In response to:

Obama Uses Monument Act in Another Western Land Grab

ThasicAlambra Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 12:29 PM
I'm a vet also so I have some room to comment. Don't get your panties in a wad. Anyone that is drawing money from the government is a taker, that would include vets and social security recipients. But anyone with any sense knows there is a HUGE difference between takers that have earned those benefits and takers that are sponges. Not all government workers are sponges, but they are all takers. It's like an asset and liability sheet. Anyone putting into the money pool 9in the form of taxes) is an asset, anyone taking away is a liability. You can dress it up any way you want, but vets and military people do not add money into the pool, they take money out. That does not mean they don't deserve it but they still take.
Joseph64 Wrote: Dec 29, 2012 10:40 AM
Social Security was never intended to invest your money. It was always run as a Ponzi scheme. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but even if you were allowed to opt out of Social Security now there would be no way that they could give your money back and forget about any interest. Your money isn't there anymore. It went out the same day it came in.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 7:05 PM
I define "reasonable interest" as what the stock market would have paid during the time I was paying SS.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 7:03 PM
BALONEY.
People PAID into Soc.Security,and FEDGOV failed to properly invest that money,instead giving us an illegal pyramid scheme.
I'd be willing to opt out of SS -IF- FEDGOV returns the money I paid in,with reasonable interest.

Vets earned their pensions and medical benefits. they sacrificed for our country,they could have stayed home and earned far more working for private businesses.
Grant75 Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 1:19 PM
Right! (take it from an 83 year old vet on SocialSecurity and Medicare)

New Mexico is once again on the bottom of the list—or the top, depending on your perspective. Forbes recently announced the “death spiral” states. New Mexico was the worst “with 1.53 takers for every maker” (Forbes defines “takers” and “makers” this way: “A taker is someone who draws money from the government, as an employee, pensioner or welfare recipient. A maker is someone gainfully employed in the private sector”). It seems New Mexico can’t get a break from Washington. Instead of unleashing the state’s biggest single private-sector employer, the essential job-creating giant is impeded at every opportunity.

And we...