Koch Brothers, ALEC and Their Corporate Allies Plan to Privatize Government

You mean government will become efficient?

Is that bad?

The founding fathers didn't establish a government designed to be efficient. If that were their plan, they should have established a constitutional dictatorship. Instead, they created a three branched government with a bicameral legislature, with each branch having distinct roles on exercising government power, and checks and balances through which each branch could potentially thwart the others if/when those branches start getting out of line.
 
Just how would you go about prosecuting someone who has impersonated an eligible voter? I would bet that there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases with no way to identify a case of fraud, much less prosecute the offender.

In other words, your argument is that it's not possible for evidence to exist that would support your conclusion, therefore you will just assume your conclusion to be true. Mind boggling.
Read the post just above this one that I am replying to.
There is all kinds of anecdotal evidence, but no identifiable perpetrator to prosecute in most instances, and no one motivated to prosecute, in others.
Liberals keep citing lack of convictions. My claim is that there is, in fact, a lack of prosecutions.
 
I find it hard to believe a student Id if it has their picture on it is not accepted..

so I'll just assume the rest of what they say is crap.

You do realize that many students attend school away from home and as residents of their home states vote by absentee ballot?
A driver's license or pistol permit is proof of residence. A student ID is not.

Identification proves who you are, not where you live. That's why passports are accepted. Nothing in a passport establishes residency. Try renting a car or opening a bank account and using your license as proof of residence. Don't expect to be successful.

Your passport has your address on it, stupid. It is a government issued ID, much more difficult to obtain that a state issued ID. (State issued ID's have your address on them as well.
OK I am registered to vote in both Broward County Florida and Baldwin County Alabama. If addresses aren't important on ID's, what's to stop me from voting in both places? As a matter of fact, what's to stop someone who knows I no longer live in Florida from voting in my name, absent ID laws?

I just opened a rather large savings account and showed my drivers license and social security card as ID. I had no problem
 
As these Facists ALEC thinkers decrease taxes in the facade of reducing the cost of government they are increasing taxes as the local levels.

Facist ALEC thinkers do in fact represent tax increases!!!

These increases can come in a variety of ways:

1. Increased water and sewer rates
2. Increases trash rates
3. Increased rates at local swimming pools
4. Personal property tax increases
5. Increased taxes on recreational vehicles
6. increased local sales taxes
7. increased swimming pool admission
8. you name it..... it is a tax....
 
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)


The Koch Brothers, big tobacco, insurance companies, and the drug industry: all behind the shadowy corporate front group known as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). On the surface, ALEC is mostly comprised of thousands of state legislators, each paying a nominal fee to attend ALEC retreats and receive model legislation. In reality, corporations pay ALEC a king’s ransom to access legislators to distribute radical legislation that puts corporate interests over American workers and consumers.

So, while the membership appears to be public sector, corporate money dominates ALEC. In fact, public sector membership dues account for only around one percent of ALEC’s annual revenues. ALEC claims to be nonpartisan, but its pro-corporate, anti-consumer mission is clear.

Read about ALEC’s hand in protecting oil companies, chemical manufacturers and Wall Street banks in AAJ’s report here:

ALEC: Ghostwriting the Law for Corporate America >>

AAJ Release: Report Lifts Veil on ALEC’s Pro-Corporate, Anti-Consumer Mission >>

===========================

Executive Summary:

Few have ever heard of it, but the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, is the ultimate smoke filled back room.

On the surface, ALEC’s membership is mostly comprised of thousands of state legislators. Each pays a nominal membership fee in order to attend ALEC retreats and receive model legislation. ALEC’s corporate contributors, on the other hand, pay a king’s ransom to gain access to legislators and distribute their corporate-crafted legislation.

So, while the membership appears to be public sector, the bankroll is almost entirely private sector. In fact, public sector membership dues account for only around one percent of ALEC’s annual revenues. ALEC claims to be nonpartisan, but in fact its free-market, pro-business mission is clear.

The result has been a consistent pipeline of special interest legislation being funneled into state capitols. Thanks to ALEC, 826 bills were introduced in the states in 2009 and 115 were enacted into law.

Behind the scenes at ALEC, the nuts and bolts of lobbying and crafting legislation is done by large corporate defense firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon. A law firm with strong ties to the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, it has long used ALEC’s ability to get a wide swath of state laws enacted to further the interests of its corporate clients.

ALEC’s campaigns and model legislation have run the gamut of issues, but all have either protected or promoted a corporate revenue stream, often at the expense of consumers. For example, ALEC has worked on behalf of:

* Oil companies to undermine climate change proponents;
* Pharmaceutical manufacturers, arguing that states should be banned from importing prescription drugs;
* Telecom firms to block local authorities from offering cheap or free municipally-owned broadband;
* Insurance companies to prevent state insurance commissioners from requiring insurers to meet strengthened accounting and auditing rules;
* Big banks, recommending that seniors be forced to give up their homes via reverse mortgages in order to receive Medicaid;
* The asbestos industry, trying to shut the courthouse door to Americans suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases; and,
* Enron to deregulate the utility industries, which eventually caused the U.S. to lose what the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) estimated as $5 trillion in market value.

Other Resources:

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
 
As these Facists ALEC thinkers decrease taxes in the facade of reducing the cost of government they are increasing taxes as the local levels.

Facist ALEC thinkers do in fact represent tax increases!!!

These increases can come in a variety of ways:

1. Increased water and sewer rates
2. Increases trash rates
3. Increased rates at local swimming pools
4. Personal property tax increases
5. Increased taxes on recreational vehicles
6. increased local sales taxes
7. increased swimming pool admission
8. you name it..... it is a tax....

hey this sounds like California......only its called "Fees" out here.....
 
Your passport has your address on it, stupid.

Really? You sure? Mine doesn't. Not to mention, passports are valid for 10 years. Alot of moving can take place in that time.

It is a government issued ID, much more difficult to obtain that a state issued ID.

The issue is not federal versus state IDs. The law accepts both of them. The point is that the ID requirement has nothing to do with establishing residency. That is dealt with in the registration process. The requirement to produce an ID at the time of voting is only to establish IDENTIFICATION.

OK I am registered to vote in both Broward County Florida and Baldwin County Alabama.

Guess you're committing voter fraud.

If addresses aren't important on ID's, what's to stop me from voting in both places? As a matter of fact, what's to stop someone who knows I no longer live in Florida from voting in my name, absent ID laws?

If you're trying to peg me as someone who is opposed to requiring ID, you're wrong.
 
As these Facists ALEC thinkers decrease taxes in the facade of reducing the cost of government they are increasing taxes as the local levels.

Facist ALEC thinkers do in fact represent tax increases!!!

These increases can come in a variety of ways:

1. Increased water and sewer rates
2. Increases trash rates
3. Increased rates at local swimming pools
4. Personal property tax increases
5. Increased taxes on recreational vehicles
6. increased local sales taxes
7. increased swimming pool admission
8. you name it..... it is a tax....

Yeah! No way I want to pay for services myself. I want the rich bastards in Greenwich Connecticut to pay for my garbage pick-up, and Exxon to subsidize my local pool. They are too damned rich so they OWE it to me!
 
Your passport has your address on it, stupid.

Really? You sure? Mine doesn't. Not to mention, passports are valid for 10 years. Alot of moving can take place in that time.[/quote
Damn You are right. Mine only says what state I was born in. Mia culpa

It is a government issued ID, much more difficult to obtain that a state issued ID.

The issue is not federal versus state IDs. The law accepts both of them. The point is that the ID requirement has nothing to do with establishing residency. That is dealt with in the registration process. The requirement to produce an ID at the time of voting is only to establish IDENTIFICATION.
It should establish residence as well and would, if I wrote the bill.

OK I am registered to vote in both Broward County Florida and Baldwin County Alabama.

Guess you're committing voter fraud.
Did I say I would vote in both places? Where is the law that says I must "unregister" to vote when I move away?

If addresses aren't important on ID's, what's to stop me from voting in both places? As a matter of fact, what's to stop someone who knows I no longer live in Florida from voting in my name, absent ID laws?

If you're trying to peg me as someone who is opposed to requiring ID, you're wrong.
Fair enough. What do YOU think? Should voters be required to prove who they are and where they live in order to vote?
 
As these Facists ALEC thinkers decrease taxes in the facade of reducing the cost of government they are increasing taxes as the local levels.

Facist ALEC thinkers do in fact represent tax increases!!!

These increases can come in a variety of ways:

1. Increased water and sewer rates
2. Increases trash rates
3. Increased rates at local swimming pools
4. Personal property tax increases
5. Increased taxes on recreational vehicles
6. increased local sales taxes
7. increased swimming pool admission
8. you name it..... it is a tax....

hey this sounds like California......only its called "Fees" out here.....

They are taxes pure and simple. Politiicans and local government do not like to use the word tax therefore imagination comes into play. Let's pretend it's not a tax..........
 
As these Facists ALEC thinkers decrease taxes in the facade of reducing the cost of government they are increasing taxes as the local levels.

Facist ALEC thinkers do in fact represent tax increases!!!

These increases can come in a variety of ways:

1. Increased water and sewer rates
2. Increases trash rates
3. Increased rates at local swimming pools
4. Personal property tax increases
5. Increased taxes on recreational vehicles
6. increased local sales taxes
7. increased swimming pool admission
8. you name it..... it is a tax....

hey this sounds like California......only its called "Fees" out here.....

They are taxes pure and simple. Politiicans and local government do not like to use the word tax therefore imagination comes into play. Let's pretend it's not a tax..........
Let's NOT.
 
The Republicans want to privatize Social Security, Medicare, and the military.

Plenty of good money to be made....

Privatizing SS would be good for you as you would have control over 15% of your life time income.

You would retire with more; much much more.

You are dreaming...

Have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative. After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying.

If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

In fact, under the former President Bush’s privatization proposal, a 20-year-old worker joining the labor force today would have seen her guaranteed Social Security benefits reduced by 46%. Bush’s own Social Security commission admitted that private accounts were unlikely to make up for this drop in guaranteed benefits.

The brokerage firm Goldman Sachs estimated that even with private accounts, retirement income of younger workers would have been reduced by 42% compared to what they would have received if no changes were made to Social Security..

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt” in 2042. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.” Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation. As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels. According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments).

In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense
 
**What impact would the conversion to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts. Former President Bush and Congress racked up an average $793 billion deficit each year Bush was in office.

Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years.

This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion. Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.


**How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the private accounts replaced the current system?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

The current Social Security system generates powerful, economy-stimulating multiplier effects. This was part of its original intent. In the early 1930s, the vast majority of the elderly were poor. While they were working, they could not afford to both save for retirement and put food on the table, and most had no employer pension.

When Social Security began, elders spent every penny of that income. In turn, each dollar they spent was spent again by the people and businesses from whom they had bought things.

In much the same way, every dollar that goes out in pensions today creates about 2.5 times as much total income. If the move to private accounts reduces elders’ spending levels, as almost all analysts predict, that reduction in spending will have an even larger impact on slowing economic growth.

The current Social Security system also reduces the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Private accounts would increase inequality—and increased inequality hinders economic growth.

For example, a 1994 World Bank study of 25 countries demonstrated that as income inequality rises, productivity growth is reduced. Market economies can fall apart completely if the level of inequality becomes too extreme.

The rapid increase in income inequality that occurred in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression. And the rapid increase in inequality under the Reagan and two Bush administrations was one of the causes of the current “Great Recession.”

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense
 
[
Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

Well, frankly, SS is a good "investment", because it's the taxpayer that's going to be picking up the tab for your retirement, once you've gone through what you've paid in within 3-5 years. The problem is that SS is going to be insolvent at some point, probably not too far in the future. I'd rather take a gamble on private investments than a gamble on our government, which is rapidly accruing much more debt than it can ever pay.
 
[
Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

Well, frankly, SS is a good "investment", because it's the taxpayer that's going to be picking up the tab for your retirement, once you've gone through what you've paid in within 3-5 years. The problem is that SS is going to be insolvent at some point, probably not too far in the future. I'd rather take a gamble on private investments than a gamble on our government, which is rapidly accruing much more debt than it can ever pay.

And that swerves into Union Contracts private Unions or Public Service Unions...garnering more than private companies/Government can ever be expected to pay. Unions ARE greedy.
 
Last edited:
[
Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

Well, frankly, SS is a good "investment", because it's the taxpayer that's going to be picking up the tab for your retirement, once you've gone through what you've paid in within 3-5 years. The problem is that SS is going to be insolvent at some point, probably not too far in the future. I'd rather take a gamble on private investments than a gamble on our government, which is rapidly accruing much more debt than it can ever pay.

It takes 17 years to get back about what a person has paid in...
 
The Republicans want to privatize Social Security, Medicare, and the military.

Plenty of good money to be made....

Privatizing SS would be good for you as you would have control over 15% of your life time income.

You would retire with more; much much more.

You are dreaming...

Have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative. After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying.

If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

In fact, under the former President Bush’s privatization proposal, a 20-year-old worker joining the labor force today would have seen her guaranteed Social Security benefits reduced by 46%. Bush’s own Social Security commission admitted that private accounts were unlikely to make up for this drop in guaranteed benefits.

The brokerage firm Goldman Sachs estimated that even with private accounts, retirement income of younger workers would have been reduced by 42% compared to what they would have received if no changes were made to Social Security..

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt” in 2042. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.” Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation. As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels. According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments).

In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

So that long winded post was to say that SS is better than private investments.

The average SS payment after the scheduled COLA increase in 2012 will be about 1500 a month.

If we could put the 15% of our income taken from us in an account we owned than earned just 5% over a 45 year working career we'd all be living on more than that. Much more than that.

Let's say you earned the median income in the US About 50K a year for 45 years.

15% of that annually is 7500 or 625 a month.

Save 625 a month earning 5% for 45 years and you'd have

1.3 million dollars.

If you then earned 3% and lived solely on that your monthly income would be 3250 or double that of SS. AND you would still have over 1.3 million in cash.

Yeah that's way worse than Social Insecurity.
 

Forum List

Back
Top