Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[Jarhead]

I wonder if we should allow MBA graduates to vote. Its a clear conflict of interest, they are not stakeholders and they are taking much more than they are giving, just look at the recent Great Short of the stock market and the recent bailouts. Two clarifications:

1) I'm talking about all sorts of MBA graduates, not just those who work in finance. If you are sucking off some hard working man's salary with your cushy but unproductive job in management, you're part of the problem.

2) I am not allowing them to vote only once they completely graduate. If they get a real job outside of finance or management, they'll be able to vote within one year. An MBA graduate who works with his or her hands may have the vote reinstated immediately.

Au contraire, as an MBA, I am a superior human being than the rest of you. And because I'm better off financially than most, I should get more votes, even though I'm not an American!

Now bow down to my greatness.

 

[Jarhead]

If you elect me, I will buy your town a fountain.

If you elect me, I will write you a check.

Those are clearly entirely different levels of conflict.

if you elect me, I will make sure you dont have to pay another 30K in taxes.

If you elect me, I will make sure you get 30K in welfare for another 4 years.

Both seem to be pretty much the same "conflict of interest" to me.

Yes, comrade, all money is the people's money. It's ridiculous comparing they will take less of your money that you earned and they will give you money earned by someone else.

Oh...wait...you missed my point. Or I did not make it as well as I would have liked.

Getting 30K as an entitlement is by no means the same as having 30K taken from you to pay for that entitlement.

I was simply showing how all people have reason to want to vote for personal advantage...not just those on Welfare.

 

[kaz]

Have you ever bought a government bond? What about a money market fund?

Let me ask you the question this way. If you give your children a bill (social security) and another bill (the national debt) which includes funding the first bill, how have you "saved?"

Let me put it another way. A friend of mine (with more money than me) just bought $5 million in Treasury notes and bonds, ranging in duration of 1 to 5 years. It was most of the money he had. By your explanation, it sounds like my friend has taken all his money and just blew it all away. That $5 million isn't savings. He doesn't have it anymore. It's a Ponzi scheme. He just did the equivalent of taking 5 mil and burning it in a can in the back. Am I right?

Loaning money to yourself is an asset. Sure it is. But it still doesn't answer the question. If you give your kids a trust fund and the bills to fund the trust fund, then how are your kids not just giving you money? How have you actually saved anything?

Your Greenspan argument doesn't say it's an asset that your giving you're kids, it says it's an asset to people who hold bonds. A word game. You're playing the same word game again that you're banking on that your kids will be able to continue to make debt payments. That they will be able to make the payments doesn't mean you gave them anything. The only thing you gave them is your debt and monthly bills which you call "social security." It all will come out of their pockets because you already spent the money.

The difference between us is that I'm not OK with screwing our kids even if our parents screwed us.

 

[kaz]

if you elect me, I will make sure you dont have to pay another 30K in taxes.

If you elect me, I will make sure you get 30K in welfare for another 4 years.

Both seem to be pretty much the same "conflict of interest" to me.

Yes, comrade, all money is the people's money. It's ridiculous comparing they will take less of your money that you earned and they will give you money earned by someone else.

Oh...wait...you missed my point. Or I did not make it as well as I would have liked.

Getting 30K as an entitlement is by no means the same as having 30K taken from you to pay for that entitlement.

I was simply showing how all people have reason to want to vote for personal advantage...not just those on Welfare.

I agreed with you the first time on that point though. I just said that a check of other people's money, pay to the order of you, put it in the bank, is the ultimate conflict.

 

[Jarhead]

Au contraire, as an MBA, I am a superior human being than the rest of you. And because I'm better off financially than most, I should get more votes, even though I'm not an American!

Now bow down to my greatness.

Glad to see that there are still a few sane satirists here!

Thanks for the smiles!

Smiles?
Satirists?

I am a business owner, succcessful, own my own home in an afluent area....well educated., (albeit never went for the MBA), belong to a Country Club and own a 34 foot Searay.

I was bowing down to you becuase people such as you and I deserve to be bowed down to. We earned it.

 

[kaz]

I wonder if we should allow MBA graduates to vote. Its a clear conflict of interest, they are not stakeholders and they are taking much more than they are giving, just look at the recent Great Short of the stock market and the recent bailouts. Two clarifications:

1) I'm talking about all sorts of MBA graduates, not just those who work in finance. If you are sucking off some hard working man's salary with your cushy but unproductive job in management, you're part of the problem.

2) I am not allowing them to vote only once they completely graduate. If they get a real job outside of finance or management, they'll be able to vote within one year. An MBA graduate who works with his or her hands may have the vote reinstated immediately.

Au contraire, as an MBA, I am a superior human being than the rest of you. And because I'm better off financially than most, I should get more votes, even though I'm not an American!

Now bow down to my greatness.

yawn

 

[Contumacious]

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HUH?

WTF?

At a Senate hearing in July 2001, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was asked whether the trust fund investments are “real” or merely an accounting device.

Bwahahahahahahahah

He avoided the question you stupid moron. He never answered YES or NO - as to whether they were real or an accounting entry.

What a stupid ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Alan Greenspan is not a stupid ****.

He said the claims are real. .

What a fucktard, of course the claims are real. All those who have been victimized by the federal government by forcing them to pay into the Ponzi scheme have a CLAIM agaisnt the treasury.


"These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures."


.

 

[Toro]

Let me ask you the question this way. If you give your children a bill (social security) and another bill (the national debt) which includes funding the first bill, how have you "saved?"

Let me put it another way. A friend of mine (with more money than me) just bought $5 million in Treasury notes and bonds, ranging in duration of 1 to 5 years. It was most of the money he had. By your explanation, it sounds like my friend has taken all his money and just blew it all away. That $5 million isn't savings. He doesn't have it anymore. It's a Ponzi scheme. He just did the equivalent of taking 5 mil and burning it in a can in the back. Am I right?

Loaning money to yourself is an asset. Sure it is. But it still doesn't answer the question. If you give your kids a trust fund and the bills to fund the trust fund, then how are your kids not just giving you money? How have you actually saved anything?

Your Greenspan argument doesn't say it's an asset that your giving you're kids, it says it's an asset to people who hold bonds. A word game. You're playing the same word game again that you're banking on that your kids will be able to continue to make debt payments. That they will be able to make the payments doesn't mean you gave them anything. The only thing you gave them is your debt and monthly bills which you call "social security." It all will come out of their pockets because you already spent the money.

The difference between us is that I'm not OK with screwing our kids even if our parents screwed us.

Like I said, SS is a poor way to run a retirement system. You could make SS completely fully funded and give people a tax cut if it were structured like a real pension plan. What I'm trying to convey is that the economics of SS are no different than a pension plan that invests 100% in government bonds. Such a pension fund is no different than an individual who invests his entire savings into government Treasury bonds. But nobody is going to say that the guy who invests his life savings in government bonds isn't saving. Of course he's saving.

Any financial investment is a claim on real assets. It doesn't matter if those assets are stocks, corporate bonds, mezzanine debt, senior banks loans or accounts receivables. For any government bond, the claim is on the taxing power of productive capacity of the issuing jurisdiction. For any corporation, it is the earnings power of the company.

As for this "we're screwing our kids" argument, that may be, but it's only true if we are putting on too much debt. If nominal GDP is growing faster than the rate of interest on the debt, then they aren't getting screwed because the productive capacity is growing faster than cost of government capital.

Also, the fact that we are borrowing from our kids doesn't mean it's not savings. If you lend your kid money to buy a house, it's still savings to you. Even if the kid blows it all in Vegas, it's still savings to you if he pays it back.

As for Greenspan, it's not a word game because he understands the nature of SS. When people ask if it's "real," they are thinking as in real, tangible things, like bearer bonds, which they aren't. But it's not an accounting game either. SS are legal claims on the US Treasury, just like the Treasury bonds my friend bought.

 

[Toro]

HUH?

WTF?

At a Senate hearing in July 2001, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was asked whether the trust fund investments are “real” or merely an accounting device.

Bwahahahahahahahah

He avoided the question you stupid moron. He never answered YES or NO - as to whether they were real or an accounting entry.

What a stupid ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Alan Greenspan is not a stupid ****.

He said the claims are real. .

What a fucktard, of course the claims are real. All those who have been victimized by the federal government by forcing them to pay into the Ponzi scheme have a CLAIM agaisnt the treasury.


"These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures."


.

Apart from liquidity, how is that different from Treasury bonds?

 

[kaz]

As for Greenspan, it's not a word game because he understands the nature of SS. When people ask if it's "real," they are thinking as in real, tangible things, like bearer bonds, which they aren't. But it's not an accounting game either. SS are legal claims on the US Treasury, just like the Treasury bonds my friend bought.

Except your friend didn't by the bonds from himself and then claim them as an asset. You have to go back to the premise of the discussion. I defined welfare as someone getting a check of other people's money. When you get social security, regardless of everything you said, it will be all your kids money and none of yours. The supposed trust fund that is paying your social security check is paid by them. Whether they write a check to SSA to give to you, or write a check to the treasury to give to you, it's their money. And the SSA doesn't even have it's own money, it's part of the general fund. Your money is gone. I appreciate your more serious attempt to address the question, but it clearly meets my standard of you are getting a check of someone else's money. You can define welfare differently, but this thread is based on my definition.

 

[Spoonman]

ya think?

Is that why there are MORE wealthy people today than yesterday and do you think that is why the wealthiest hold more of this countrys wealth today than yesterday?

As a percent of GDP, Bill Gates has a fraction of what guys like Morgan or Rockefeller had. And you're only counting as welfare what is traditionally called welfare. I said everyone who gets checks of other people's money. And that's the problem, they are finding more and more ways to redistribute money earned by one person to another.

Id say ya got it backwards Kaz.....from purely the numbers that don't lie, it is the wealthiest who have benefited MOST from their representation in congress....imo. (and i certainly would not recommend their right to vote be taken away from them! )

Government should not be helping or harming any citizen at the expense of another, including the rich. BTW, as a math major I agree numbers don't lie, but you can definitely lie with numbers...

Think of it this way..........you're a citizen of this country, so your rent to live here is paid by your taxes.

Once you've paid your rent, you have no say in what the landlord does with your rent. You just get to live there another month.

Once you've paid your taxes, you have no say in what the politician elected does with it. You just hope that the person elected is doing what you'd like them to do.

No. Once you've paid taxes, it's no longer your money, it's the government's.

but your landlord doesn't vote for you, your politicians do.

and why should they be allowed to unevenly distribute the taxes they collect? shouldn't they benefit all equally?

 

[EriktheRed]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

Unfuckingbelievable.

 

[kaz]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

Unfuckingbelievable.

IT's the new word of the week on Fox News, Glenn, and Rush.... "STAKE-HOLDERS"

They think it applies to EVERYTHING..

If you want to descend into the depths of Hell on Earth brainless posts, read this entire thread, if you want a few cleverly barbed satirical comments, you'll find them here, too!

I have never ever seen a message board with more neanderthallic posters than one finds here. (No insult to my ancestors, who were, in all genetic probablility, part Neanderthalls), as we homo-sapiens, all, from the latest DNA evidence, appear to be

Actually "stakeholders" goes back in business as long as I remember. Sounds like you're getting exposed to views outside the liberal locker room. Well done, my friend. It'll expand your mind.

 

[kaz]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

Unfuckingbelievable.

You German?

 

[EriktheRed]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

Unfuckingbelievable.

You German?

No, but thank god you're in the minority.

 

[Kuros]

Look, Kaz, your priorities are back-asswards, okay?

Its the private equity mobsters and the venture capitalist barons who have sucked up billions and billions of dollars out of the productive economy who deserve your ire. This is not a conservative v. liberal thing at all. The productive rich like Bill Gates and the thousands of entreprenuers and family farmers are getting raped, but not by poor-people welfare, but by corporate and military-industrial welfare. This is about the corporate class and the financial class ruining America.

And you want to persecute single-mothers on food stamps and their children on SCHIP because of some bad choices?

An MBA graduate: someone who thinks a liberal education means partisan propaganda.

 

[kaz]

Unfuckingbelievable.

You German?

No, but thank god you're in the minority.

Ditto. Actually I am half German, I meant ditto on that you're in the minority

 

[kaz]

Look, Kaz, your priorities are back-asswards, okay?

Its the private equity mobsters and the venture capitalist barons who have sucked up billions and billions of dollars out of the productive economy who deserve your ire. This is not a conservative v. liberal thing at all. The productive rich like Bill Gates and the thousands of entreprenuers and family farmers are getting raped, but not by poor-people welfare, but by corporate and military-industrial welfare. This is about the corporate class and the financial class ruining America.

And you want to persecute single-mothers on food stamps and their children on SCHIP because of some bad choices?

An MBA graduate: someone who thinks a liberal education means partisan propaganda.

You like repeating liberal buzz words don't you?

 

[editec]

Should anybody unable to pass a post-graduate level test in political science and be allow to vote?

Based on what I read here?

Hell no!

 

[Kuros]

Look, Kaz, your priorities are back-asswards, okay?

Its the private equity mobsters and the venture capitalist barons who have sucked up billions and billions of dollars out of the productive economy who deserve your ire. This is not a conservative v. liberal thing at all. The productive rich like Bill Gates and the thousands of entreprenuers and family farmers are getting raped, but not by poor-people welfare, but by corporate and military-industrial welfare. This is about the corporate class and the financial class ruining America.

And you want to persecute single-mothers on food stamps and their children on SCHIP because of some bad choices?

An MBA graduate: someone who thinks a liberal education means partisan propaganda.

You like repeating liberal buzz words don't you?

See, this kind of lameass retort doesn't work on me because I'm not actually a liberal. I don't have problems with liberals or conservatives per se. And my attacks on MBA graduates are even somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I know enough MBA graduates who have decried the sad state of the MBA education system to know there is hope for some of you guys.

Yeah, for some of you.