 07:52 PM

 

Oh Look... The Children Of The Oligarchs Are Now Coming After Our Entitlements... Family Tradition

Misdirection: Rampell Views Entitlements Through the Generational War Lens
By: letsgetitdone - FDL
Friday April 18, 2014 9:28 am


Catherine Rampell sets forth the position that seniors haven’t paid for their Social Security and Medicare because they “generally receive” more in benefits out of these programs than they pay into them.

<snip>

Some of the favored children of the economic elite who have a public presence, work hard in their writing and speaking to divert attention from inequality and oligarchy issues by raising the issue of competition between seniors and millennials for “scarce” Federal funds. That’s understandable. If millennials develop full consciousness of who, exactly, has been flushing their prospects for a decent life down the toilet, their anger and activism might bring down the system of wealth and economic and social privilege that benefits both their families and the favored themselves in the new America of oligarchy and plutocracy.

Here and here (Links), I evaluated Abby Huntsman’s arguments for entitlement “reform,” and, of course, Pete Peterson’s son, Michael fights a continuing generational war against seniors in pushing the austerian line of the Peterson Foundation. Now comes Catherine Rampell, who, in a recent column, sets forth the position that seniors haven’t paid for their Social Security and Medicare because they “generally receive” more in benefits out of these programs than they pay into them.
I’ll reply to all of the main points in Rampell’s argument, by quoting liberally and then replying to the points she makes in each quote. She says:

Yes, seniors paid into Social Security and Medicare during the years they worked, if they worked. But they generally receive much more out of the entitlement system than they paid into it.


She continues by citing an Urban Institute study and pointing out that earlier age cohorts received much more in benefits from Social Security than they paid in, and also says:

But let’s consider the average worker who turned 65 in 2010. Generally speaking, the people in this cohort will, more or less, break even on Social Security, according to Eugene Steuerle, an Urban Institute fellow who co-authors the annual report. (Earlier generations made out like bandits; for example, members of an average one-earner couple who turned 65 in 1990 receive twice as much in Social Security benefits as they paid in taxes.)

Medicare, on the other hand, is pretty much a steal no matter when you turned 65.”


After citing some details documenting “what a steal” Medicare is, Rampell concludes the first part of her argument with this:

”It boils down to this: Despite all the “we already paid for it” rhetoric popular among seniors, seniors did not pre-pay for their entitlements. If anything, they paid for their parents’ entitlements, which were more modest than the benefits today’s retirees receive.


This argument of Rampell’s is disingenuous, because...

<snip>

More: http://my.firedoglake.com/letsgetitdone/2014/04/18/misdirection-rampell-views-entitlements-through-the-generational-war-lens/



60 replies, 4516 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 60 replies Author Time Post
Reply Oh Look... The Children Of The Oligarchs Are Now Coming After Our Entitlements... Family Tradition (Original post)
WillyT Apr 2014 OP
elleng Apr 2014 #1
Warpy Apr 2014 #2
DJ13 Apr 2014 #3
aggiesal Apr 2014 #34
JaneyVee Apr 2014 #4
DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #20
840high Apr 2014 #24
kairos12 Apr 2014 #26
Cal Carpenter Apr 2014 #46
bvar22 Apr 2014 #50
stillwaiting Apr 2014 #58
lake loon Apr 2014 #53
wandy Apr 2014 #5
Ken Burch Apr 2014 #25
wandy Apr 2014 #32
Ken Burch Apr 2014 #33
wandy Apr 2014 #37
Ken Burch Apr 2014 #39
seveneyes Apr 2014 #45
Curmudgeoness Apr 2014 #6
whathehell Apr 2014 #7
former9thward Apr 2014 #19
Ed Suspicious Apr 2014 #28
former9thward Apr 2014 #30
Dragonfli Apr 2014 #36
former9thward Apr 2014 #47
whathehell Apr 2014 #44
former9thward Apr 2014 #48
whathehell Apr 2014 #55
former9thward Apr 2014 #56
L0oniX Apr 2014 #8
ljm2002 Apr 2014 #9
MohRokTah Apr 2014 #10
WillyT Apr 2014 #11
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #12
TNNurse Apr 2014 #13
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2014 #16
WillyT Apr 2014 #17
Ken Burch Apr 2014 #27
BeyondGeography Apr 2014 #14
ancianita Apr 2014 #15
Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2014 #18
marew Apr 2014 #22
Gman Apr 2014 #21
geckosfeet Apr 2014 #23
Igel Apr 2014 #29
99Forever Apr 2014 #31
DirkGently Apr 2014 #35
McCamy Taylor Apr 2014 #38
defacto7 Apr 2014 #40
AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #41
farmbo Apr 2014 #42
xchrom Apr 2014 #43
Enthusiast Apr 2014 #49
bvar22 Apr 2014 #51
LakeVermilion Apr 2014 #52
deathrind Apr 2014 #54
Zenlitened Apr 2014 #57
Skittles Apr 2014 #59
butterfly77 Apr 2014 #60

Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 08:02 PM

1. That's the plan, girl;

you and my children pay for mine.
The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_of_Civilization

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 08:03 PM

2. Somebody needs to slam this little twit up against a wall

and explain inflation to her until she gets it. Then they can start explaining why insurance is different from investment and that's why social security was set up as an insurance plan.

I realize her whole life has been dedicated to avoiding these concepts, but she looks educable, her eyes don't have that "duh, whuh?" expression so many rich kids have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 08:09 PM

3. Born with a silver spoon lodged in her ass

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 11:49 PM

34. It's usually called Affluenza,

but in this case it should be Assfluenza

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 08:19 PM

4. FUUUUUUUUUCK OFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:44 PM

20. +++

 

These people don't deserve a respectful reply, and they'd ignore it and counter with a canned response anyway. So yes, Fuck Off is very much in order. Or maybe we can make a deal--she can have influence on policies affecting the poor and middle class if we can run policy as it relates to the wealthy. I don't think she'd take that deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 10:09 PM

24. ...^ that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 10:23 PM

26. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 09:36 AM

46. I read the whole thread

and you said it best

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:22 PM

50. I seldom agree with you,

...but have no reservation in recommending your post 1000 times.
You summed it up perfectly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #50)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 03:39 PM

58. I often agree with you,

and this time is no different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:38 PM

53. Bravo!!

 

You said it best!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 08:21 PM

5. If I understand her thinking then I think its about time...............

for me to go.
Help me remember. Do I go to the Howard Johnson's first. Thats the one with the Orange roof, right?
Then I go to the one with the purple roof?
Will any of you bloated baby-boomer cohorts care to join may so this nice young lady can have some new toys?

This scum on the left of me and the chickenshit bully coward Bundy cowboys on the right.

Tanj! Their ain't no justics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #5)


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 11:26 PM

32. No, no, no. It's from a Dylan song.........

Clowns on the left of me jokers to the right.
Should have thought of another song, but think about it.
You got you're rich and privileged coming down on everyone.
Then you have the whack jobs that have totally fooled looking for armed revolt and blaming those stuck in the middle like me.

The only thing "welfare mothers" have to do with it is that the lady who wrote the article and her ilk have convinced the nut jobs to blame the "welfare mothers" for their own taking.

That would be what I have a problem with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 11:42 PM

33. thanks for clearing that up.

 

(hate to have to point this out...but that's Stealer's Wheel, not Dylan).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:25 AM

37. Whoops, forgetting stuff like that just part of getting old. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #37)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:37 AM

39. Don't feel bad...the other day, I ran into somebody

 

who STILL thought "A Horse With No Name" was a Neil Young song.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #39)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 09:34 AM

45. They may have been thinking of the Crazy Horse with no name

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 08:21 PM

6. Let them eat cake.

She needs a good lesson in history.....like what it was like for the working class and lower middle class prior to these programs.

Then maybe we could make her live on minimum wages for a year, and have no access to her own family's money during that time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 08:31 PM

7. Rampell's full of shit -- The Boomers paid for themselves AND their parent's retirements..n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:37 PM

19. Not really.

SS was never set up that way. It was set up so the present generation of workers would pay for retirees --- not for themselves. SS's problem currently is there is not enough present generation workers to pay for baby boomers as they move into retirement. The boomers did not have enough kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 10:24 PM

28. Aided by the oli's and their moving production off shore virtually ensuring

a reduction paid in to the fund.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 10:34 PM

30. Yes, all of that.

Moving production off shore means less good paying jobs and a stagnant or declining wage base. Since SS is paid into as a percent it means less goes into the fund.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 11:56 PM

36. You are misinformed, in 1983 changes were made to Social Security

that increased the tax to nearly double precisely for my generation to pay for the generation ahead as well for ourselves. It was specifically designed to make up for the fact that the following generation would be comprised of less workers and the figure was calculated to make up that difference until the ratio leveled out again. It was called The Social Security Reform Act of 1983 if I recall correctly, I remember the debate quite well.

No shame in not learning about it, they have tried to place this inconvenient truth in the memory hole so they could make outrageous claims that might enable the theft of our hard earned and well invested (in T-bills) funds.

Peter Petersen misinformation aside, it is nonetheless true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 09:57 AM

47. No, that was a short term fix.

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

From the Social Security Trustees Report.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 08:24 AM

44. Yes, really...The Boomer Social Security 'shortfall' was anticipated and in 1983,

Reagan signed into law something called "The Social Security Tax Reform" bill in 1983 which significantly

increased the payroll taxes which covers Social Security. Read on..

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/the-great-taxer.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #44)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 09:59 AM

48. Not really, that was a short term fix.

30 years ago.


Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

From the Social Security Trustees Report.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #48)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:04 PM

55. Yeah really. Short term fixes don't last for over twenty five years..

and besides, just because it was stolen/diverted into tax giveaways or whatever,

that doesn't mean we do/did not pay into it.


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/11283-social-security-is-not-going-broke

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/social-security-is-not-going-broke-10-30-2013

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #55)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:15 PM

56. So the SS Trustees are lying?

Who include a significant portion of the Obama cabinet.

Of course we pay into it. That is not the issue. The issue is whether there are enough of us paying into it to sustain the benefits as the years go by.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 08:49 PM

8. Enemies of FDR and the average American are back in full force.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:00 PM

9. "The French aristocracy never saw it coming, either"... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:01 PM

10. And WillyT posts another thread I have no choice but to DURec.

 



It's disgusting how the children of privilege are handed everything on a silver platter by those who do their will in the world.

Keep in mind, the French Aristocrats didn't expect anything either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:12 PM

11. Why Thank You...You're Very Kind To Say That...

 





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:18 PM

12. I have met people like her

 

they are pretty empty inside...

And no, they think they are special

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:18 PM

13. Does she have an education?

Does she have a conscience? Is she clueless?

I suspect the third one, but maybe all three are true. Has she ever actually worked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TNNurse (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:29 PM

16. Education, the best money can buy

 

conscience, they don't sell those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TNNurse (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:30 PM

17. Well...

 

Before joining The Times, Catherine wrote for the Washington Post editorial pages and financial section and for The Chronicle of Higher Education. She grew up in South Florida (the New York part) and graduated from Princeton.


From: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/catherine_rampell/



Don't know about that "New York Part"... sound's sort of anti-semitic...yet it's in almost every bio I've seen so far


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TNNurse (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 10:23 PM

27. better question: does she have a soul? n/t.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:20 PM

14. I'm supposed to feel guilty because U.S. for-profit health care is a ripoff?

Fuck off, kid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:29 PM

15. So her credibility is her birthright? Looks? Hers is the face of know-nothing, pretty arrogance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:30 PM

18. Betcha the SHOES she wore for her debutante ball cost more than most people make in a year.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:58 PM

22. You've got that right! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:46 PM

21. They'll just invoke abortion, guns, welfare

And go on their happy way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 10:07 PM

23. So I paid in and lent the government money interest free. The government used that money.

In part to subsidize her low tax rate on capital gains. Fact is - I am most likely going to die before i collect one cent from social security or medicare. This entitled spoiled pos can go f$ck herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 10:32 PM

29. The argument relies on the point that "Federal taxes don't pay for anything."

Then it relies crucially on federal taxes being earmarked and channeled into a reserve specifically for a given purpose.

But the amount of that reserve is the amount collected, earmarked for Social Security, minus expenses attributed to Social Security.

If federal taxes pay for nothing, then there is no credit. It means that all the money paid under the "FICA" rubric are general revenue, and everybody's been paid just out of general revenue. There's no accounting for this as a separate system of taxation and spending. That's comforting, because it means that the funding source is open-ended. It's not how Congress set it up though.

But if federal taxes are earmarked for the credit reserve--something the writer desperately wants to be true--then there's nothing keeping the same kind of earmarking to account for FICA taxes covering current outlays and not much more. The accounting mechanism's used elsewhere, with glee and appropriateness.

But you can't really have it both ways.

It works the same for the ACA "mandate". Congress has earmarked certain kinds of funding sources to cover the ACA expenses. It's a separate subsystem, the difference being that that has no limits on payouts.


As for the entitlement, there was no deal. No contract. The contract is Congress' constitutional income tax authority and their setting rules for receiving future payouts, along with their decision to make a certain set of rules. Congress bound itself unilaterally. While it would be political suicide to change the rules in a way that takes away a perceived right from their constituents, they've changed the "deal" unilaterally before and a lot of people have called for them to change the "deal" in some way now--either means testing, to rule out the wealthy getting too much money; elimination of the earned income cap; and modifying the COLA indexing scheme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 10:35 PM

31. Hello Catherine Rampell.

Let me introduce you to my friend:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Miss Marie Antoinette can attest to what it has to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sat Apr 19, 2014, 11:50 PM

35. What did Exxon pay for its tax breaks?


Jesus. Let's all go eat some cake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:35 AM

38. "I'll steal the dentures right out of granny's mouth." That's what she's thinking.

I wonder if the woman in the picture up above has ever gone to bed hungry or had to suffer a tooth ache because she could not afford a dentist in her life? I'll bet if she did not get the right color Lexus for Christmas, she would post on Facebook how it was a human rights abuse. Because she has obviously been deprived of love and given money in its place---lots and lots of money. And it (the money) has not been able to fill the hole that being deprived of love has left, it has just made her greedy for more money and more approval from the folks with the money who also have not been able to fill the spiritual void in their lives. Face it. Anyone whose sole purpose in life is to snatch the crust of bread from an old person's mouth is full of self loathing that makes them hate the rest of the world, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 02:16 AM

40. I guess it comes down to two roads for the masses....

One road, we live.

The other, we die.

I wonder who will win?

...those special few who weave megalomaniacal ideas over their foie gras,

or the masses who will refuse the gruel she so graciously allows us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 04:02 AM

41. Now *there's* someone with *real* privilege issues!

 

This chick is a moron who doesn't know the first thing about what she's blathering about. 'Nuff said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 08:22 AM

42. When money= speech; expect verbal diarrhea from these rich bastards

Since none of them need to work an honest job, they have all the time in the world to spew their crackpot theories. Their Daddies have think tanks, Fox News, and MSM outlets at their command. Prepare for a BS Mountain of misinformation from these New-Gilded-Age rich kids.

So we need to make Dead Souls like Rampell irrelevant at the ballot box.

Remember: "Voter apathy is your gift to the Oligarchs".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 08:23 AM

43. du rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 11:45 AM

49. In other words, "We take the money, fuck you, die soon."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:28 PM

51. There was a time in the USA BEFORE Social Security.

She must have missed that part of our History.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:30 PM

52. Talk to me about it after you pay back the money you already stole from the fund.

When everything is even, we'll take the time to explain how it works. Until then, put your effort into making the fund whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:00 PM

54. The ignorance displayed here is astounding.

What is it with people like Rampell and this view that they are successfully because of their own hard work. The only reason she and others like her are fortunate enough to live in a country that has infrastructure/rights/protection is because of the millions of Americans that came way before her that worked damn hard to make America what it is today. Elizabeth Warren and President Obama were right on target with their comments about the groundwork done and continuing to be done by previous and present generations that has allowed the prosperity for people like Rampell. People with this type of ignorance really should go to places without the control systems in place as we have here, places without the rights and protections we have here, places without the infrastructure we have here and see just how far they would get on their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:58 PM

57. I guess these trust fund babies don't believe in lending at interest?

"Seniors haven’t paid for their Social Security and Medicare because they “generally receive” more in benefits out of these programs than they pay into them."


Sooooo... all loans ought to be interest-free, right? Mortgage, car loan, credit card... all of it, right? Because lenders should never receive more than they paid in.

Same goes for investments, bank savings, etc., I suppose.

That's really quite revolutionary, especially coming from people whose first accomplishment was to splash out into a pile of someone else's money.

So very bold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 07:41 PM

59. must be nice when your success in life is mapped out from birth

Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:25 AM - Edit history (1)

those of us who actually had to work and fight for what we have would like to keep it - now FUCK OFF, Ms. Rampell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Original post)

Wed Apr 23, 2014, 03:21 PM

60. Kick...

 

for those who haven't seen yet..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread