"You won't receive your car or home insurance back just because you
paid in either retard."
Your analogy is seriously flawed. Wealthy or poor, if you drive a car
you have the potential to have an accident and need insurance.
However, if Social Security worked as you propose, then someone
meeting your definition of wealth would have no chance of ever
collecting. 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.
On May 19, 10:44 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 12:00 am, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Then why take it from the rich. Why should they pay what you are
> > insuring they cannot receive back.
> You won't receive your car or home insurance back just because you
> paid in either retard.
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.