Atlas Suckled, or, Ayn Rand....mooch....looter....parasite

[Observer]

JC, there is no hypocrisy in Rand using her Social Security and Medicare benefits since they are both contributory programs, forced upon US taxpayers through the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

She utilized services she paid for over a number of years.

You are really going to have to try harder or just keep spewing your nonsense to simple minded Liberals.

[foodserver]

I'm not sure if these comments are pointed at me or not but I'll say that I cite the plot of her book Atlas Shrugged to explain the present day phenomena of capital sitting on the sidelines as the producers decide, which is their right, not to participate in the economy under the terms set by the current administration.

I'm not sure what this has to do with whether or not she took advantage of her old age and survivors insurance nor am I interested enough in her life story to research it enough to defend her against every silly charge the Left ever made up about her personal life in order to detract from the fact they have no response to her philosophy.

I'm going to give you some free editing and ignore the sillier portions of your post.

First of all I think she was one of the most evil selfish shifty eyed bitches who ever walked the planet, who also happened to be a very skilled opinionated writer, but also a phony and a hypocrite. That being said, it has become the fashionable thing to simply chant "Atlas Shrugged" as a mantra on the right as of late while conveniently leaving out the truth that Rand herself used and did not refuse or rebuke socialist programs in her senior years. Add to that, she didn't believe in 'God" which is a cardinal sin to christians and basically the majority of today's republican party.And, as I have pointed out, she doesn't believe the law has any place in 2 peoples lives, even though she has her own personal opinion about their lifestyle. In otherwords, her view in regards to government legislating against homsexuality, or for that matter gay marriage, is that it is wrong, which basically flies against todays republican party belief system.

This is what I think you've got...

1)Ayn Rand used a government program (OASI)--so what?

2)Ayn Rand doesn't believe in God--so what?

3)Ayn Rand doesn't like laws against gay marriage--so what?

4)Disagrees with some of the Republican party belief system--so what? (who ever said Ayn Rand was a Republican?)

[johnhp]

JC, there is no hypocrisy in Rand using her Social Security and Medicare benefits since they are both contributory programs, forced upon US taxpayers through the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

Well, i would agree except

1. She seemed to feel ashamed about applying for it by having people working with her attorneys apply for it for her.

except

2. She saw it, according to the person she gave the power of attorney, as a necessity to keep her out of poverty rather than a restitution of something into which she was forced to pay.  And the medicare payments would not be covered under a restitution theory at any rate

except

3. "Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing."

except

4. That she was an elderly person, in frail health, with no family to support her, with a husband suffering from dementia and facing a future of likely destitution.  Her hatred of what she saw likely as government collectivization programs had to take a back seat to her personal security (and that of her husband).  And this last is what really makes me disagree with you: it seemed to be her fear of destitution that forced her hand.  And i do not blame her for that.  Keeping the elderly from destitution is why we have these programs.  So, where the rubber meets the road, all the rhetoric of bootstraps and so forth is out the window and Rand jettisoned her belief in self-reliance to do what she would, years earlier, ridicule others for doing, suckle at the teat of the state.

[johnhp]

Blather

So what?  Where the rubber meets the road, Rand, known mooch, jettisoned her nonsense.

[ivanm]

Ayn Rand, if  I remember correctly, fled the communist bloc when she was a young person, so it would surprise me to see her endorsing any true socialist program.

Social Security is in part a socialist program, but not to the extent that the funding is from a general Congressional allocation in the budget each year.  Yep, we use a combined budget, but that is so the surpluses of soc. sec. could mask the deficits of the fuckups in the general fund.

There are parts of the soc. sec. system that may be more socialistic than the retirement bennies, but in general the bennies are funded from user contributions.  To me the government is more of an administrator of the fund than a true sponsor, and it has done a fine job of fucking the people out of the surpluses each year.  Maybe that is the socialistic part of the system, so let that be a lesson to the useful idiots.  What more did they expect?

I think the present day system needs to be phased out and replaced with some sort of 401k program where the government cannot get its filthy grubby paws on the accounts.  A few years back I had written a little program that calculated the end result or nest egg of a person who had systematically put his payroll taxes in a private account, deferred of taxes, and the compounded growth rate cojuld be modified. I used a relatively conservate rate at the time of around 6%, and the end result was more than three times what a typical soc. sec. recipient would get from the exisitng system. That plus you did not have the fucking leeches in Congress pissing away your nest egg.
 
And the bennies at retirement time need to be tax exempt for all recipients, which is not the case. I have a modest amount of taxable income each year and my soc. sec. bennies are taxed in due to chicken shit socialist presidents like Clinton. So you high rollers are in for a rude awakening when you start drawing a soc. sec. retirement check.  You would be better off not using the system , but that is not an option because the pinkos in WDC need your high level contributions to fund the checks for the losers that use the system.
 
So the next time you point with pride that Americans are using a socialistic program I hope you choke on the abomination.
 
Clinton is the DemoRAT that tacked a 4.3 cent a gallon surtax on the fuel tax, just to raise more general revenue, so when you fucking pinkos start talking about people using socialist programs in America I say they had little choice. You have your asshole leaders to thank for that one.

[johnhp]

Ayn Rand, if  I remember correctly, fled the communist bloc when she was a young person, so it would surprise me to see her endorsing any true socialist program.

Social Security is in part a socialist program, but not to the extent that the funding is from a general Congressional allocation in the budget each year.  Yep, we use a combined budget, but that is so the surpluses of soc. sec. could mask the deficits of the fuckups in the general fund.

There are parts of the soc. sec. system that may be more socialistic than the retirement bennies, but in general the bennies are funded from user contributions.  To me the government is more of an administrator of the fund than a true sponsor, and it has done a fine job of fucking the people out of the surpluses each year.  Maybe that is the socialistic part of the system, so let that be a lesson to the useful idiots.  What more did they expect?

I think the present day system needs to be phased out and replaced with some sort of 401k program where the government cannot get its filthy grubby paws on the accounts.  A few years back I had written a little program that calculated the end result or nest egg of a person who had systematically put his payroll taxes in a private account, deferred of taxes, and the compounded growth rate cojuld be modified. I used a relatively conservate rate at the time of around 6%, and the end result was more than three times what a typical soc. sec. recipient would get from the exisitng system. That plus you did not have the fucking leeches in Congress pissing away your nest egg.
 
And the bennies at retirement time need to be tax exempt for all recipients, which is not the case. I have a modest amount of taxable income each year and my soc. sec. bennies are taxed in due to chicken shit socialist presidents like Clinton. So you high rollers are in for a rude awakening when you start drawing a soc. sec. retirement check.  You would be better off not using the system , but that is not an option because the pinkos in WDC need your high level contributions to fund the checks for the losers that use the system.
 
So the next time you point with pride that Americans are using a socialistic program I hope you choke on the abomination.
 
Clinton is the DemoRAT that tacked a 4.3 cent a gallon surtax on the fuel tax, just to raise more general revenue, so when you fucking pinkos start talking about people using socialist programs in America I say they had little choice. You have your asshole leaders to thank for that one.

i am sorry, do you have anything to offer on the actual topic?  Or was this just another Ivan moment?

[foodserver]

Well, i would agree except

1. She seemed to feel ashamed about applying for it by having people working with her attorneys apply for it for her.

except

2. She saw it, according to the person she gave the power of attorney, as a necessity to keep her out of poverty rather than a restitution of something into which she was forced to pay.  And the medicare payments would not be covered under a restitution theory at any rate

except

3. "Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing."

except

4. That she was an elderly person, in frail health, with no family to support her, with a husband suffering from dementia and facing a future of likely destitution.  Her hatred of what she saw likely as government collectivization programs had to take a back seat to her personal security (and that of her husband).  And this last is what really makes me disagree with you: it seemed to be her fear of destitution that forced her hand.  And i do not blame her for that.  Keeping the elderly from destitution is why we have these programs.  So, where the rubber meets the road, all the rhetoric of bootstraps and so forth is out the window and Rand jettisoned her belief in self-reliance to do what she would, years earlier, ridicule others for doing, suckle at the teat of the state.

John says, So what?  Where the rubber meets the road, Rand, known mooch, jettisoned her nonsense.

John,

Believe it or not, I've never been that curious about Rand's personal life.  You more or less "get it"  with her books or you don't.  I've never concerned myself with looking for a way out of confronting Rand's penetrating analysis by discovering that she "stole a watermelon when she was ten years old" or something.

BUT your post above is imo, a point fairly made and so you've put some pressure on me to look into to it.  Perhaps I shall.  Until then, I want to make three comments,

1) I haven't gone back and confirmed this yet but wasn't she herself dying when this social security stuff was going on?  You make that point yourself (4).  I can see a situation where it would be harder to hold AR completely responsible for that although, I'll say again, I haven't checked yet.

2) Don't we all agree AR funded those benefits?  How would her use of them be some kind of contradiction?  Isn't her use of them a use of her own property?  I'll agree that the State probably diminished the value of AR's retirement dollar by forcing her to contribute to a government protected monopoly but that was something done to her--not something she should apologize for.

3) For the record John, no one else blames Rand for fear of destitution.  It is a reasonable fear.  The question has always been, what kind of system best promotes an individual's potential to pursue their own interests.  Ayn Rand offers an answer to that question.  I'm not sure how much digging up dirt on her personal life will, in the long run change any of that.

STILL.  I think this is one of your better posts which I quoted in entirety but don't feel I've answered in entirety.

[johnhp]

Believe it or not, I've never been that curious about Rand's personal life.

She is the one who wrote them, not you.  She understood that what she preached all those years was, in the final analysis, woefully inadequate.

1) I haven't gone back and confirmed this yet but wasn't she herself dying when this social security stuff was going on?  You make that point yourself (4).

No, she was not dying, she was in ill health and elderly, her husband had dementia.  The fact is she faced financial ruin if she did not avail herself of these socialist benefits.

I can see a situation where it would be harder to hold AR completely responsible for that although, I'll say again, I haven't checked yet.

So rugged individualism and paying one's own way is okay as long as you are not ill?  A younger Rand would call that bullshit.  Either you "get it" with her tripe or you don't.

2) Don't we all agree AR funded those benefits?  How would her use of them be some kind of contradiction?  Isn't her use of them a use of her own property?  I'll agree that the State probably diminished the value of AR's retirement dollar by forcing her to contribute to a government protected monopoly but that was something done to her--not something she should apologize for.

All, well no we all do not.  Ayn Rand certainly poured scorn on those who used such benefits before she needed them.  As for diminishing the value, her social security and medicare kept her out of poverty, they did exactly what they were designed to do.  Much to your chagrin and that of a younger Rand.  But what about her fellow loons?  Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson both rejected enrolling in social security out of principle.  If taking money from the state is wrong, taking money from the state is wrong.

3) For the record John, no one else blames Rand for fear of destitution.  It is a reasonable fear.  The question has always been, what kind of system best promotes an individual's potential to pursue their own interests.  Ayn Rand offers an answer to that question.

Yes.  With her actions.  Which is why she chose socialism for the remaining years of her life.  It allowed her to avoid destitution.