Where do libs come from?

[Mariner]

day (wish I could remember where, so I could give you the reference) showing that over the past 50 years the economy has performed better, on average, under Democratic administrations than Republican. They included employment rate, income, and other major economic statistics in the analysis.

I'm curious, Manu159--you've mentioned previously that you would like to abolish social security, among other entitlement programs. What would you propose in its stead to prevent old people from starving to deat in their homes (the reason SS was created in the first place)? I personally favor raising the retirement age considerably, to reflect increased life expectancy, but can't see how it could be abolished.

Mariner.

 

[eric]

What would you propose in its stead to prevent old people from starving to deat in their homes (the reason SS was created in the first place)?

How about people taking personal responsibility and investing in their own future instead of having the government do it for them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

day (wish I could remember where, so I could give you the reference) showing that over the past 50 years the economy has performed better, on average, under Democratic administrations than Republican. They included employment rate, income, and other major economic statistics in the analysis.

I'm curious, Manu159--you've mentioned previously that you would like to abolish social security, among other entitlement programs. What would you propose in its stead to prevent old people from starving to deat in their homes (the reason SS was created in the first place)? I personally favor raising the retirement age considerably, to reflect increased life expectancy, but can't see how it could be abolished.

Mariner.

So, before social security, all humans ended up starving to death in their homes? IS this what you're saying?

 

[eric]

So, before social security, all humans ended up starving to death in their homes? IS this what you're saying?

RW, they just don't get it !

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RW, they just don't get it !

How do they function, being afflicted with levels of crippling stupidity as they are?

 

[dilloduck]

How do they function, being afflicted with levels of crippling stupidity as they are?

Simple--they do not feel responsible for the consequences of their actions.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Simple--they do not feel responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Right. Because their intentions are so pure and enlightened. Good intentions pave the liberal road to hell.

 

[dilloduck]

Right. Because their intentions are so pure and enlightened. Good intentions pave the liberal road to hell.

and anything bad that happens HAS to be the results of something someone else did.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

and anything bad that happens HAS to be the results of something someone else did.

Yep. That's right. Testify, brother! Go on! mmmmm hmmm. That's right!

 

[Said1]

How do they function, being afflicted with levels of crippling stupidity as they are?

Low-self esteem is an acceptable excus for just about everything in their crowd, it's almost mandatory.

 

[Mariner]

exaggerating and complaining. This country spends the smallest proportion of its GDP on social programs of any industrialized nation (and perhaps as a result has by far the highest child poverty rate, along with the highest rates of violent crimes, and the largest prison population).

I never said "everyone" starved to death in the days before social security. What I said was, take just one moment to remember that there was some reasoning behind liberal programs. Old people did indeed end up in poverty. Check the history books. I don't think any of you really want to leave people sick and without heat. No amount of personal responsibility will permit someone who has worked the minimum wage his whole life to save enough for retirement without the help of social security.

Eric, it's great to say "take some personal responsibility" but how do you actually make it happen? What do you say to the people that decided to spend their entire retirement savings buying a single "hot" stock, only to watch it tank? This has already happened many times, as you know, now that people have more control of their pension portfolios.

I'm not against a reform of social security to include a bit more risk and bit better return on investment, but I can't see how it could successfully be abolished. Why not consider it a tax we pay in return for our tremendous social freedom here? In India you just can't get up and take a job across the country, because you're tied down caring for the elderly people in your household. And would you be able to afford the care of elderly people in your family if you didn't have help from social security and Medicare? Most people couldn't. Have you checked what a nursing home costs recently? Thank Medicare that it'll be there for you if you need it (and by the way Medicare has a lower overhead than any major private insurance company--a tenth that of some of the big HMOs).

You guys would do better to stop demonizing liberals. Europe--far more liberal than us--may soon be breathing down our economic necks. I saw a report today that there were 50 American companies larger than a certain threshold (I forget what exactly--I think it was one of those Fortune lists). There were 61 European companies in the same size-class. I'm always surprised when Americans assume that we have the highest standard of living on earth--we don't. We have more rich people, but the median income here is lower than that of several European countries. Pouring too much money into social services can be poisonous in Europe, of course, as it can here. But it can also mean a more broadly educated workforce, less poverty, and less crime. The jury's still out on which system is better--as the E.U. and China get their acts together, this should be an interesting century.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

exaggerating and complaining. This country spends the smallest proportion of its GDP on social programs of any industrialized nation (and perhaps as a result has by far the highest child poverty rate, along with the highest rates of violent crimes, and the largest prison population).

I never said "everyone" starved to death in the days before social security. What I said was, take just one moment to remember that there was some reasoning behind liberal programs. Old people did indeed end up in poverty. Check the history books. I don't think any of you really want to leave people sick and without heat. No amount of personal responsibility will permit someone who has worked the minimum wage his whole life to save enough for retirement without the help of social security.

Eric, it's great to say "take some personal responsibility" but how do you actually make it happen? What do you say to the people that decided to spend their entire retirement savings buying a single "hot" stock, only to watch it tank? This has already happened many times, as you know, now that people have more control of their pension portfolios.

I'm not against a reform of social security to include a bit more risk and bit better return on investment, but I can't see how it could successfully be abolished. Why not consider it a tax we pay in return for our tremendous social freedom here? In India you just can't get up and take a job across the country, because you're tied down caring for the elderly people in your household. And would you be able to afford the care of elderly people in your family if you didn't have help from social security and Medicare? Most people couldn't. Have you checked what a nursing home costs recently? Thank Medicare that it'll be there for you if you need it (and by the way Medicare has a lower overhead than any major private insurance company--a tenth that of some of the big HMOs).

You guys would do better to stop demonizing liberals. Europe--far more liberal than us--may soon be breathing down our economic necks. I saw a report today that there were 50 American companies larger than a certain threshold (I forget what exactly--I think it was one of those Fortune lists). There were 61 European companies in the same size-class. I'm always surprised when Americans assume that we have the highest standard of living on earth--we don't. We have more rich people, but the median income here is lower than that of several European countries. Pouring too much money into social services can be poisonous in Europe, of course, as it can here. But it can also mean a more broadly educated workforce, less poverty, and less crime. The jury's still out on which system is better--as the E.U. and China get their acts together, this should be an interesting century.

Mariner.

You'd do better to just give up mariner. No one buys your crap. Your party lost because you're too socialist and weak on national defense. The evangelicals were always there; they don't explain bushes victory. The people realizing en masse that the libs are full of socialist, antiamerican crap explains bushes victory.

Those EU nations maintain their standard of living by severely limiting influx of poor. And also they're finally studying tax cuts to enliven their sluggish economies too.

Think of social security as a tax we pay? Gee what a great idea, now a state sponsored ponzi scheme is more palatable.

DId you know that charitable giving was at an all time high during the 80's decade of greed?

You're starting to look desperate. The world cannot be failure proofed. What do you want to do, end human evolution?

 

[KarlMarx]

This country spends the smallest proportion of its GDP on social programs of any industrialized nation (and perhaps as a result has by far the highest child poverty rate, along with the highest rates of violent crimes, and the largest prison population). .

So spending the smallest portion of our GDP in proportion to other industrialized nations on social programs is a bad thing? Do you realize that over the past forty years, we have spent over 5 TRILLION dollars on the war on poverty? And what do we have to show for it? Nothing! There are just as many poor people (as a percentage of our population) as there were in 1964! As far as highest rate of violent crime and largest prison population…so? If people commit violent crimes, where would you have us send them? To the circus? Actually, the number of people in prisons should be higher but many are let go early, so that they can commit more crimes. We need more prisons for violent criminals and harsher sentencing. Studies show that when harsher penalties for crimes are in place, crime goes down dramatically. And the reason for that is partly economic. If you increase the cost of committing crime, you take away the incentive to commit them.

I never said "everyone" starved to death in the days before social security. What I said was, take just one moment to remember that there was some reasoning behind liberal programs. Old people did indeed end up in poverty. Check the history books. I don't think any of you really want to leave people sick and without heat. No amount of personal responsibility will permit someone who has worked the minimum wage his whole life to save enough for retirement without the help of social security.

Most people that work the minimum wage are young people working at McDonald’s or WalMart but will eventually move on to other jobs that pay more. Most people in the bottom 25% of earning power today will be in the top 25-50% of earners in 15-20 years. How can I make such a claim? That’s the way it always has been. You don’t expect people to remain store clerks all their lives. In fact we should be encouraging people to go to school, learn new skills and earn more money. The myth of the minimum wage is that it will somehow help to end poverty. No, it won’t. Businesses will pass the extra cost of paying people the minimum wage onto the consumer, prices will then rise and you’re back to where you started. In addition, when there is a minimum wage, business won’t hire extra people when there is extra work, but instead will require their employees to work more overtime. Except for extenuating circumstances, most people should not be working the minimum wage their entire lives. They should be learning new skills in order to climb out of the minimum wage bracket.

Eric, it's great to say "take some personal responsibility" but how do you actually make it happen? What do you say to the people that decided to spend their entire retirement savings buying a single "hot" stock, only to watch it tank? This has already happened many times, as you know, now that people have more control of their pension portfolios.

What do you say to people that decided to spend their entire retirement savings on a single “hot” stock only to watch it tank? Simple…..” how stupid can you be? “ Hey, it was their decision to do something stupid…. Now they have to live with the consequences. The simplest rule of common sense investing is diversify your investments, that way you minimize the risk of losing all your hard earned money. The second rule of common sense investing is not to put all your money in the stock market, but put some of it into bonds or savings. Sound cold hearted? Yes. But we’re all big boys and girls, now aren’t we? This is a country of equal opportunity and freedom…. But with that opportunity and freedom comes the responsibility to face the consequences of your own decision. The government should not be our babysitter.

I'm not against a reform of social security to include a bit more risk and bit better return on investment, but I can't see how it could successfully be abolished. Why not consider it a tax we pay in return for our tremendous social freedom here? In India you just can't get up and take a job across the country, because you're tied down caring for the elderly people in your household. And would you be able to afford the care of elderly people in your family if you didn't have help from social security and Medicare? Most people couldn't. Have you checked what a nursing home costs recently? Thank Medicare that it'll be there for you if you need it (and by the way Medicare has a lower overhead than any major private insurance company--a tenth that of some of the big HMOs).

Do you understand what Social Security is? A giant Ponzi scheme! Current workers are supporting the current beneficiaries. The money you put into the system isn’t set aside for you. Now, think about this. If the population of workers continues to increase, there isn’t a problem. But what happens when the population of workers decreases (as what is now happening)? Each worker has to pay more and more into the system to sustain it. In other words, if we don’t reform Social now…. There won’t be a Social Security at all in a generation.

The other issues of nursing home care and so on have nothing to do with Social Security. The average cost of a nursing home stay is about 5000 a month (or more). A Social Security check amounts to several hundred a month. That won’t even begin to cover the cost of nursing home care. And oh by the way, Medicare is almost bankrupt too. At least it is here in New York. There are so many people in nursing homes (and most can’t afford to pay the 5000 a month bill) that the tab is picked up by the State, but this type of situation is not sustainable.

What really is needed is some type of investment model where people put their money into an account or set of accounts. That money is invested and a return is realized. That money compounds and eventually is used for long term health care. Actually such a thing does exist, in a way. It’s called “Long Term Health Care Insurance” and costs about 3 to 6 grand a year…..

You guys would do better to stop demonizing liberals. Europe--far more liberal than us--may soon be breathing down our economic necks. I saw a report today that there were 50 American companies larger than a certain threshold (I forget what exactly--I think it was one of those Fortune lists). There were 61 European companies in the same size-class. I'm always surprised when Americans assume that we have the highest standard of living on earth--we don't. We have more rich people, but the median income here is lower than that of several European countries. Pouring too much money into social services can be poisonous in Europe, of course, as it can here. But it can also mean a more broadly educated workforce, less poverty, and less crime. The jury's still out on which system is better--as the E.U. and China get their acts together, this should be an interesting century.

Stop demonizing liberals? Gee, what would we do for fun then? Collecting stamps isn’t as satisfying as pointing out logical errors in liberals’ thinking! Anyway, remember the Greeks used to debate the issues of the day. We are carrying on that classic tradition here at USMB. I’m sure Plato and Socrates would approve! (OK…. I admit, that’s a cheap commercial for USMB -- do you think the admins will ban me ? )

Europe, far more liberal than us, has a higher unemployment rate that we do and higher inflation. Europeans work fewer hours than we do, and have more vacation. Their productivity rate is lower too. Also, Europeans pay higher taxes than we do, so a higher median income doesn’t mean anything, since they don’t get to keep most of it. My grandmother in Italy is struggling to make ends meet along with all her fellow Italian pensioners because the conversion in the Euro screwed them out of a lot of purchasing power. I don’t understand all the details, but my Mother was telling me that is the case.

Europeans invest heavily in United States companies and in US government securities. I wonder why. It must be that perhaps…. Our economy is better than theirs? And where are companies outsourcing to? Europe? No… try the former Warsaw Pact countries that are not part of the EU, China, India and Southeast Asia. Why should that be so? The answer is simple, because it is cheaper to business in those countries. Those countries don’t spend tons of money on liberal programs and as a result the cost of doing business there is lower.

 

[Mariner]

some of the conservative criticisms of the "War on Poverty." I'm deaf, and work with deaf people. One friend told the story of finishing high school and heading straight for the social security office where, like all the other deaf kids in his class, he intended to sign up for disability benefits. Fortunately, he ran into one of his teachers, who told him, "No, stop, go home and fill out some applications for college." The man is now a social worker. I think the currently disability system badly needs overhaul so that, for example, able-bodied deaf people aren't automatically eligible for benefits, and so that people can work part-time and keep their insurance as they try to transition out. The current system encourages dependency.

SS is a giant Ponzi scheme--right, exactly. So if Bush wants to reform it, he has to come up with the money to pay current beneficiaries while investing our money for ourselves. He could increase taxes to do that, or he could borrow it from abroad, his preferred method of avoiding the pain of balancing the federal checkbook.

In regard to elderly people--when they make their mistakes, who's going to pick them up? We have to. It's just like the motorcyclist who says, "It's my life. If I don't want to wear a helmet, it's not your problem." Well, in fact, it is my problem, because the average cost of care and burial of a dead motorcyclist is nearly a half-million taxpayer dollars. When people mis-invest their SS money, we'll have to bail them out, just as we have to treat people who get heart disease despite years of ignoring warnings about their cholesterol, weight, or smoking.

A quick search on the web showed that teens and young people make up 29% of minimum wage workers. The other 71% are older people, many of them trying to raise families.

Money spent on the "War on Poverty" didn't all go down a rat hole. Plenty of it benefited real people. As you know, most people on welfare once worked and will work again. It's a safety net for most people, not a lifestyle.

Europe--yes, they have some adjusting to do. They overdid the social safety net. But after they get their acts together and become more politically connected, they will be a force to be reckoned with. You ignored my point that they have a large number of superb companies--when people post here they often act like we're the only place where capitalism is successful at all, and you also ignored the higher standard of living many Europeans enjoy.

Yes, of course SS doesn't pay nursing homes. I was referring to Medicare.

As for demonizing liberals, I believe that we have all been polarized by the clever marketing people of the two political parties, and that most of us are in fact moderates. The demonization creates an unnecessary polarization. Anyway, Republicans are the federal gov't now, so we'll get to see how good your guys really are.

Mariner.

 

[KarlMarx]

SS is a giant Ponzi scheme--right, exactly. So if Bush wants to reform it, he has to come up with the money to pay current beneficiaries while investing our money for ourselves. He could increase taxes to do that, or he could borrow it from abroad, his preferred method of avoiding the pain of balancing the federal checkbook.

From what I understand ... SS reform will affect only a small percentage of the total funds (around 5 percent) and the only persons affected will be younger workers.

In regard to elderly people--when they make their mistakes, who's going to pick them up? We have to. It's just like the motorcyclist who says, "It's my life. If I don't want to wear a helmet, it's not your problem." Well, in fact, it is my problem, because the average cost of care and burial of a dead motorcyclist is nearly a half-million taxpayer dollars. When people mis-invest their SS money, we'll have to bail them out, just as we have to treat people who get heart disease despite years of ignoring warnings about their cholesterol, weight, or smoking.

I think that you'd be surprised at how many elderly people are quite well off. I live in a neighborhood with a large immigrant population and the older people are doing quite well in most cases. The occassional bad investment in the stock market by a senior citizen isn't a reason to continue big government hand holding. Also, if nothing is done about the SS system, it will eventually collapse. The current state of affairs in the SS system is simply not sustainable.

A quick search on the web showed that teens and young people make up 29% of minimum wage workers. The other 71% are older people, many of them trying to raise families.

Have you been to WalMart, McDonald's, etc? Many older people are working in minimum wage jobs, true. But many of them have a lot of assets (e.g. their home). Many of those elderly on minimum wage are making a lot of money on their investments. Where do you think the 10 trillion dollars that is being invested in the stock market and mutual fund market is coming from? A lot of it is coming from elderly people's investments! Companies are looking to the elderly to increase the labor force, because the number of young people today is less than the number of people retiring. There is actually a labor shortage emerging in this country.

Money spent on the "War on Poverty" didn't all go down a rat hole. Plenty of it benefited real people. As you know, most people on welfare once worked and will work again. It's a safety net for most people, not a lifestyle.

Let's say there were 30 million poor people in this country in 1964 and you gave each of them about 200,000 dollars each. You would have spent the same amount of money as you have on the war on poverty. So in effect, for a poor family consisting of 4 persons, 800,000 dollars was spent in order to keep them poor. That tells me that the war on poverty is a bust... a miserable failure.... and not working.... let's can it and come up with better solutions.... one of which is get government out of the picture.... focus on private solutions to the problem....

Europe--yes, they have some adjusting to do. They overdid the social safety net. But after they get their acts together and become more politically connected, they will be a force to be reckoned with. You ignored my point that they have a large number of superb companies--when people post here they often act like we're the only place where capitalism is successful at all, and you also ignored the higher standard of living many Europeans enjoy.

Depends on what you mean by "higher standard of living" ... more vacation?.... are they wealthier?... Sure, Europe is a major politcal and economic force, but can they sustain it? Remember Japan in the 1980s? They were a force to be reckoned with also. They are in the 2nd decade of a depression now. I think that you'll see the EU run into problems in the years ahead.

Yes, of course SS doesn't pay nursing homes. I was referring to Medicare.

So was I. But even still, Medicare can't keep up with nursing home costs for all the seniors using it and still remain solvent. Another approach --- one in which the money is actually invested instead of being used to pay current users, is needed.

 

[Mariner]

we're almost in agreement now.

I'd still quibble about your 5 trillion dollar figure. That includes everything spent on any social program. Yes indeed, some of those poor people did get $200,000 each--per year sometimes--in the form of special education services for the mentally retarded, nursing home care for the head injured, etc. You talk as if every one of them was able-bodies and ready to invest in the stock market and move up the corporate ladder. Plenty of studies have shown that many poor people have below-normal intelligence, learning disabilities, substance abuse problems, or medical disabilities. I work with these people every day, so I have a good idea what it looks like, and a good idea about how social programs can both help and hurt.

I also disagree with your happy notion that most of the elderly people are working at WalMart while their stock portfolios grow. Many have been forced back to work because they can't make ends meet. As long as they can work, I actually have no problem with that. Sure, elderly people are doing better than in the past, but that's very much because of social security, and therefore doesn't make a good argument for eliminating it. You and I seem to agree it needs some reform.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

some of the conservative criticisms of the "War on Poverty." I'm deaf, and work with deaf people. One friend told the story of finishing high school and heading straight for the social security office where, like all the other deaf kids in his class, he intended to sign up for disability benefits. Fortunately, he ran into one of his teachers, who told him, "No, stop, go home and fill out some applications for college." The man is now a social worker. I think the currently disability system badly needs overhaul so that, for example, able-bodied deaf people aren't automatically eligible for benefits, and so that people can work part-time and keep their insurance as they try to transition out. The current system encourages dependency.

SS is a giant Ponzi scheme--right, exactly. So if Bush wants to reform it, he has to come up with the money to pay current beneficiaries while investing our money for ourselves. He could increase taxes to do that, or he could borrow it from abroad, his preferred method of avoiding the pain of balancing the federal checkbook.

In regard to elderly people--when they make their mistakes, who's going to pick them up? We have to. It's just like the motorcyclist who says, "It's my life. If I don't want to wear a helmet, it's not your problem." Well, in fact, it is my problem, because the average cost of care and burial of a dead motorcyclist is nearly a half-million taxpayer dollars. When people mis-invest their SS money, we'll have to bail them out, just as we have to treat people who get heart disease despite years of ignoring warnings about their cholesterol, weight, or smoking.

A quick search on the web showed that teens and young people make up 29% of minimum wage workers. The other 71% are older people, many of them trying to raise families.

Money spent on the "War on Poverty" didn't all go down a rat hole. Plenty of it benefited real people. As you know, most people on welfare once worked and will work again. It's a safety net for most people, not a lifestyle.

Europe--yes, they have some adjusting to do. They overdid the social safety net. But after they get their acts together and become more politically connected, they will be a force to be reckoned with. You ignored my point that they have a large number of superb companies--when people post here they often act like we're the only place where capitalism is successful at all, and you also ignored the higher standard of living many Europeans enjoy.

Yes, of course SS doesn't pay nursing homes. I was referring to Medicare.

As for demonizing liberals, I believe that we have all been polarized by the clever marketing people of the two political parties, and that most of us are in fact moderates. The demonization creates an unnecessary polarization. Anyway, Republicans are the federal gov't now, so we'll get to see how good your guys really are.

Mariner.

Yes it is a ponzi scheme, outlawed in the private sector. To someone the promised lie of social security must be broken or modified. Continually passing on the fetidness of this government stink bomb to younger generation must stop, even if some elderly person feels disillusioned. The program is logically unfixable in it's current state, without someone older person feeling betrayed, or some younger person working his ass off and getting to keep little of it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

For some reason I don't feel bad. Hmm. Curious.

Without them, there would be no purpose to having this board, as we'd all just be slapping each other on the back in total agreement - what comes after that? Nothing.. So then where's the fun?

so not true. Remember the primaries? There are huge disagreements within the Republican/libertarian party. Is it Republican to intrude in the bedroom and not in the economy? Why?

If the Democrats were made illegal as the Constitution intended the center of the political spectrum would merely move to an intelligent place; the debates we'd have would no longer be between smart and dumb, but between smart and smart.