The State of the Union, or, my talking points for 2005...by GWB

[bmulligan]

Excerpts from tonights speech:

First the accolades and ass kissing:

America's economy is the fastest growing of any major industrialized nation. In the past four years, we have provided tax relief to every person who pays income taxes, overcome a recession, opened up new markets abroad, prosecuted corporate criminals, raised homeownership to its highest level in history, and in the last year alone, the United States has added 2.3 million new jobs. When action was needed, the Congress delivered - and the Nation is grateful.

Then the false promise for philisophical fiscal responsibility:

America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government. I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities...

Then the real pandering begins:

We will help an additional 200,000 workers to get training for a better career, by reforming our job training system and strengthening America's community colleges. And we will make it easier for Americans to afford a college education, by increasing the size of Pell Grants.

more money for education and training, blah dee blah. And a bone for the small business owners:

...we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits. Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back, by irresponsible class actions and frivolous asbestos claims ...

Now on to the euphamisms for national healthcare:

To make our economy stronger and more productive, we must make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage, and more control over their health decisions.

And one for the envorinmentalists:

To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy...a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy. My Clear Skies legislation will cut power plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens. And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology ¡ª from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol.

And, of course, the obligatory nod to the tax reformers (check this one under false promises):

I will work together to give this Nation a tax code that is pro-growth, easy to understand, and fair to all.

Then comes the meat, a never ending wealth redistribution program that helps no one, rewards no one and is now doing more harm than good to almost everyone in our economy- Social Security:

instead of 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers ¡ª and over the next few decades, that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary. With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.

Democrats hate to hear the truth, but Social Security is not secure, and disagreeing with the timeline of the financial downfall of the system does nothing to fix the impending doom that the Dems would just as soon see become reality.

Then the apparent Flip-flop after rumors that Bush wouldn't give suport in the senate for such an ammendment, and a shout out to the bob jones peeps:

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

Translation: you gay people, you shouldn't be allowed to pursue happiness. Yea freedom!

Touch on Aids, Immigration, capital punnishment, urban plight, stem cell research, etc, etc. All -in-all a good speech. He seemed generally convinced that he believed what he was saying. It was probably the best speech he's given yet. It just feels like buttercream frosting on angelfood cake, and I hate angel food cake.

 

[MorPhiend]

If he can deliver on all of this, wow...


I don't agree with the buttkissing and pandering comments. I think he's serious. I mean, it's not like he has another election to face. He really could do whatever he wants, but I think he is really set on trying to unite the people. My personal thoughts.

If he can do it, he will go down as a hero. But Iraq has to continue upwards, or none of it will happen. The rest of his presidency lies with Iraq over the next 6-12 months.

 

[Sarang01]

Hmmm Social Security is Wealth Redistribution? Then what the hell is Outsourcing all about?
Seriously man if we would've upped Social Security to go with Inflation or if that's already being done just increase the tax on it this problem would be fixed and it would be a minimal increase. I mean shit even Greenspan said that and Republicans and Democrats LOVE the guy.

 

[coffman]

His "environmental agenda" is a giveaway to polluting industries. The man cannot be trusted...

 

[RedvsBlue]

[quote name='coffman']His "environmental agenda" is a giveaway to polluting industries. The man cannot be trusted...[/quote]

The same way his "immigration plan" is a way for businesses to lower wages.

 

[Hereticked]

[quote name='bmulligan']Then comes the meat, a never ending wealth redistribution program that helps no one, rewards no one and is now doing more harm than good to almost everyone in our economy- Social Security[/quote]

More like Republicans love to hear lies. And thats the thing about the "Big Lie", the bigger it is and the more often you repeat it, the more likely people (even non-Republicans) are going to believe it.

Social Security is not in crisis, and the implication that it helps no one is beyond ludicrous. The program is solvent through 2028-2036 depending on which study you read, and with minor adjustments could live on for a long time.

Social Security is NOT a retirement program, it is an insurance program that is there to help those who suffer major setbacks/life-long debilitations and those who fall through the cracks. Republicans seek to frame it/talk about it like it IS or SHOULD BE a retirement program, but that is a lie.

If you resent that you have to pay into something which you may or may not need, TOUGH. You may or may not need a fire department to come put out the flames consuming your house someday too. The fact remains that you may need it some day, and that we live in a society where the majority do not embrace your sick philosophy of social darwinism and "every man for himself".

The Bush administrations plan is not to change Social Security but to destroy it. The only legacy Bush is securing for himself is that of the fiscally worst president in the history of our nation, although to be honest, he's really already there.

 

[MorPhiend]

[quote name='Hereticked'][quote name='bmulligan']Then comes the meat, a never ending wealth redistribution program that helps no one, rewards no one and is now doing more harm than good to almost everyone in our economy- Social Security[/quote]

More like Republicans love to hear lies. And thats the thing about the "Big Lie", the bigger it is and the more often you repeat it, the more likely people (even non-Republicans) are going to believe it.

Social Security is not in crisis, and the implication that it helps no one is beyond ludicrous. The program is solvent through 2028-2036 depending on which study you read, and with minor adjustments could live on for a long time.

Social Security is NOT a retirement program, it is an insurance program that is there to help those who suffer major setbacks/life-long debilitations and those who fall through the cracks. Republicans seek to frame it/talk about it like it IS or SHOULD BE a retirement program, but that is a lie.

If you resent that you have to pay into something which you may or may not need, TOUGH. You may or may not need a fire department to come put out the flames consuming your house someday too. The fact remains that you may need it some day, and that we live in a society where the majority do not embrace your sick philosophy of social darwinism and "every man for himself".

The Bush administrations plan is not to change Social Security but to destroy it. The only legacy Bush is securing for himself is that of the fiscally worst president in the history of our nation, although to be honest, he's really already there.[/quote]

Why is it that I have never read a post of yours that isn't bombthrowing propaganda? First of all, the last I checked, 2042 came after 2036. And the president's point was the same, there needs to be fixes. I'm glad to see that you and the President agree. And you want to make this partisan? Well, tough. Every fix suggested by our President was originally taken from a Democratic colleague (Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table.) These men recognized a need to do something. If you're so critical now, where was/is your criticism of these men? Oh yes, that bombthrowing issue...

And your fire department "analogy" is a farce. First of all, the issue isn't whether I need it. If I'm intelligent, I'll invest and save, despite being raped by the government for 40+ years. Like you said, until something happens, tough. The point is, when I do need it in 40 years, where's the money going to come from? You said it yourself, 2036 comes, bye bye unless something is done. You act like there is no urgency! Are you suggesting that we wait until 2035 to do something? That's ludicrous! You see something bad down the road, fix it now, not when it's too late! You see, when my house cathces on fire in 40 years (probably because you're standing outside it with a gas can), I presume that the local fire department will be just as capable, if not more so, to come help than they are today. You even said that something has to be done by 2036, as well as our Democratic leaders (who probably know a lot more than you [or I] do). Just because one is raised in a society that murders each other for fun, doesn't make it right - but it's probably all that one knows to do. And just because you are raised in a society that pushes socialism more and more as the years go by, doesn't mean that it's the best solution - it's just the way you were raised to see things.

And I love how Bush is the worst President "this" or the worst President "that" (this time it's fiscally). The economy collapses after 9/11. "It's teh Bush!!!1!!" Get real. we were living in a bubble that was too good to be true. Enron alone would have done us in, much less 9/11, followed by Enron and all the other corporate scandals that were popping up. It's a miracle that we even have an economy. Then things start to improve. It's ignored. One or two months of stabilization or dropping off a bit and the alarms and hate mongerers are out in full force. Then things get better, everyone shuts their yaps again. That's the cycle. Who cares of the millions of jobs created in the last year as we continue to recover from the worst disaster / attack on the U.S. ever. Who cares of the tax cuts that increased spending and helped the economy grow. Who cares that there are more home ownerships today than ever before? Get over yourself. Even John Kerry wants to try and allow healing and is going to work with everyone to get things done. Sure, he thinks someone else is better suited for the presidency (duh). But he knows that contention and bombthrowing can't get us anywhere and it won't turn back the clocks and give him the election. John Kerry is well over the loss (and his graciousness has shown that he is a winner), why can't you get over it? Oh yes, the innate bombthrowing tendencies you have...

 

[dtcarson]

[quote name='Hereticked']

Social Security is not in crisis, and the implication that it helps no one is beyond ludicrous. The program is solvent through 2028-2036 depending on which study you read, and with minor adjustments could live on for a long time.

Social Security is NOT a retirement program, it is an insurance program that is there to help those who suffer major setbacks/life-long debilitations and those who fall through the cracks. Republicans seek to frame it/talk about it like it IS or SHOULD BE a retirement program, but that is a lie.
[/quote]

It currently *is* and has been sold to the public by politicians, including Democrats as a 'retirement program.'
Health insurance is supposed to be insurance for crises, not everyday things, like we treat it nowadays. You don't claim a flat tire or an oil change on your car insurance.

If you see a problem, even if that problem is going to happen 2, 5, 10, 30 years down the road, you should try to plan for it now. Or, let's not, let's wait till the crisis occurs. As long as you [you, Democrats, not you-you] do the same, and shut up about, oh, the environment, since the earth hasn't exploded yet, obviously we don't need to do anything.

Not only is social security not secure, there is no 'lockbox', it's a ponzi scheme; but also there are hundreds of ways to have a safer, more profitable investment, without riding on other taxpayer's coattails.

If just this came about:
"pro-growth, easy to understand, and fair to all."
I'd be happy. It's an uphill battle though, too many people want to keep their deductions and loopholes, where they feel like they are getting something 'back', rather than a fair, equitable, easy to understand system like the FairTax.

I didn't hear the speech, I'll look for a text copy of it, but I have no problem with anything quoted above. Quite a sizable agenda. But I agree with Morphiend, Iraq is a big obstacle to everything else. I don't necessarily think we need to pull everyone out and leave it alone in three days, but we do need to be well on our way to having only a token force there. Of course, we also need some less obstructionist Democrats in Congress to work with GWB, instead of blindly voting and speaking against everything GWB has said. I really don't see how anyone can disagree with the quotes the OP posted. Certainly there can be [and will be, I'm sure] disagreement with how to get those things done, but it sounds like a very positive, pro-growth, pro ownership agenda, with the exception of " I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
". Which, of course, would have to come from Congress.

Social security:
"the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement."
Hence, a retirement program.
"This change transformed Social Security from a retirement program for individuals into a family-based economic security program.'
In addition to all that, there's disability, medical, supplemental income, etc.

Here's an excellent quote about how we need to review and modify SS, from a well-known hard rightwing conservative;
" "The Social Security program plays an important part in providing for families, children, and older persons in times of stress. But it cannot remain static. Changes in our population, in our working habits, and in our standard of living require constant revision'"
Hmm, no, that was actually the last of the real Democrats, John F Kennedy.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/briefhistory.html#developmentofssa

 

[dtcarson]

[quote name='Sarang01']Hmmm Social Security is Wealth Redistribution? Then what the hell is Outsourcing all about?
Seriously man if we would've upped Social Security to go with Inflation or if that's already being done just increase the tax on it this problem would be fixed and it would be a minimal increase. I mean shit even Greenspan said that and Republicans and Democrats LOVE the guy.[/quote]

Increase the tax! That'll solve everything! It's not my money, it's the governments!
Certainly, tax increases are a solution. They are not the *best* solution by any means, and your automatic response of 'tax increases' is very revealing.
Do you work?
Do you buy things?
Do you own property, stock, bonds, assets?

EVERYTHING is taxed.
It's a wonder we have any rich people at all. Most of them, of course, are Democratic lawyers, who can game the system or codify the loopholes for themselves.
Go here, and browse just *some* of the things that are taxed, and the amounts thereof;
http://www.tiaa-cref.org/pubs/html/taxguide/tg11a.html

 

[MorPhiend]

[quote name='dtcarson']I didn't hear the speech, I'll look for a text copy of it, but I have no problem with anything quoted above.[/quote]

Here ya go!:

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5118

It really is a worthwhile read. Too bad you didn't see it.

 

[Hereticked]

[quote name='MorPhiend']Why is it that I have never read a post of yours that isn't bombthrowing propaganda?[/quote]

Because all you do is troll the Vs forum?

I've posted in plenty of other threads, you can even check by clicking on my profile. But that would be the logical thing to do instead of making an uninformed statement to try and slander someone.


[quote name='MorPhiend']And the president's point was the same, there needs to be fixes. I'm glad to see that you and the President agree. [/quote]

No, the president is endorsing a program which is going to destroy Social Security and the crucial function it has played in our society for decades. By letting people create private accounts you are essentially changing the program from an insurance program for all to an individualized retirement program. That is not its purpose.


[quote name='MorPhiend']And your fire department "analogy" is a farce. First of all, the issue isn't whether I need it.[/quote]

No, you simply don't understand (or won't accept) the truth of the analogy.

You and I pay taxes which goes to pay for government services and programs that work to our mutual benefit. Thats called a social contract, a thing which rational human beings in modern society utilize. You and I may never need the fire department to come to our house and put out the flames, but we recognize that it may happen, and we fund the program as a contingency. Social Security is no different.

[quote name='MorPhiend']You said it yourself, 2036 comes, bye bye unless something is done. You act like there is no urgency! Are you suggesting that we wait until 2035 to do something?[/quote]

No.

But nice try setting up a straw man.


[quote name='MorPhiend']You see something bad down the road, fix it now, not when it's too late![/quote]

Thank you Captain Obvious!!!!

And you know what? We could do that if we weren't throwing trillions of dollars away on wasteful tax cuts and engaging in unnecessary, illegal wars. In fact, we could do A LOT more.


[quote name='MorPhiend']And I love how Bush is the worst President "this" or the worst President "that" (this time it's fiscally). The economy collapses after 9/11. "It's teh Bush!!!1!!" Get real. we were living in a bubble that was too good to be true.[/quote]

He is... easily.

And once again you're not addressing what I actually said. You think things are bad now? The Bush administration is leading us to a place and time where the Great Depression will be a fond ing memory.

I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about the future, possibly even the very near future. You won't be blaming the tech bubble then.


[quote name='MorPhiend']Who cares of the millions of jobs created in the last year[/quote]

Reports of "job creation" released by the Bush Administration's economic team are almost always downgraded 2 or 3 weeks after they're released.

The Bush administration still has a net loss of 1.1 million jobs on their watch.

The few jobs that have been generated are almost exclusively service industry or low paying retail jobs with few benefits. Thats also why the Bush administration decided to reclassify fast food jobs as "manufacturing" so they could blatantly lie about a manufcaturing resurgence. If you want to call outsourcing good paying jobs with benefits to foreign slave markets and replacing (some of them) with dead end service jobs, "job creation", well you just go ahead.


Thanks for the propaganda though! Its always fun to dispell the BS.

Give my regards to the pig man and the baby jesus. (Limbaugh and Hannity)

 

[MorPhiend]

As to your first point, good job! The exact opposite is true! I haven't spent any time in the Vs. forums (I'm sure that I've posted in a couple of threads on the front page in the past year, just so you don't spend the next 6.5 hours looking through every post of mine to prove me wrong with one post) until the past couple of days (and that has only been two or maybe three threads!). Take your own advice! Look at my record! ---You are Bombthrowing again! Old habits are hard to lose, eh?

And the rest of your political hogwash? Garbage Bombthrowing! I like how you quoted specific little "bytes" that didn't include the backing I used so that you could spin things as you please. And of course you couldn't recognize posts around mine that had backing that I didn't include, because you didn't include my own backing! That's not an arguement when you do that! It's Nazi-ish Propaganda!

You didn't even recognize what I was saying about your Fire Department trash. You are arguing definition! I know the definition! My claims were actions! Things that will come to pass, not the definition! That's like you telling me something (a definition), I agree with you but then say that there's a problem with the concept (function, not definition), and you continue to yell at me that your definition is correct! I already agree with you on that, why yell at me about it? Because you have nothing to say so you throw bombs!

Straw man? Tackle that straw man then! Beat the trash out of it! Wait, you can't! I brought up a good point that you couldn't argue! You said we didn't need to act (even though there was a need for fixes). You said problems could arise as early as 2028 and as late as 2036. But there was no need to act. Contradiction? Yes! But did you say it? Yes!

What about my statements about the whole Social Security thing already being discussed by Democrats prior to Bush being in office? What about Bush's statements about wanting to implement some of their ideas? They said it too. Like I said, why aren't you criticizing them? Oh, because that would destroy your whole bombthrowing "arguement"? yeah, it probably would. But that just shows how much you love to throw those bombs!

Captain Obvious? Look at the preceeding paragraph; I say Captain Hypocrite, to you. Oh, and I'm glad that the war is illegal, because that means that he is probably going to be impeached and it definitely means that he is on trial for war crimes, eh? And I'm glad that you consider money in your pocket that stimulates the economy to be wasteful. Can I have yours? Oh wait, I should ask if you even have to pay taxes. Either you don't pay taxes, or you're able to send your tax relief my way. Which is it? It's great when people like you complain about the "fact" that Republicans are going to raise taxes, but then cry when they are actually cut. waaaaaaaaaa! Well, which is it? You can't have it both ways. Oh wait... Bombthrowing. I should have known.

What you actually said? No, that's not it! Here ya go:
"The only legacy Bush is securing for himself is that of the fiscally worst president in the history of our nation, although to be honest, he's really already there."

Yup, that's you! Look! Someone's quoting you on the internet! And it sure wasn't you quoting yourself. What did you say that you actually said?:
"You think things are bad now? The Bush administration is leading us to a place and time where the Great Depression will be a fond shaq-fuing memory.

I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about the future, possibly even the very near future. You won't be blaming the tech bubble then."

A bit different? More than. But why ruin a perfect record you have going??? Point # 1: We're already there. (Present). Point # 2: I'm not talking about now, ... the future. (Future). Yeah, I know you hate rational peole. Get used to it.

And I'm glad you showed a report to disprove me on numbers. You are good at citing things after all. Heck, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and John Kerry have no proof that the President is lying through his teeth here. But I'm glad that you found the secret documents. Don't show them to anyone though, because it would actually be a glimmer of evidence in what you say! Let's keep your Bombthrowing record clean, now.

I sure am glad you dispelled that propaganda. I was actually starting to believe it! You just saved me from the jaws of hell!!!

Am I being a bit facetious? Maybe. But what else can you do when the sun shines, and yet a man continues to deny it?


Listen up, when you want to have a grown up conversation, you know, all serious like, then come back and talk to me. As long as you are going to throw childish accusations and ignore the facts presented to you because they would destroy your propaganda, you are just wasting my and everyone else's time who is trying to contribute. So, get rid of the hate, face reality, and then come have a civilized discussion. Are there different views? Yes, but in order for yours to be considered, you have to recognize points that are brought up. You can't just leave them behind.

 

[David85]

[quote name='MorPhiend']
I don't agree with the buttkissing and pandering comments. I think he's serious.[/quote]


HAHAHAHA

He is a politician that says any bullshit he can. Remember last years and the "Space Plan" he had? "One billion more a year" he said, that won't even cover for inflation.

 

[Hereticked]

[quote name='MorPhiend']You are Bombthrowing again! Old habits are hard to lose, eh?

And the rest of your political hogwash? Garbage Bombthrowing!

That's not an arguement when you do that! It's Nazi-ish Propaganda![/quote]

Hey Morphiend, why do you keep bombthrowing? Is that all you can do? Keep spewing garbage and bomb throwing? Why are you such a nazi bomb thrower?

See how hard that is? Damn, I'm exhausted! I don't know how you fill up half your posts with that stuff man.... But I suppose you have to when you're not saying anything of substance.


[quote name='MorPhiend']I like how you quoted specific little "bytes" that didn't include the backing I used so that you could spin things as you please.[/quote]

I like how you haven't used a single link to back up anything you've said in this entire thread, thus proving you really are a complete hypocrite.


[quote name='MorPhiend']You are arguing definition! I know the definition![/quote]

Umm... right on!


[quote name='MorPhiend']My claims were actions! Things that will come to pass, not the definition![/quote]

Sounds great!


[quote name='MorPhiend']That's like you telling me something (a definition), I agree with you but then say that there's a problem with the concept (function, not definition), and you continue to yell at me that your definition is correct![/quote]

JESUS CHRIST ON A UNICYCLE, that's a lot of nothing!!!


[quote name='MorPhiend']Straw man? Tackle that straw man then![/quote]

Yeah!!!!


[quote name='MorPhiend']You said we didn't need to act (even though there was a need for fixes)[/quote]

WHERE?!?

WHERE DID I SAY THAT?!? You ing retard.

Quote it for me!

You can't can you? Because it doesn't exist.

[quote name='Hereticked']The program is solvent through 2028-2036 depending on which study you read, and with minor adjustments could live on for a long time.[/quote]

THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

"with minor adjustments"

Maybe in your warped pea of a brain that means "don't do anything" but to anyone who knows how to read, its painfully obvious it doesn't mean that.


[quote name='MorPhiend']Listen up, when you want to have a grown up conversation, you know, all serious like, then come back and talk to me.[/quote]

No, you listen up.

When YOU are ready to have a serious conversation, to actually read what the other person wrote, to not spend half of your post making shit up and insulting, then YOU come back and talk to me.

Note : I'm well aware that this post was almost as bad as Morphiend's last one, but I'm just responding to his spewing. If all he wants is to have a kindegarten style bitching match with loads of name calling, thats what he gets.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='MorPhiend']...You are arguing definition! I know the definition! My claims were actions! Things that will come to pass, not the definition! That's like you telling me something (a definition), I agree with you but then say that there's a problem with the concept (function, not definition), and you continue to yell at me that your definition is correct!...[/quote]

And I thought MrFriday was difficult to understand.

 

[MorPhiend]

[quote name='camoor'][quote name='MorPhiend']...You are arguing definition! I know the definition! My claims were actions! Things that will come to pass, not the definition! That's like you telling me something (a definition), I agree with you but then say that there's a problem with the concept (function, not definition), and you continue to yell at me that your definition is correct!...[/quote]

And I thought MrFriday was difficult to understand.[/quote]

It seems simple to me. but, of course, they are my thoughts. I'm just trying to say that there are different types of arguements. And for example, that's why "news" shows with pundits usually never get anywhere is because as in this case, someone is arguing definition (x=y) and the other person says, "Okay, x=y, but z is because of x, not w because of x" (causal arguement). Then the person goes back to x=y, even though that point has already been conceded. And this ends up leading nowhere.

And I can't believe you are comparing me to him...

 

[bmulligan]

Well hereticked, since you know that Social Security is an 'insurance' program, then you obviously know what happens when insurance companies have more people making claims than are paying premiums.
Arguing about the date of insolvency does not negate the fact that a crisis is inevitable. Since you believe otherwise, please tell me how your plan of small adjustments will keep it alive indefinitely. You talk big words, but deliver few facts.

Social Security is a welfare program . It creates a consituency dependant upon its payout, with no hope of resolution (except death). Even insurance companies know when to deny claims, or drop your policy if you are too high a risk. When the government is in this type of insurance business, the conception of equal protection prevents them from denying one's policy. How is it equitable that someone who lives to be 95 gets 30 years of benefits, and someone who lives to be 70 only gets 5 years and their family gets nothing when they die?

The other nice things about 'insurance' programs is that you can shop around, or even choose not to buy one. Not so with SS. The amount of money I've wasted paying to the government over the last 20 years for Social Security could have brought me an early retirement had I been given the opportunity to invest it myself with no government involvement. That money was taken from me without my choice and given to those who chose not to save for their own retirement 40 years ago. Now we are all going to be punished for the bad choices people made with their money because the government promised them a retirement benefit when they were still of working age.

Social Security should be bought out and abolished . Unfortunately it would create a huge debt that would force politicians to trim our government to only necessary services, and interrupt the ocean of cash they reap from our economy every year under the guise of "helping people be secure", and being as frivilous and irresponsible with free money as they have been for almost two centuries.

Believe what you will, the SS program is not analagous to the fire department. It is not a 'free rider' program. We all do not immediately benefit from it. Future benefit not realized does not count, no matter how loud you scream it and insult your opposition. Social security, along with every other welfare program, is discrimination plain and simple. It is the Government discriminating against those who produce by confiscation, and discrimination against those who are not 65 years or older.

 

[Drocket]

My house has never burned down, not even a little bit. That most likely has a lot to do with the fact that I'm extremely careful - most house fires are caused by carelessness. Just last year, the house across the street from me burned down because they were using an ancient space heater that shorted out.

So I've never used the fire department, and am probably never going to use the fire department. I'm not actually deriving any benefit from the service, so why should I be forced to pay for it? Even if I do want the service, I have a smoke detector and fire extinquisher on every floor of my house - don't I deserve a reduced rate for that? Why should non-smokers have to pay for the increased rate of fire created by smokers?

I think we need to privatize the entire fire department system. With competition, I'm willing to bet that we could greatly reduce the overall cost of the service by eliminating goverment waste. Individuals could choose between multiple companies offering different coverage plans and pick the service that's right for them. Not all houses are the same, so it doesn't make sense for only one fire department to take care of all of them. Having multiple companies would enable them to create a fire service plan just right for each individual.

 

[Hereticked]

[quote name='bmulligan']Well hereticked, since you know that Social Security is an 'insurance' program, then you obviously know what happens when insurance companies have more people making claims than are paying premiums.

How is it equitable that someone who lives to be 95 gets 30 years of benefits, and someone who lives to be 70 only gets 5 years and their family gets nothing when they die?[/quote]

Inaccurate comparison. I've already explained that Social Security, as an insurance program, is about the social contract, and is a safety net program.

It's not SUPPOSED to benefit everyone equally because not everyone is going to need it. It's about making sure that we function as a society. It is recognizing that the "every man for himself" approach doesn't work, recognizing that it is possible for a man to fall off a roof, break his spine, and be in severe pain and suffering for the rest of his life, and unable to work.

Rather than learn from the lessons of history, you are choosing to repeat the mistakes. Or perhaps it is simply that you don't care what happens to your fellow man as long as everything works out fine for you?


[quote name='bmulligan']Arguing about the date of insolvency does not negate the fact that a crisis is inevitable. Since you believe otherwise, please tell me how your plan of small adjustments will keep it alive indefinitely. You talk big words, but deliver few facts.[/quote]

Planning for insolvency is a simple matter, you simply adjust the rates as needed.

Everyone knows that the baby boom generation is retiring soon, that is why Social Security has been taking in more than it pays out for the last 20 or so years. It has been accumulating in anticipation of that very problem.

The bottomline is that this is not nearly as big an issue as the right wing media has been hyping it to be, and the hype is purely so that this neo-con administration can transform (read : destroy) the program.

If you want more info, you can go to Congressman Bernie Sanders website, he has plenty of propositions for dealing with the issue : http://www.bernie.house.gov/seniors/socialsecurity.asp



[quote name='bmulligan']Social Security is a welfare program . It creates a consituency dependant upon its payout, with no hope of resolution (except death). [/quote]

Social Security doesn't "create" anything, it deals with the problem that already exists.

Thats called trying to reframe the issue. Its a lie, and Im not buying it.


[quote name='bmulligan']Social security is discrimination plain and simple. It is the Government discriminating against those who produce by confiscation, and discrimination against those who are not 65 years or older.[/quote]

No, what that is is your extremely uninformed opinion, your living DISTORTION, no doubt inspired by Rand, Hayek, or any other number of insane, greed-consumed hacks.

 

[Hereticked]

[quote name='Drocket']I think we need to privatize the entire fire department system. With competition, I'm willing to bet that we could greatly reduce the overall cost of the service by eliminating goverment waste. Individuals could choose between multiple companies offering different coverage plans and pick the service that's right for them. Not all houses are the same, so it doesn't make sense for only one fire department to take care of all of them. Having multiple companies would enable them to create a fire service plan just right for each individual.[/quote]


Hahahahaha....


Gold. :lol:

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='bmulligan']Well hereticked, since you know that Social Security is an 'insurance' program, then you obviously know what happens when insurance companies have more people making claims than are paying premiums.
Arguing about the date of insolvency does not negate the fact that a crisis is inevitable. Since you believe otherwise, please tell me how your plan of small adjustments will keep it alive indefinitely. You talk big words, but deliver few facts.

Social Security is a welfare program . It creates a consituency dependant upon its payout, with no hope of resolution (except death). Even insurance companies know when to deny claims, or drop your policy if you are too high a risk. When the government is in this type of insurance business, the conception of equal protection prevents them from denying one's policy. How is it equitable that someone who lives to be 95 gets 30 years of benefits, and someone who lives to be 70 only gets 5 years and their family gets nothing when they die?

The other nice things about 'insurance' programs is that you can shop around, or even choose not to buy one. Not so with SS. The amount of money I've wasted paying to the government over the last 20 years for Social Security could have brought me an early retirement had I been given the opportunity to invest it myself with no government involvement. That money was taken from me without my choice and given to those who chose not to save for their own retirement 40 years ago. Now we are all going to be punished for the bad choices people made with their money because the government promised them a retirement benefit when they were still of working age.

Social Security should be bought out and abolished . Unfortunately it would create a huge debt that would force politicians to trim our government to only necessary services, and interrupt the ocean of cash they reap from our economy every year under the guise of "helping people be secure", and being as frivilous and irresponsible with free money as they have been for almost two centuries.

Believe what you will, the SS program is not analagous to the fire department. It is not a 'free rider' program. We all do not immediately benefit from it. Future benefit not realized does not count, no matter how loud you scream it and insult your opposition. Social security, along with every other welfare program, is discrimination plain and simple. It is the Government discriminating against those who produce by confiscation, and discrimination against those who are not 65 years or older.[/quote]

There's one difference between this form of discrimination and illegal discrimination, we all will, or have the potential to, grow out of it. A black man cannot grow out of being black, a woman cannot grow out of being a woman, that will never change. I could not vote until I was 18, I could not drive until I was 16 and a half, I could not drink until I was 21, but when I reached a certain age I could. These are all discriminatory laws, but they are not illegal, and rightly so.

You pull social security we will have more homeless elderly people, the suicide rate will increase (it's high already), and the living standard will plummet. Also, a person who works hard their whole life, say a factory worker, often does not have the ability to save that money. Yes, theoretically they could simply take the money they're putting away into social security and invest it themselves (hopefully they invest properly, otherwise they may spend their golden years on the street), but there are many people who spend all their earning on food, rent, kids etc., on necessities and still come up short. And, if they have poor elderly parents they may have to do even more to support them as well now. It isn't realistic to expect anyone, let alone someone who can't afford anything beyond the necessities, to never buy any luxury item or service. People just don't work that way. If you give someone $300 a week they may get by, you give them $350 they'll likely spend that as well, still barely getting by and not on frivelous items, but essentials. Sure, cut off the people who don't need it, people who are already wealthy, I'm not very concerned about them, they can do just fine without it.

You seem overly concerned with what is fair, society does not and should not work that way. You want to pull welfare, social security, anything you deem a "wealth redistribution" program, but the society itself will suffer. There will be more poverty, there will be more homeless, there will be more crime (due to poverty), and there will be very few ways for a person to dig themselves out of that. Then, what do they do with their kids? Even if the parent deserved to be poor, the child doesn't and will suffer just the same, including education, the best way to get out of poverty. I'm not sure if you believe education should be free, if you don't then you are basically giving the poor no shot. At the same time, the very reason it's fair, minimal taxes, no "wealth redistribution" (you're the only one I've ever heard of who referred to these programs as such) etc, makes it unfair by its very nature. A poor person whose job is outsourced, or the factory moves to mexico, or the child who was simply born into the situation, did nothing wrong but are still punished.

A society that allows for economic mobility, and for people to improve their lives and correct their mistakes, or rise above their parents mistakes, is preferable to a society that is fair simply to those who have money. The society I believe in is socially free and economically regulated, yours is socially free and, economically free. Yours is as free of a society that can realistically be constructed (since anarchy does not work, or last, by any stretch), but has such glaring problems and faults that it does not create a good or just society, simply a free one. There is no point in doing that, your society may be able to say it has more freedom than any other, but that does not make it better of. Very few people who have experienced true poverty would choose freedom over food and drink. As odd as this may seem to most americans, this is shown the world over, be it in venezuela with Hugo Chavez, or even in Cuba, where castro still has plenty of support. Your society assumes the opposite, since there will be millions more who simply have freedom, but nothing else. This is not an argument for communism, since it usually provides almost no freedom, and sometimes even fails at providing the essentials. It does not sound good to say that, it does not sound american or european, but in reality this is why american and european societies have improved over the last century and have become more succesful. They provide social freedom, while restricting economic freedom. That is also why the threat of revolutions from the poor have subsided. If a truly free society were ever created it may work for you (though personally my parents would likely end up on the street, or close to it, in their old age unless I have the money to support them, and without unemployment benefits they would have lost their home last year, so that society is not good for me either), but it would be hell for those who have nothing.

The problem is you're overly concerned with creating a fair society, and have little concern for how well that society works.

That was a long rant.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='hereticked']Inaccurate comparison. I've already explained that Social Security, as an insurance program, is about the social contract, and is a safety net program.

It's not SUPPOSED to benefit everyone equally because not everyone is going to need it. It's about making sure that we function as a society. It is recognizing that the "every man for himself" approach doesn't work, recognizing that it is possible for a man to fall off a roof, break his spine, and be in severe pain and suffering for the rest of his life, and unable to work. [/quote]

Perhaps that man should have purchased his own disability insurance program instead of defaulting on the rest of us.

Planning for insolvency is a simple matter, you simply adjust the rates as needed.

Everyone knows that the baby boom generation is retiring soon, that is why Social Security has been taking in more than it pays out for the last 20 or so years. It has been accumulating in anticipation of that very problem.

Simply adjust the rates. Nice doublespeak for increase the payroll tax burden for regular working americans as if it's nothing and will have no effect on anyone except helping the needy. And accumulation of Social Security money in anticipation? Do you have any idea what congress does with that money? They spend it. It does not accumulate in a 'lock box'.

Social Security doesn't "create" anything, it deals with the problem that already exists.

Thats called trying to reframe the issue. Its a lie, and Im not buying it.

As you described with your spineless man anecdote, it does 'create' a culture who chooses irresponsibility instead of prior proper planning because they know a 'safety net' exists that will take care of them no matter what happens. It encourages recklessness and eliminates incentive for personal responsibility. You seem to be a reframing expert so it's not suprising you accuse others of using your own tactics.

No, what that is is your extremely uninformed opinion, your living DISTORTION, no doubt inspired by Rand, Hayek, or any other number of insane, greed-consumed hacks.

Yes, I'm uninformed becuase I don't agree with your version of communism. Which displays more greed, the person who creates wealth and wants to keep it, or those that fritter and waste theirs away and democratically steal it from those who didn't ? Claiming a safety net is needed by those who chose not to act responsibly is a bastardization of freedom. Apparently you are another one of the faithless who believes in the ineptitude of mankind and the need to coddle them from cradle to grave becuase they cannot care for themselves.

Fortunately for your kind, there are still people in this country who can produce more than they consume. When you continue to assault them, punninsh their achievement, steal from their purse, chide them to thank you for it, there will eventually come a breaking point and your system will fall apart at the seams.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']

There's one difference between this form of discrimination and illegal discrimination, we all will, or have the potential to, grow out of it. A black man cannot grow out of being black, a woman cannot grow out of being a woman, that will never change. I could not vote until I was 18, I could not drive until I was 16 and a half, I could not drink until I was 21, but when I reached a certain age I could. These are all discriminatory laws, but they are not illegal, and rightly so. [/quote]

Chill alonzo, I was describing it as an absurdity, like the drocket the Swift. But as a black person cannot grow out of being black, an old person never grows out of being old. With regular welfare, people can sometimes get back on their feet and leave the program, not so with retirement. You keep drawing until you die, if you get there at all.

You pull social security we will have more homeless elderly people, the suicide rate will increase (it's high already), and the living standard will plummet. Also, a person who works hard their whole life, say a factory worker, often does not have the ability to save that money. Yes, theoretically they could simply take the money they're putting away into social security and invest it themselves (hopefully they invest properly, otherwise they may spend their golden years on the street), but there are many people who spend all their earning on food, rent, kids etc., on necessities and still come up short. And, if they have poor elderly parents they may have to do even more to support them as well now. It isn't realistic to expect anyone, let alone someone who can't afford anything beyond the necessities, to never buy any luxury item or service. People just don't work that way. If you give someone $300 a week they may get by, you give them $350 they'll likely spend that as well, still barely getting by and not on frivelous items, but essentials. Sure, cut off the people who don't need it, people who are already wealthy, I'm not very concerned about them, they can do just fine without it.

I didn't say cut off everyone who's paid into the system for 20 years. I said the SS system should be bought out then abolished. Then we should teach the people who were getting by at $300 a week to take that extra $45 and sock it away for their future. Eliminating that 'safety net' would do wonders for teaching personal responsibility when your fortune and sacred honor is really on the line, wouldn't it?

You seem overly concerned with what is fair, society does not and should not work that way. ...
The society I believe in is socially free and economically regulated, yours is socially free and, economically free. Yours is as free of a society that can realistically be constructed (since anarchy does not work, or last, by any stretch), but has such glaring problems and faults that it does not create a good or just society, simply a free one. There is no point in doing that, your society may be able to say it has more freedom than any other, but that does not make it better of.

God forbid I should be concerned with fairness, while you aren't. How are social and economic freedom not related? They are intertwined. I am not free to stay at the waldof astoria for 3 weeks out of the year, am I? Stop with the anarchy bit already, haven't we discussed this into the ground? Fairness does not equal anarchy. Limiting governmental control does not equal anarchy. Keeping one's own property does not mean anarchy. Or are you being purposefully absurd?

Very few people who have experienced true poverty would choose freedom over food and drink. As odd as this may seem to most americans, this is shown the world over, be it in venezuela with Hugo Chavez, or even in Cuba, where castro still has plenty of support. Your society assumes the opposite, since there will be millions more who simply have freedom, but nothing else.

Alonzo, we've already established in other threads that you do not know poor people, befriend any of them nor should you attempt to speak for them as a group. It's fine if they choose to give up their dignity and liberty for a few dollars from your pocket, but don't assume they need you to provide for them.

This is not an argument for communism, since it usually provides almost no freedom, and sometimes even fails at providing the essentials.

But doesn't communism provide freedom for the oppressed? Freedom from the slavery of ownership? Communism is EXACTLY what you describe: social freedom and economic restriction. And your welfare programs including social security don't seem to be providing all the essentials either, so let's up the ante and take more from the haves and give more to the have-nots until we can reach this perfect blend of social freedom and econimic control.

The problem is you're overly concerned with creating a fair society, and have little concern for how well that society works.

Again you have succinctly and unwittingly stated your pragmatist philosophy as being unconcerned with fairness, and more concerned with perception. It's rare when someone from your side of the fence can finally admit he doesn't really believe in fairness.

 

[Hereticked]

[quote name='bmulligan']Perhaps that man should have purchased his own disability insurance program instead of defaulting on the rest of us.[/quote]

Perhaps he can't because most of the good paying/good benefits jobs in this country have been (and continue to be) outsourced -_-

But lets not go there.... better just to assume things will be fine and that there are and will be plenty of good paying jobs, because Bush, his lying cronies, and the bullshit data his corrupt administration releases, say so.


[quote name='bmulligan']Simply adjust the rates. Nice doublespeak for increase the payroll tax burden for regular working americans as if it's nothing and will have no effect on anyone except helping the needy.[/quote]

Who said anything about taxing working americans more?

If you had read Congressman Sanders plan (you didnt obviously) lifting the cap on earnings, alone, could easily solve the problem. Right now fat cats only pay social security tax on the first $89,000 they "earn".

Why is it that the wealthy should pay so little into it when the average american is taxed on every penny they make? Anyone whos "made it" in this country, contrary to what you probably think, didnt do it alone. They did NOT do it soley by their own wits and skill. They utilized the commons. They took advantage of our education system, our public roads and highways, the conditions in this country that produce a strong work force, and so on and so on, all supported by tax payer money.

So why should they not pay into it equally? Just because they've been more "successful"?

You can't answer that of course, except to say *SNORT* WELL THEY SHOULDNT BE TAXED BECAUSE THATS COMPULSION *SNORT*

You social darwinists just don't get it.


[quote name='bmulligan']And accumulation of Social Security money in anticipation? Do you have any idea what congress does with that money? They spend it. It does not accumulate in a 'lock box'.[/quote]

*Bzzzzzzzt* Wrong!

The surplus money is put into the Social Security trust fund, where it can in fact earn interest.

When losers like the Bush administration borrow from the trust fund to pay for illegal wars because they're too incompetent to even manage a budget correctly, they still have to pay it back.


[quote name='bmulligan']As you described with your spineless man anecdote, it does 'create' a culture who chooses irresponsibility instead of prior proper planning because they know a 'safety net' exists[/quote]

What a crock......

Are you going to NOT buy insurance because you know Social Security is there? NO. And neither do the vast majority of people.

"Oh they dont really want to work." "Oh, they wont buy insurance if they know a program like Social Security is there."

Do you actually believe this stuff? Has right-wing punditry so embedded this crap into your conciousness that you just accept it as fact?

Show me a man with a debilitating injury, and 99 out of 100 times, Ill show you a man that's ashamed he cant work anymore. And I don't know anyone who decided not to buy insurance (of any kind) because they know they'll have a social security check coming in the most dire of circumstances.... that's just ludicrous.


[quote name='bmulligan']Fortunately for your kind, there are still people in this country who can produce more than they consume.[/quote]

My "kind"? You don't know anything about me, let alone how much I "produce".

Reducing human beings to nothing but "producers" and "consumers" is the beginning of your folly.


[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, I'm uninformed becuase I don't agree with your version of communism.[/quote]

Oh no, the C word! He called me the C word!!!

*flees in terror*



What a pathetic scare tactic. This is not communism, this is the social contract, which you do not understand. It has been here for decades, and once it is destroyed, people will demand its return, and if it does not return, there will be revolution.

We do not live in a society where the wealthy can live at the expense of the majority, no matter how much posturing pundits do, how much propaganda spews over the airwaves, and how much you wish life was based on the rules of economics. Yes thats right, RULES, not laws. Business is a game, and when government is instituted, RULES are decided upon for those who would play the game of business and make money. You start to break those rules, and screw with the commons, the people have the right to utterly destroy you.

 

[MrBadExample]

Can we privatize national security as well? I'm in a podunk town with absolutely no military significance so I don't see why my tax dollars should support a war against people who do not directly threaten me. I could use that portion of my tax dollars to fund my own personal security force or none at all if I choose.

But wait, you say, what about the rest of the country that needs my money to protect it? Tough noogies! If I don't have to worry about what happens to elderly people who didn't properly invest their money, I shouldn't have to sweat NYC or DC the next time they are attacked.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Hereticked'][quote name='bmulligan']Perhaps that man should have purchased his own disability insurance program instead of defaulting on the rest of us.[/quote]

Perhaps he can't because most of the good paying/good benefits jobs in this country have been (and continue to be) outsourced -_-

But lets not go there.... better just to assume things will be fine and that there are and will be plenty of good paying jobs, because Bush, his lying cronies, and the bullshit data his corrupt administration releases, say so.

[/quote]

Nice cop out answer - things are bad and jobs are being outsourced. You say people cant afford to buy insurance, yet they can pay social security tax every week out of their paycheck without any choice in the matter. That's it, you don't believe people have the ability to think for themselves, they muct be cared for along with their money in order to get things right for everyone. That's called tyrany.

[quote name='Hereticked'] Anyone whos "made it" in this country, contrary to what you probably think, didnt do it alone. They did NOT do it soley by their own wits and skill. They utilized the commons. [/quote]

*BuZZZZZZZZZZ

This time you got it wrong. It doesn't take a village to make a genius, an achiever, a successful business person, a successfull anything. Yes, some do get a helping hand, some do not. Sorry but you don't get any credit for the accomplishments of others, unless you were personally responsible for their success. This is another fatal flaw of your philosophy. In your communist ideallic society it's a requirement, but
every other person in the world does not have a claim on your life and liberty. You believe that my freedom is based upon your permission, negating the concept of freedom at it's definition.

They took advantage of our education system, our public roads and highways, the conditions in this country that produce a strong work force, and so on and so on, all supported by tax payer money.

And most of them also already paid for those services, so they're entitled to enjoy their benefits.

So why should they not pay into it equally? Just because they've been more "successful"?

You can't answer that of course, except to say *SNORT* WELL THEY SHOULDNT BE TAXED BECAUSE THATS COMPULSION *SNORT*

As a matter of fact, I've already answered it. Recipients of your 'social contract', according to your views expressed, remain slaves to everyone else their entire lives. Your contract requires a price of admission to participate, and allows you to claim ownership of everything they may produce in the future. That's called slavery. I'll agree with lifting the cap on income. I'm self-employed and have to pay my full share regardless of my income, and I pay the full amount of 12.4%, not half like most regular wage earners getting 6.2% deducted from their checks. However, eliminating the cap would not solve the problem, pun intended:

Specifically, eliminating the cap on taxable wages would:

Result in the largest tax increase in the history of the United States--$425.2 billion in nominal dollars over five years.9

Fail to save Social Security from bankruptcy; it would push back the system's insolvency date by only six years, from 2013 to 2019.10

Increase the top federal marginal effective tax rate on labor income to 54.9 percent,11 its highest level since the 1970s.

Reduce the family budgets of 23.4 million Americans by an average of $9,147 in the first year alone after the tax cap is removed.12

Weaken the economy by reducing the number of job opportunities by 219,000 in 2004 and the amount of personal savings by $34.4 billion that year as well.13

You social darwinists just don't get it.

And you communists just don't understand econimics.

[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='Hereticked']And accumulation of Social Security money in anticipation? Do you have any idea what congress does with that money? They spend it. It does not accumulate in a 'lock box'.[/quote]

*Bzzzzzzzt* Wrong!

The surplus money is put into the Social Security trust fund, where it can in fact earn interest.[/quote]

Trust fund, right. You ARE a tool.

When losers like the Bush administration borrow from the trust fund to pay for illegal wars because they're too incompetent to even manage a budget correctly, they still have to pay it back.

And you still don't know who appropriates money in the government, do you....

Do you actually believe this stuff? Has right-wing punditry so embedded this crap into your conciousness that you just accept it as fact?

Show me a man with a debilitating injury, and 99 out of 100 times, Ill show you a man that's ashamed he cant work anymore. And I don't know anyone who decided not to buy insurance (of any kind) because they know they'll have a social security check coming in the most dire of circumstances.... that's just ludicrous.


[quote name='bmulligan']Fortunately for your kind, there are still people in this country who can produce more than they consume.

My "kind"? You don't know anything about me, let alone how much I "produce".

Reducing human beings to nothing but "producers" and "consumers" is the beginning of your folly.[/quote]

And blinding yourself from truth is yours.

What a pathetic scare tactic. This is not communism, this is the social contract, which you do not understand. It has been here for decades, and once it is destroyed, people will demand its return, and if it does not return, there will be revolution.

It's not a scare tactic, it's your philosophy played to it's logical conclusion. Social and economic control. Your kind desires order and cannot stomach the chaos, ingenuity, and progress that is a result of freedom. I'm not trying to scare you, just labeling you with the correct category.

We do not live in a society where the wealthy can live at the expense of the majority, no matter how much posturing pundits do, how much propaganda spews over the airwaves, and how much you wish life was based on the rules of economics. Yes thats right, RULES, not laws. Business is a game, and when government is instituted, RULES are decided upon for those who would play the game of business and make money. You start to break those rules, and screw with the commons, the people have the right to utterly destroy you.

You are correct, but not in the way you think. The people also have the freedom to NOT buy certain products, keep their money in savings, and make their own clothes and peanut butter instead of buying it off the shelf. The people can destroy your enterprise by abandonment.

You think economics follows rules not laws - your rules - set arbitrarily by certain individuals in power. I believe the rules are set by each individual when he decides how to spend his dollar, not by fiat.
Companies and industries are democratically elected, not granted by your controllers or rulemakers.

Laws of human nature exist, however, just as does the law of gravity. People behave in certain ways, trading value for value and do so naturally by choice, not by force. My kind existed well before your form of tyranny evolved, and we will rise up again to rebuild society in it's natural form after your social revolution takes place and folds in upon itself again.

 

[bmulligan]

double post, sorry

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='bmulligan']My kind existed well before your form of tyranny evolved, and we will rise up again to rebuild society in it's natural form after your social revolution takes place and folds in upon itself again.[/quote]
Like cockroaches after a nuclear war.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='"bmulligan"']

Chill alonzo, I was describing it as an absurdity, like the drocket the Swift. But as a black person cannot grow out of being black, an old person never grows out of being old. With regular welfare, people can sometimes get back on their feet and leave the program, not so with retirement. You keep drawing until you die, if you get there at all.

And? We all can grow into that benefit, our birth has no influence on how we are treated, unlike the other forms.

I didn't say cut off everyone who's paid into the system for 20 years. I said the SS system should be bought out then abolished. Then we should teach the people who were getting by at $300 a week to take that extra $45 and sock it away for their future. Eliminating that 'safety net' would do wonders for teaching personal responsibility when your fortune and sacred honor is really on the line, wouldn't it?

It doesn't really matter who you eliminate for, those who already paid or future generations. A person who works hard all there just, just making rent, just scraping by, will be screwed when they are no longer able to work. And, if the government informed them of how much would have been put aside and they should invest it, you still are facing 3 problems. One, if you're barely surviving there are other essentials it could easily go towards paying. Two, people always buy some comforts if possible, toys for kids etc., that little bit of money per month would not be viewed as something to save, it would be viewed as a little extra to help a struggling family make a decent life in the month to month situation (though it would be harder when you consider other programs you'd cut). And, third, you assume that people will invest the money responsibly, or even at all. It is unrealistic to expect this, plain and simple.

God forbid I should be concerned with fairness, while you aren't. How are social and economic freedom not related? They are intertwined. I am not free to stay at the waldof astoria for 3 weeks out of the year, am I? Stop with the anarchy bit already, haven't we discussed this into the ground? Fairness does not equal anarchy. Limiting governmental control does not equal anarchy. Keeping one's own property does not mean anarchy. Or are you being purposefully absurd?

Umm..... I've already explained why you're not an anarchist, again you don't seem to realize that a minimal government is not anarachy. Anarchy is the absence of government. Besides, for all the communist stuff you spout you should be the last to complain about being mislabeled. I could just as easily use the last few sentences in my response. Though I referred to fair as treating everyone as equal, my society is not fair that way. If you are referring to fair as creating a just society with the best chance of social mobility, then my society is much more fair than yours. Though economic freedom and social freedom are related, but separate. No one is taking anything beyond taxes, no one is storming their homes removing things, no one is forcing them to live in a small apartment. You already believe in some taxation, so there is a degree of limitation on economic freedom in your world view, my degree is simply higher, but we both limit it to an extent.

Alonzo, we've already established in other threads that you do not know poor people, befriend any of them nor should you attempt to speak for them as a group. It's fine if they choose to give up their dignity and liberty for a few dollars from your pocket, but don't assume they need you to provide for them.

For one, that was never established. Two, most people living in poverty in the u.s. do not face true poverty, such as people did in the countries I mentioned. Look into the popularity of hugo chavez, or the still very sizeable minority of support castro has and why he has it (and why he once had majority support, the brutality of batista is only one reason), what led to that support. We don't have that kind of poverty, but I wouldn't be able to say that if someone with your mind gained power and had the ability to do as you suggested. We live in a relatively safe, stable society, one where, essentially, everyone has food, people aren't starving on the streets as they do in some societies. Whole communities aren't starving, dying of malnutrition, lack of medical care, lack of medicine, lack of clean water, no access to education etc. Those societies are not the target audience of your ideas.

But doesn't communism provide freedom for the oppressed? Freedom from the slavery of ownership? Communism is EXACTLY what you describe: social freedom and economic restriction. And your welfare programs including social security don't seem to be providing all the essentials either, so let's up the ante and take more from the haves and give more to the have-nots until we can reach this perfect blend of social freedom and econimic control. [/qupte]

It depends on how you are referring to communism. Communism, as described by marx, does include social freedom, it does include rights to ones own labor. Communism, as it has been practiced, would have shocked marx if he had ever seen it, and would have been almost beyond recognition to him. It has, quite often, provided little or none of the things promised. But, whether referring to communism as marx described or as practiced by future generations, I am not describing communism. Class conflict, revolution, the eventual emergence as the worker as the dominant force in the society, the one in control, with the subjugation and elimination of the capitalist, does not fit what I have described. My views fit much more closely with european socialism, not identically of course, but pretty close. In the end, those societies share little in common with communism, marxist or otherwise.

Again you have succinctly and unwittingly stated your pragmatist philosophy as being unconcerned with fairness, and more concerned with perception. It's rare when someone from your side of the fence can finally admit he doesn't really believe in fairness.

Perception is useful to maintain public support, but I am concerned with how things work, the society they create. I am not content to see my ideals instituted only to find poverty has increased, you would be. That would be a complete and total defeat of my argument, that those reforms led to a more just, less socially rigid, and in that sense fair society. I can simply point to parts europe to show that is not the case, but if it were I would not clinge to my current ideals. Again, I have explained that in using fairness I was referring to treating everyone as equal, regardless of wealth, which in that sense my ideas are not fair. But I don't get why you seem to think pragmatism is a bad thing, much better to be that than an idealist. Honestly, that is what I would prefer to be seen as.

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']It doesn't really matter who you eliminate for, those who already paid or future generations. A person who works hard all there just, just making rent, just scraping by, will be screwed when they are no longer able to work. And, if the government informed them of how much would have been put aside and they should invest it, you still are facing 3 problems. One, if you're barely surviving there are other essentials it could easily go towards paying. Two, people always buy some comforts if possible, toys for kids etc., that little bit of money per month would not be viewed as something to save, it would be viewed as a little extra to help a struggling family make a decent life in the month to month situation (though it would be harder when you consider other programs you'd cut). And, third, you assume that people will invest the money responsibly, or even at all. It is unrealistic to expect this, plain and simple.[/quote]
You missed one: even if an individual invests, there's absolutely no guarantees that he'll get anything back. There's nothing funner than investing your money with someone like Bush's old buddy, Lay, and having it all wiped out with another Enron scandal. Even if you avoid Enron-like companies, there's still a risk of a Great-Depression-like market crash, which was one of the driving forces for the creation of Social Security in the first place - private investment was proven to simply be too risky for most people's tastes. The golden rule for investing is never invest money you can't afford to lose. I'm willing to bet that for 99% of the population, Social Security qualifies as money they can't afford to lose.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='alonzomourning23']It doesn't really matter who you eliminate for, those who already paid or future generations. A person who works hard all there just, just making rent, just scraping by, will be screwed when they are no longer able to work. And, if the government informed them of how much would have been put aside and they should invest it, you still are facing 3 problems. One, if you're barely surviving there are other essentials it could easily go towards paying. Two, people always buy some comforts if possible, toys for kids etc., that little bit of money per month would not be viewed as something to save, it would be viewed as a little extra to help a struggling family make a decent life in the month to month situation (though it would be harder when you consider other programs you'd cut). And, third, you assume that people will invest the money responsibly, or even at all. It is unrealistic to expect this, plain and simple.[/quote]
You missed one: even if an individual invests, there's absolutely no guarantees that he'll get anything back. There's nothing funner than investing your money with someone like Bush's old buddy, Lay, and having it all wiped out with another Enron scandal. Even if you avoid Enron-like companies, there's still a risk of a Great-Depression-like market crash, which was one of the driving forces for the creation of Social Security in the first place - private investment was proven to simply be too risky for most people's tastes. The golden rule for investing is never invest money you can't afford to lose. I'm willing to bet that for 99% of the population, Social Security qualifies as money they can't afford to lose.[/quote]

You're right, private investment is risky. Everything is risky. Walking out your front door is risky, but we still do it, right? Isn't that what life is about, taking risks? Lives that don't aren't really being lived, or are selling insurance. There are investments that have minimal or virtually no risk, their returns are much less, but in the face of the pittence that is a social security income, they are more than sound. Additionally, social secdurity at it's inception as well as today is not to be considered an income, only a supplement. Everyone should still be planning for their future, the fact that most don't again profve my point that our culture is breeding generations that think someone else will be there to take care of them no matter what happens. That kind of thinking fosters carelessness and inaction, and rewards the irresponsible.

I'm not in favor of the presidents plan to 'privatize' (a misnomer) the SS system. It's the dumbest freaking thing I've ever heard. Why create another layer of bureaucracy and debt that will probably only serve to make the problem worse. I think it should be abolished. Since this is a virtual impossibility, let's just call it welfare just like all the other programs that are issued in a similar manner. Let's not have it sold to us as a 'retirement plan', which it's not, to give a false sense of security. The old people lobby is strong enough to get their 'fair' share, fine. Welfare's just something I have to live with becuase of the tyranny of the majority. I can live with it if they stop telling me that dog shit really smells like roses. And thy want me to pay for a heaping pile of dog shit so I can get a giftwrapped piece every month from age 65 until I kick.

 

[bmulligan]

BTW, Drocket, the cockroach thing was pretty funny.

 

[Hereticked]

[quote name='bmulligan']That's it, you don't believe people have the ability to think for themselves, they muct be cared for along with their money in order to get things right for everyone. That's called tyrany.[/quote]

No, thats a ridiculous oversimplification of what I said.

However, assuming if everyone invests that money in the stock market they'll be better off when it comes time to pull it (whether its because theyve become debilitated or just for retirement), that IS stupidity.

You see, the majority of Americans are actually interested in whats best for society, not just what potentially benefits the individual. And since that is the case, idealogies like yours will always be defeated. A program like Social Security does more for "rational self interest" than anything you've proposed. There's nothing rational about your ilk's self interest.


[quote name='bmulligan']This time you got it wrong. It doesn't take a village to make a genius, an achiever, a successful business person, a successfull anything. Yes, some do get a helping hand, some do not. Sorry but you don't get any credit for the accomplishments of others, unless you were personally responsible for their success.[/quote]

Uhhh, no, I'm not wrong.

What you did was state that I said something which I never said, then argued against it.

You have to do that, because you can't argue against the fact that we ALL do utilize the commons.


[quote name='bmulligan']And most of them also already paid for those services, so they're entitled to enjoy their benefits.[/quote]

Absolutely.

What it doesn't mean is that they should stop paying for those services, or pay less.

[quote name='bmulligan']As a matter of fact, I've already answered it. Recipients of your 'social contract', according to your views expressed, remain slaves to everyone else their entire lives. Your contract requires a price of admission to participate, and allows you to claim ownership of everything they may produce in the future.[/quote]

Wrong.

Being part of the social contract doesn't mean that someone else has some kind of dominion over your accomplishments. Being part of the social contract simply means that you acknowledge that there are certain things which we use, and fund as a society, not individually, and that the utilization of that infrastructure that is in place today helped you to get where you are.

You can delude yourself with the illusion of the "ruggest individualist" all you like. Even the most rugged among us utilize the commons in a modern society.


[quote name='bmulligan']http://www.heritage.org/[/quote]

I stopped reading there.

Give me a website and some numbers with some fiscal credibility, if you can.



[quote name='bmulligan']Trust fund, right. You ARE a tool.[/quote]

No, you're the tool..... of the Bush administration.

The fact that they're robbing it blind doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html


[quote name='bmulligan']And you still don't know who appropriates money in the government, do you....[/quote]

Sure I do. Our Republican congress that marches in lock-step with the Bush administration.


[quote name='bmulligan']And blinding yourself from truth is yours.[/quote]

Right......

I'm the one who's explaing how the most successful government program in history, a program that helped saved our country from economic ruin, a program that is being sabotaged to push forth a right-wing agenda, and you are arguing for the most ridiculous, utopian, pro-corporate wet dream...... and I'm the one whos blinding myself to the truth.




[quote name='bmulligan']Your kind desires order and cannot stomach the chaos, ingenuity, and progress that is a result of freedom. I'm not trying to scare you, just labeling you with the correct category.[/quote]

Order will always be found favorable to chaos, that is the nature of civilization, if not its purpose. What you are advocating is not freedom because you fail to understand that without social mobility, without TRUE rational self interest (which is the self interest of society, not just the individual) there is no freedom. Freedom is about more than property rights, and until you comprehend that your thinking will be severely limited.

You can call me a Communist all you want. It doesn't bother me because :

1) I understand that Communism is simply an economic philosophy, not a political one (like Capitalism) and that it has its advantages and its flaws (like Capitalism).

2) I'm not advocating Communism. In a Communist system property is owned collectively and equally shared among citizens. We've had the commons and the social contract in the United States for decades, and we don't own property collectively or share property equally among citizens.

So, you can sit there and call me a Communist until you're blue in the face. By the definition, I'm not, and anyone who cares to look it up in the dictionary will see that.


[quote name='bmulligan']You are correct, but not in the way you think. The people also have the freedom to NOT buy certain products, keep their money in savings, and make their own clothes and peanut butter instead of buying it off the shelf.[/quote]

Yes they do, and none of that is prevented by Social Security. If some people are too dense to understand the reason and the necessity of a safety net, tough! Maintaining that safety net does not prevent you from living out those rugged individualist fantasies, nor will your ideaology hold in the wake of the destruction of Social Security. Once the safety net is gone the populace will demand it back. The Bush administration's transformation will be short lived, assuming the nation survives it.


[quote name='bmulligan']You think economics follows rules not laws - your rules[/quote]

No.

There are laws of economics, but that is not the same thing as the rules of business. That you don't understand this most simple of principles betrays your conditioning.


[quote name='bmulligan']set arbitrarily by certain individuals in power.[/quote]

No.

Set by the people through their elected representatives, to ensure that corporate power does not become stifling, does not influence government (which it has no right to do), and to ensure that the interests of the people are not being betrayed, especially when it comes to the environment, the most basic of the commons that all of us depend on.


[quote name='bmulligan']My kind existed well before your form of tyranny evolved[/quote]

Yes... your kind did exist before "my form of tyranny".

They were called Neanderthals.


[quote name='Drocket']
Like cockroaches[/quote]

Vampires seems like a better analogy..... but "cockroachs" works too.

 

[alonzomourning23]

You're right, private investment is risky. Everything is risky. Walking out your front door is risky, but we still do it, right? Isn't that what life is about, taking risks? Lives that don't aren't really being lived, or are selling insurance. There are investments that have minimal or virtually no risk, their returns are much less, but in the face of the pittence that is a social security income, they are more than sound. Additionally, social secdurity at it's inception as well as today is not to be considered an income, only a supplement. Everyone should still be planning for their future, the fact that most don't again profve my point that our culture is breeding generations that think someone else will be there to take care of them no matter what happens. That kind of thinking fosters carelessness and inaction, and rewards the irresponsible.

Again, it comes down to what is the role of government. If you believe, as I do, that the role of government is to provide the best society possible for its people, then social security is simply part of that. But I'm sure most poor wouldn't mind going back to the times before social security, before all the safety nets and programs to help disadvantaged families, right? That's why it's only the guilty rich who push for these programs, right?

True it may reward some irresponsible. But, again, a poor mother or father who makes 300 a week and barely gets by could make 350 a week and still put all that money towards essentials, without any frivelous purchases. We could save money and have a cutoff point, you have such and such funds then you don't get any social security, or a variable amount depending on wealth. But then you'd complain that that is even less fair.

Again, it's not just the completely irresponsible. I'm not poor, but these things do affect my family as well. My parents worked there whole lives, had a sizeable flow of money come in. They may have sometimes spent a little excessively, but never anything absurd, and spent more within their means than more financially stable members of my family. My father has attempted to invest money, though he ended up losing or breaking even depending on what. A few other failed investments, including a failed business (run while my parents both had full time jobs), and my father hospitalized, fired, then hospitalized again, we almost lost our home. The only reason we didn't was due to the social saftey nets you so loathe, in this case work and government unemployment benefits, that he was on for 11 months total (6 from work, 5 government). If you were in control, would we still have our house?

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Hereticked']

No, thats a ridiculous oversimplification of what I said.[/quote]

That's rich, coming from someone who only speaks in simplifications.

However, assuming if everyone invests that money in the stock market they'll be better off when it comes time to pull it (whether its because theyve become debilitated or just for retirement), that IS stupidity.

wrong again, the US stock markets are the best investments one can make over time, given a conservative investment portfolio. the largest and strongest economy in the world, even with governmnet confiscation, negates your claim.

You see, the majority of Americans are actually interested in whats best for society, not just what potentially benefits the individual. And since that is the case, idealogies like yours will always be defeated. A program like Social Security does more for "rational self interest" than anything you've proposed. There's nothing rational about your ilk's self interest.

Again, you deny human nature to preserve one's own life first and foremost before worrying about the 'common good'.

What you did was state that I said something which I never said, then argued against it.

You have to do that, because you can't argue against the fact that we ALL do utilize the commons.

again, you accuse others of using your tactics. I've never said we don't use your 'commons' , I said we don't all get a claim on others lives simply becasue we all take advantage of the bus and education .

art of the social contract doesn't mean that someone else has some kind of dominion over your accomplishments. Being part of the social contract simply means that you acknowledge that there are certain things which we use, and fund as a society, not individually, and that the utilization of that infrastructure that is in place today helped you to get where you are.

No one has claimed there is no need for 'common' utilities, we disagree which should exist, and who should control them, and on what level.

[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='hereticked']http://www.heritage.org/[/quote]

I stopped reading there.[/quote]

Of course you did, because you can't bring yourself to even read a view contracy to your own.

[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='hereticked']Trust fund, right. You ARE a tool.[/quote]

No, you're the tool..... of the Bush administration.

The fact that they're robbing it blind (SS) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html[/quote]

Do you even know what a security is? Do you know what this "trust fund" money purchases? Do you know who they purchase it from? Obviously you believe it's like a bank account. It's not. It's free money given to the government, used to purchase a bond from the treasury. The trust fund is a promisary note or IOU, that it owes to itself! There's absolutely nothing backing up this investment except the faith the congress can cover it's obligation by future taxation. It's a bookeeping scheme Kenny Lay would be proud of and wish he'd had control over. You're not just a tool, you're an idiot if you believe there's money in that 'lock box' accruing interest for a rainy day.

[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='hereticked']don't know who appropriates money in the government, do you....[/quote]

Sure I do. Our Republican congress that marches in lock-step with the Bush administration.[/quote]

Yes, as you have stated over and over again, all this thievery and corruption started with Bush. Sorry, AND the Republican controlled congress elected 2 years ago, not 4. Nice try, but wrong again.

I'm the one who's explaing how the most successful government program in history, a program that helped saved our country from economic ruin, a program that is being sabotaged to push forth a right-wing agenda, and you are arguing for the most ridiculous, utopian, pro-corporate wet dream...... and I'm the one whos blinding myself to the truth.

The most successful program on the verge of collapse, consisting of almost half of the entire federal budget, draining our economy year after year, a bloated bottomless pit with no hope of rectification by those who know it's true purpose : To control it's recipients. But I doubt you would ever actually admit such.

Order will always be found favorable to chaos, that is the nature of civilization, if not its purpose. What you are advocating is not freedom because you fail to understand that without social mobility, without TRUE rational self interest (which is the self interest of society, not just the individual) there is no freedom. Freedom is about more than property rights, and until you comprehend that your thinking will be severely limited.

Spoken just like Marx, bravo. But not very good packaging, youi need a bow or something more pretty. Maybe some better tape to hold it together better.

1) I understand that Communism is simply an economic philosophy, not a political one (like Capitalism) and that it has its advantages and its flaws (like Capitalism).

wrong again. Capitalism is a living democracy. Economics and politics are intertwined. Especiually communism, which does not allow dissent for the mechanism to properly function.

2) I'm not advocating Communism. In a Communist system property is owned collectively and equally shared among citizens. We've had the commons and the social contract in the United States for decades, and we don't own property collectively or share property equally among citizens.

we own property collectively for decades, yet we don't own property collectively. Now you're just a walking contradiction. It's a wonder you can type and think at the same time. But I give you too much credit, your standard leftist rant is commonplace and even easily faked.

There are laws of economics, but that is not the same thing as the rules of business. That you don't understand this most simple of principles betrays your conditioning.

Yet you deny the laws of economics and want to control the rules of business by decree and not democracy.

...(The)people through their elected representatives, to ensure that corporate power does not become stifling, does not influence government (which it has no right to do), and to ensure that the interests of the people are not being betrayed, especially when it comes to the environment, the most basic of the commons that all of us depend on.

You still think of corporate and popular as different entities. You who undoubtedly believes wholeheartedly in the power of the worker should know better. Just as a populace is comprised of individuals, a company is also not autonomous, it depends on the actions and decisions of individuals - those that run the company, and those that vote for its existence.

Vampires seems like a better analogy..... but "cockroachs" works too.

A perfect example of your basic tactic: accuse others of doing exactly what you do. You are the vampire sucking the life out of breathing, producing people to feed the desire for power over them. You still fail to realize that when there are no more necks to bite and everyone has become undead, there's no one left to provide you with fresh blood.

 

[Hereticked]

[quote name='bmulligan']That's rich, coming from someone who only speaks in simplifications.[/quote]

No, its rich coming from the person who bases his political philosophies on the most basic of our instincts, someones whos entire view of the world is based on the cut-and-dry, the simplistic.


[quote name='bmulligan']wrong again, the US stock markets are the best investments one can make over time, given a conservative investment portfolio.[/quote]

Tell that to my grandmother who lived through the Great Depression.

[quote name='bmulligan']the largest and strongest economy in the world, even with governmnet confiscation, negates your claim.[/quote]

Not for long. For someone who talks about "producing" so much, you seem oblivious to the fact that our country is producing less and less as a direct result of the corporate whoring you endorse. Our economy is in a death spiral right now, a race to the bottom.


[quote name='bmulligan']Again, you deny human nature to preserve one's own life first and foremost before worrying about the 'common good'.[/quote]

Again, you fail to see that it is our ability to reason, to sympathize/empathize, and to sacrifice when necessary that makes us more than just an animal. You may want to treat life like a giant game of survivor, but humanity has moved beyond that primitive mentality, if only barely.


[quote name='bmulligan']I've never said we don't use your 'commons' , I said we don't all get a claim on others lives simply becasue we all take advantage of the bus and education.[/quote]

Which as far as I can tell, means absolutely nothing outside the enormous insecurity of someone who claims a rugged individualism that doesn't exist.

"Get a claim on the lives of others."


[quote name='bmulligan']No one has claimed there is no need for 'common' utilities, we disagree which should exist, and who should control them, and on what level.[/quote]

The commons is not just about utilities, its about common interest in many areas, such as the environment and our legal system.


[quote name='bmulligan']Of course you did, because you can't bring yourself to even read a view contracy to your own.[/quote]

Translation : I don't like bullshit statistics.


[quote name='bmulligan']Do you even know what a security is? Do you know what this "trust fund" money purchases? Do you know who they purchase it from? Obviously you believe it's like a bank account.

you're an idiot if you believe there's money in that 'lock box' accruing interest for a rainy day.[/quote]

I'm well aware what a Trust is and I never said it was "like a bank account". Pointing out that it accrues interest does not specifically imply it is "like a bank account". (Well maybe you think it does?)

Or maybe you're just an idiot because you can't read?

As stated in the answer to "What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?", most of the money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the current increase in the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 35 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.

After all, since our economy is doing so well, and Bush and the Republicans aren't hammering us into record breaking budget deficit and trade deficit, we should have no problem paying back and paying the interest on all thats been borrowed from Social Security......

RIGHT?

But of course, it's the program thats the problem....


[quote name='bmulligan']The most successful program on the verge of collapse[/quote]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Social Security is not "on the verge of collapse". It is solvent for decades, it can be adjusted, the right-wing freaks are lying about its status, the goal is to destroy it and to cover up their theft and incompetent management of our budget.


[quote name='bmulligan']Spoken just like Marx, bravo. But not very good packaging, youi need a bow or something more pretty.[/quote]

Since you were unable to argue with the philosophy, but only offer a cute, condescending comment, I'll take that as a compliment.


[quote name='bmulligan']Capitalism is a living democracy.[/quote]

No.

Capitalism is an economic system.


[quote name='bmulligan']Economics and politics are intertwined.[/quote]

Yes, out of necesseity, but that doesn't mean economic philosophy automatically applies to political philosophy. This is the horrid assumption upon which so much garbage randian/libertarian psuedo intellectualism is based.


[quote name='bmulligan']we own property collectively for decades, yet we don't own property collectively. Now you're just a walking contradiction.[/quote]

The commons and the social contract is not the collective ownership of all property. Your accusations of Communsim have become tired, and very boring. No one (with a brain) is buying it.


[quote name='bmulligan']I give you too much credit, your standard leftist rant is commonplace and even easily faked.[/quote]

I know idiots who haven't even read Atlas Shrugged who spew the same illogical bile you do. Despite what you may think, the asshole objectivist/libertarian club isn't hard to get into these days.


[quote name='bmulligan']Yet you deny the laws of economics and want to control the rules of business by decree and not democracy.[/quote]

[quote name='Hereticked']Set by the people through their elected representatives[/quote]

Wow.... that wasn't hard.


[quote name='bmulligan']You still think of corporate and popular as different entities. You who undoubtedly believes wholeheartedly in the power of the worker should know better. Just as a populace is comprised of individuals, a company is also not autonomous, it depends on the actions and decisions of individuals - those that run the company, and those that vote for its existence.[/quote]

"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

- Thomas Jefferson

"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

- Abraham Lincoln

The goal of corporations and the responsibility of government are a fundamental incompatible. The goal of corporations is to make money. The role of government is to serve the people. Making money is NOT the only goal, it is not even the most important one.

Anyone naive enough to think that the interests of the people and of corporations meet often enough to entwine the two DESERVE THE FASCISM THAT THEY WILL GET.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

- Benito Mussolini


[quote name='bmulligan']A perfect example of your basic tactic: accuse others of doing exactly what you do. You are the vampire sucking the life out of breathing, producing people to feed the desire for power over them.[/quote]

Right... I'm the vampire because I think it's a good idea to try and save Social Security and I think having a safety net in place for those that need it is a good thing.... even though I recognize that while I pay into that system I may never need it myself. (Wow... what a bastard I am!)

You're the non-vampire because with every breath you take you spew corporate propaganda and flawed economic philosophy that contributes to the outsourcing of jobs, the lowering of wages and slashing of benefits of your countrymen, the utilization of slave labor in foreign labor markets to produce cheap shit for us to buy at Walmart, and the overall downward spiral thats going to turn our once productive economy into nothing but a sprawl of service and retail jobs that can barely enable people to pay rent, let alone buy an insurance plan to replace what Social Security used to ensure for them.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Hereticked']No, its rich coming from the person who bases his political philosophies on the most basic of our instincts, someones whos entire view of the world is based on the cut-and-dry, the simplistic.[/quote]

yet you base your philosophy on denial of basic human insticnt. It's a contradiction that cannot be legislated away.

[quote name='hwreticked'] For someone who talks about "producing" so much, you seem oblivious to the fact that our country is producing less and less as a direct result of the corporate whoring you endorse. Our economy is in a death spiral right now, a race to the bottom.[/quote]

It's a direct result of the lefts belief that they can 'control' econimics from the top down, not the result of capitalism, which is controlled from the bottom up..

[quote name='hereticked']Again, you fail to see that it is our ability to reason, to sympathize/empathize, and to sacrifice when necessary that makes us more than just an animal. You may want to treat life like a giant game of survivor, but humanity has moved beyond that primitive mentality, if only barely.[/quote]

To sacrifice when necessary is a personal choice. You seek to deny anyone that freedom to help people you deem to be needy. And humanity has not transcended their primal instincts for survival. A fact you'd rather deny and *SNORT* "we are better than that now, so i'll ignore it an it'll dissappear"

[quote name='hereticked'][quote name='bmulligan']No one has claimed there is no need for 'common' utilities, we disagree which should exist, and who should control them, and on what level.[/quote]

The commons is not just about utilities, its about common interest in many areas, such as the environment and our legal system.[/quote]

A nice broad definition that continues to change depending upon your argument against private property, eventually realizing, or purposefully denying, that ALL things in our society are common, and everyone has a right to everyone else's property becuase 'commons' were used to obtain it.

[quote name='hereticked']I'm well aware what a Trust is and I never said it was "like a bank account". Pointing out that it accrues interest does not specifically imply it is "like a bank account". (Well maybe you think it does?)

Or maybe you're just an idiot because you can't read?

As stated in the answer to "What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?", most of the money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the current increase in the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

[/quote]

With interest. That's another good one. Another peek into your vast databank of dangerous knowledge. That 'interest' is repaid with more special securities, backed by that 'full faith' of which you seem not to have. So, technically, it's based on nothing but the tyranny to tax to infinity, which must put your mind at ease, since it's your ultimate goal. You can take that one as a compliment too.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Social Security is not "on the verge of collapse". It is solvent for decades, it can be adjusted, the right-wing freaks are lying about its status, the goal is to destroy it and to cover up their theft and incompetent management of our budget.

So, you admit the thievery - another contradiction since you also believe it's being 'entrusted with interest'. Sorry , but wrong again, these thieves no no political boundries like left and right, democrat or republican. If you could get of your horse for a minute and stop the "pundit" attack, you might recognize this.

[quote name='herreticked'][quote name='bmulligan']Spoken just like Marx, bravo. But not very good packaging, youi need a bow or something more pretty.[/quote]

Since you were unable to argue with the philosophy, but only offer a cute, condescending comment, I'll take that as a compliment.[/quote]

I'm glad you finally willing to admit what you are.

[quote name='hereticked'][quote name='bmulligan']Capitalism is a living democracy.[/quote]

No.
Capitalism is an economic system.

[quote name='bmulligan']Economics and politics are intertwined.[/quote]

Yes, out of necesseity, but that doesn't mean economic philosophy automatically applies to political philosophy. This is the horrid assumption upon which so much garbage randian/libertarian psuedo intellectualism is based.[/quote]

Again, you can't see that it's man's nature to trade value for value. No matter what you believe or profess we have transcended, reality contradicts you at every turn. You can't change nature, yet in your mind of wonderous miracles, you can make humans believe that bread will magically appear on a grocery store shelf.

[quote name='hereticked'][quote name='bmulligan']we own property collectively for decades, yet we don't own property collectively. Now you're just a walking contradiction.[/quote]

The commons and the social contract is not the collective ownership of all property. Your accusations of Communsim have become tired, and very boring. No one (with a brain) is buying it.[/quote]

There's no room for purchasing in your system anyway, as everything will be provided, including a brain for those who can't think for themselves, work for themselves, earn for themselves. You've already accepted the red badge of courage, and now you want to deny it again. When you finish with your identity crisis and wake up for your extacy binge, you can come see me for a job.

[quote name='hereticked'][quote name='bmulligan']I give you too much credit, your standard leftist rant is commonplace and even easily faked.[/quote]

I know idiots who haven't even read Atlas Shrugged who spew the same illogical bile you do. Despite what you may think, the asshole objectivist/libertarian club isn't hard to get into these days.[/quote]

Sorry we wouldn't let you into the club. You don't have to be mad about it. I see that the default fraternity for the mentally retarted has granted you a membership, though.

[quote name='hereticked']Anyone naive enough to think that the interests of the people and of corporations meet often enough to entwine the two DESERVE THE FASCISM THAT THEY WILL GET...

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini[/quote]

I'm sure you be lying in wait to replace corporate fascism with your own brand. At least I'll be able to choose 25 differnt kinds of toilet paper with
capitalistic fascism.

[quote name='hereticked']You're the non-vampire because with every breath you take you spew corporate propaganda and flawed economic philosophy that contributes to the outsourcing of jobs, the lowering of wages and slashing of benefits of your countrymen, the utilization of slave labor in foreign labor markets to produce cheap shit for us to buy at Walmart, and the overall downward spiral thats going to turn our once productive economy into nothing but a sprawl of service and retail jobs that can barely enable people to pay rent, let alone buy an insurance plan to replace what Social Security used to ensure for them.[/quote]

Talk about regurgitation from memorization, do you practice that shit in front of the mirror ? I'll bet you do.

The sky is falling, workers unite !!!! Wait, I thought there wasn't any crisis...... ?

 

[Msut77]

This time you got it wrong. It doesn't take a village to make a genius, an achiever, a successful business person, a successfull anything. Yes, some do get a helping hand, some do not. Sorry but you don't get any credit for the accomplishments of others, unless you were personally responsible for their success.

Roads speciifically the interstate highway sytem...

Exactly how big could walmart if hosers like you had to hike their and where would their refrigeration, lighting etc. come from?

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Msut77']
Roads speciifically the interstate highway sytem...

Exactly how big could walmart if hosers like you had to hike their and where would their refrigeration, lighting etc. come from?[/quote]

I'm going to have to ask you to join the english speaking population before making an attempt to join an ongoing argument, please.

 

[Msut77]

Sorry but you don't get any credit for the accomplishments of others, unless you were personally responsible for their success.

Anyway BMullet exactly how big would Walmart and the Waltons have gotten without Social Programs like Rural Electrification and Interstate Highways.

I do give you points for attempting a cop out though.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Msut77']Sorry but you don't get any credit for the accomplishments of others, unless you were personally responsible for their success.

Anyway BMullet exactly how big would Walmart and the Waltons have gotten without Social Programs like Rural Electrification and Interstate Highways.

I do give you points for attempting a cop out though.[/quote]

Christ, even you don't understand the difference between a free rider and social welfare.

Next time type something worthwhile so I don't have to waste an acknowledgement on you. Or at least something crazier so that I can at least be amused, please.

 

[Msut77]

Well are you actually trying to say that corporations like Walmart could become as big as they are without advantages (like I pointed out that )"Socialism" gave them.

You're a big boy. You can answer.

Unless you want your answer to be you dont care about corporate welfare, you only care when some poor kids get a bowl of oatmeal on your dime.

 

[Hereticked]

You're wasting your breath Msut77.

You're trying to have a rational discussion of politics and economy with a guy who's already called the current system we live under Communism, then Fascism, then admitted the system he advocates is a form of Fascism. And yes, he'd rather Walmart get that dime then someone starving in the street.

 

[bmulligan]

Walmart feeds a lot of families. You people seem to forget this fact, that corporations exist becuase WE want them to, not becuase the government lets them. We choose to work for them and they give us compensation in return. If you don't like their deal, don't work for them or shop there either. Sorry that the majority of the country disagrees with both of you. If everyone uses the commons, then apparently the playing field is already equal and you have no excuse for your lack of accomplishment.

You're right Hereticked, a rational discussion is impossible with me, specifically by the likes of you. One who denies human nature, believes altruism is the primary motivating factor in human behavior, changes his premises to fit his examples, embraces then backs away from his own beliefs to disguise his nature, thinks 'society' acts as an individual with volition and denies the indivduals that constitute it, and demonstrates a complete lack of logic and understanding of the government's financial system cannot possibly compete with me. Just keep dragging out the hackneyed slur, tired expletive, or barbarous yawp *buzz* word in response to my posts. They truly brighten your intellectual display.

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='bmulligan']Walmart feeds a lot of families.[/quote]
And as long as those families want nothing better than Ramen noodles every night, everyone is happy.

You people seem to forget this fact, that corporations exist becuase WE want them to, not becuase the government lets them.

Both technically incorrect and redundant. Corporations DO exist only because the government allows them to - there's a lot of paperwork involved in creating a corporation. If the corporation don't satisfy the government's requirements and legal limitations, the corporation ceases to exist. In addition, because we live in a predominately democratic society, we the people essentially control the government.

We choose to work for them and they give us compensation in return. If you don't like their deal, don't work for them or shop there either.

I'd like to not shop there, but Walmart undercut all the local merchants, drove them out of business, then jacked up the price once the competition was gone.

If everyone uses the commons, then apparently the playing field is already equal and you have no excuse for your lack of accomplishment.

Not everyone is given equal access to the commons.

You're right Hereticked, a rational discussion is impossible with me, specifically by the likes of you. One who denies human nature, believes altruism is the primary motivating factor in human behavior

There's a difference between understanding what the primary motive that moves people is and figuring out whether or not its correct. In addiiton, you seem to be very much in denial about the fact that human beings have additional motivations beyond blind greed. It seems that your definition of 'liberal' is someone who chooses to not revel in the lowest common demonimator of human behavior and instead strives bring out the better sides of human behavior and create something better.

 

[Hereticked]

[quote name='bmulligan']corporations exist becuase WE want them to, not becuase the government lets them. We choose to work for them and they give us compensation in return.[/quote]

No, corporations exist because the people who control them want to make a profit, not because we want them to. They are ALLOWED to exist based on the rules of business which the people set through their elected representatives.

Corporations don't "give us" anything. They utilize our labor in order to make a profit, and that labor is the most important factor in their entire model, because without it THEY DON'T HAVE A BUSINESS.

Rational human beings will not object to other peoples desire to make their fortune. We simply demand that you don't destroy our environment and ruin our economy while doing so, and that is our right. If corporations will not play by the rules which the people set, they will be destroyed.


[quote name='bmulligan']One who denies human nature, believes altruism is the primary motivating factor in human behavior[/quote]

I like how you can't reply without outright lying about what I said.

I have done neither. Unlike you, I understand that both greed and altruism have a role in the human experience. Your inability to accept that and obsession with self interest betray you for the extremist you are.

Greed is like fire, safe when small and controlled, all-consuming and all-destroying when there is no control.


[quote name='bmulligan']Just keep dragging out the hackneyed slur, tired expletive, or barbarous yawp *buzz* word in response to my posts.[/quote]

Just keep mis-charaterizing what I say and setting up false arguments that I never made so you have something to reply.

I understand that's all one can do when they've been brainwashed and blinded by republican and/or libertarian ideaology.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='bmulligan']Walmart feeds a lot of families.[/quote]
And as long as those families want nothing better than Ramen noodles every night, everyone is happy.[/quote]

Nice hyperbole, I'm sure you pat yourself on the back every time you can come up with a witless absurdity. In addition to Walmart's contribution to employement and consumer savings, Walmart is probably the only employer/retail establishment that actively hires the handicapped and disadvantaged. Something that YOU do not do, nor does 90% of 'corporate' america. how's that for altruism.

Corporations DO exist only because the government allows them to - there's a lot of paperwork involved in creating a corporation. If the corporation don't satisfy the government's requirements and legal limitations, the corporation ceases to exist. In addition, because we live in a predominately democratic society, we the people essentially control the government.

Corporations exist becuase WE buy their products. That simple fact you can't seem to understand, that WE control corporations from the ground up when we vote for their products and services with our dollars, is what makes them beholdent to us first, government second. When our votes of confidence move elsewhere, they either change or die.

I'd like to not shop there, but Walmart undercut all the local merchants, drove them out of business, then jacked up the price once the competition was gone.

A 'fact' loudly and loosely touted, but has no basis in fact or reality. The nice thing about national corporations is that people in California can now buy the same low priced items as in Florida at the same price.

There's a difference between understanding what the primary motive that moves people is and figuring out whether or not its correct.

You know, constant denial of reality won't make utopia appear, and passing laws won't make it happen any faster. Deciding whether selfishness of mankind is correct or not is a moot point. Nature cannot be changed, it can only be obeyed.

In addiiton, you seem to be very much in denial about the fact that human beings have additional motivations beyond blind greed.

On the contrary. I understand, recognize, and practice many other virtues shared by mankind. Others you claim to believe in, but really don't. For example, you don't believe people share enough resources to help the underprivlidged, yet you believe altruism is a prime motivation. So much so, that you think laws are required to force them to comply with your value of charity.

It seems that your definition of 'liberal' is someone who chooses to not revel in the lowest common demonimator of human behavior and instead strives bring out the better sides of human behavior and create something better.

Another restatement (rudundancy) of a contradiction. I do not 'revel' in the lowest of human behaviors, I accept it, recognize it, deal with it, then move on. You deny it exists, actively campaign against it, seek it's destruction by force, then can't understand why it hasn't conformed to your wish or been changed in any way. You also probably belive that good thoughts can reverse the law of gravity like Peter Pan.

You can visit neverland anytime you like, peter.
How?
By Believing, peter, just believe.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='bmulligan']Walmart feeds a lot of families. You people seem to forget this fact, that corporations exist becuase WE want them to, not becuase the government lets them. We choose to work for them and they give us compensation in return. If you don't like their deal, don't work for them or shop there either. Sorry that the majority of the country disagrees with both of you. If everyone uses the commons, then apparently the playing field is already equal and you have no excuse for your lack of accomplishment.

You're right Hereticked, a rational discussion is impossible with me, specifically by the likes of you. One who denies human nature, believes altruism is the primary motivating factor in human behavior, changes his premises to fit his examples, embraces then backs away from his own beliefs to disguise his nature, thinks 'society' acts as an individual with volition and denies the indivduals that constitute it, and demonstrates a complete lack of logic and understanding of the government's financial system cannot possibly compete with me. Just keep dragging out the hackneyed slur, tired expletive, or barbarous yawp *buzz* word in response to my posts. They truly brighten your intellectual display.[/quote]

Hey humans behave a certain way, lets not try to control the negatives so the society as a whole can live better, lets just let their nature run wild. They're greedy? Well, we wouldn't want to put any limits on that, now would we? They don't care about others? How dare any government try to help those that are poor.

Your ideas border on the delusional, you seem to have this image of corporations as the "good samaratin".

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Hereticked']No, corporations exist because the people who control them want to make a profit, not because we want them to. They are ALLOWED to exist based on the rules of business which the people set through their elected representatives.[/quote]

You keep leaving out the fact that after the initial profit motive, corporations exist beause people buy their products with demand (we want them to, that's what demand is or are you lost in the clouds about this one too?). Governemnt doesn't create that demand, WE do. And government wouldn't need to regulate a corporation that doesn't have any products or customers, would it? Logic and order of occurance is really a problem for you, isn't it?

Corporations don't "give us" anything. They utilize our labor in order to make a profit, and that labor is the most important factor in their entire model, because without it THEY DON'T HAVE A BUSINESS.

Corporations give compensation labor, or did we reinstitute slavery again......?

Rational human beings will not object to other peoples desire to make their fortune. We simply demand that you don't destroy our environment and ruin our economy while doing so, and that is our right. If corporations will not play by the rules which the people set, they will be destroyed.

Mmmmmmm....a mini manifesto ! Keep going, I think it needs a little work.

Unlike you, I understand that both greed and altruism have a role in the human experience. Your inability to accept that and obsession with self interest betray you for the extremist you are.

The human 'experience'. You have taken a lot of social studies, haven't you? Who said I've denied altruism as a participant? Not me, I understand it's a MAJOR player in the struggle for control of the masses. Who's the LIAR now ?

Unlike you I can recognize the 'self-interest' as part of nature. Just as a stone will sink to the riverbed regardless of your intentions when throwing it, human nature cannot simply be wished away. It is YOU who is focusing on 'selfishness' becuase it represents a contradiction in your philosophy.

the example comes in your very next statement:

Greed is like fire, safe when small and controlled, all-consuming and all-destroying when there is no control.

It seems that I am not the one obsessed with selfishness and greed. Fortunately for me, my extremist tendencies are shared by every breating human being on the planet, whether they realize it or not.

Just keep mis-charaterizing what I say and setting up false arguments that I never made so you have something to reply.

I understand that's all one can do when they've been brainwashed and blinded by republican and/or libertarian ideaology.

Are you going to cry now? Can't stand it when people use your own words against you without twisting them or countering them with absurd examples? Of course you are. Now take the time to dry your eyes, reload, and try to get the last word in again. Go on, I know you can't resist.