So support a massive lie because they tacked on a smaller lie (Social Security Disability) that helps some people.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Sure SS is a mess. Sure people and the government totally abuse it in their own ways. But we can't just scrap the whole program and replace it with personal responsibility.
You intentionally limit the choices to scrapping Social Security, or tossing disable people into the streets to fend for themselves via their personal responsibility.
So you claim Social Security is bad, but you can't scrap it because of... the limited choices you present which only allow one to support it in the end to be compassionate.
I didn't realize I was giving you a bulleted list of choices. Last I checked what I said was:
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Sure SS is a mess. Sure people and the government totally abuse it in their own ways. But we can't just scrap the whole program and replace it with personal responsibility.
Actually Social Security is in trouble when it begins dipping into the trust fund, which is just in a few years.
...
Remember when the government doesn't like the rules, they change them.
So I take it you're comfortable with the idea of the most massive government-enforced redistribution of income in the history of the world? Because we're too lazy and dumb to prevent it? This would make all the "confiscatory" taxes and welfare payments over the last 70 years look like chump change. We're talking about a trillion dollars over the past two decades, plus about another 2 trillion over the next decade, in money raised by highly regressive payroll taxes that was effectively used to pay for huge upper-bracket tax cuts (first in the 1980s, again in the 2000s).
That would bear a striking resemblance to Communism. Soak the working joes to pay off the ruling class. Stalin perfected this in the 30s, though he was a little more overt about it. Has any society in the history of the world ever prospered by continuously transferring wealth from the poor/peasants to the ruling class? That's a one-way street to stagnation and enervation. If Soviet Russia hits too close to home, try Hapsburg Spain for another great example.
[senatorial voice] So Mr. Trumpetman, are you, or have you ever been, a member of a Communist organization? [/senatorial voice]
One more question: if the "trust fund" is such an awful idea that it we should consider it to effectively not exist, were Alan Greenspan, Ronald Reagan and the entire SS commission in the 1980s who created it: a) criminally incompenent or b) just diabolically evil? Because this is all part of their plan...nothing has changed!
So I take it you're comfortable with the idea of the most massive government-enforced redistribution of income in the history of the world? Because we're too lazy and dumb to prevent it? This would make all the "confiscatory" taxes and welfare payments over the last 70 years look like chump change. We're talking about a trillion dollars over the past two decades, plus about another 2 trillion over the next decade, in money raised by highly regressive payroll taxes that was effectively used to pay for huge upper-bracket tax cuts (first in the 1980s, again in the 2000s).
That would bear a striking resemblance to Communism. Soak the working joes to pay off the ruling class. Stalin perfected this in the 30s, though he was a little more overt about it. Has any society in the history of the world ever prospered by continuously transferring wealth from the poor/peasants to the ruling class? That's a one-way street to stagnation and enervation. If Soviet Russia hits too close to home, try Hapsburg Spain for another great example.
[senatorial voice] So Mr. Trumpetman, are you, or have you ever been, a member of a Communist organization? [/senatorial voice]
One more question: if the "trust fund" is such an awful idea that it we should consider it to effectively not exist, were Alan Greenspan, Ronald Reagan and the entire SS commission in the 1980s who created it: a) criminally incompenent or b) just diabolically evil? Because this is all part of their plan...nothing has changed!
I believe this was posted by myself in the first post.
Quote:
Just so we are clear this has been done by Republicans, Democrats you name it. All have robbed this cash pile. Why should we support this in any fashion in the future?
Or that you support legalized pyramid schemes, even when they are run by the government.
Nick
This comment has no meaning.
And as for only balancing the budget for 2 years, he got it in shit shape so it took a while to fix. Breaking it for Bush was much easier and fixing it yet again will be harder still.
And as for only balancing the budget for 2 years, he got it in shit shape so it took a while to fix. Breaking it for Bush was much easier and fixing it yet again will be harder still.
Perhaps it has no meaning to you but someone else already eluded to the ponzi (pyramid) scheme as well. So it is already more than my view. In fact it is a well known view. Social Security run by anyone else would be illegal. They don't assign your money to you. It isn't a pension, insurance, or anything else. It is a pyramid and each "reform" be it done by Republicans or Democrats has just been a tax increase since the base of that pyramid is getting smaller and smaller.
A ponzi scheme isn't really a pyramid scheme although they have strong similarities, and SS isn't really a pyramid or ponzi scheme although it shares many qualities of both.
A ponzi scheme isn't really a pyramid scheme although they have strong similarities, and SS isn't really a pyramid or ponzi scheme although it shares many qualities of both.
Please add some supporting statements to your very nice topic sentence. Explain, explain...
It has been suggested that some state pension schemes, e.g. the U.S. Social Security and the U.K. State pension schemes bear disturbing resemblances to Ponzi schemes in their mode of financing. This is because benefits are paid from taxes currently being collected, rather than from the taxes previously paid by the current beneficiaries. This also explains why the aging of the Baby Boomer generation presents a threat to the U.S. Social Security system: as more of the Baby Boomers retire, there will be more people collecting social security benefits than there will be workers paying taxes for social security benefits. However, critics of this view state that the balance income and outgoings from Social Security is sustainable because the returns from Social Security are not high enough to cause the system to run out of money.
Perhaps it has no meaning to you but someone else already eluded to the ponzi (pyramid) scheme as well. So it is already more than my view. In fact it is a well known view. Social Security run by anyone else would be illegal. They don't assign your money to you. It isn't a pension, insurance, or anything else. It is a pyramid and each "reform" be it done by Republicans or Democrats has just been a tax increase since the base of that pyramid is getting smaller and smaller.
Nick
Just as you asked giant for an explanation, you shouldn't have to be asked to explain your pyramid scheme belief. It's just hot air.
Just as you asked giant for an explanation, you shouldn't have to be asked to explain your pyramid scheme belief. It's just hot air.
I could explain it but Al already did a nice job. He even did it with giant's link.
If my view were hot air, we wouldn't have to worry about Social Security going broke. You would be getting a return on your own money invested. But it is a scheme and as such, someone gets screwed.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
So support a massive lie because they tacked on a smaller lie (Social Security Disability) that helps some people.
Originally posted by giant
Sure SS is a mess. Sure people and the government totally abuse it in their own ways. But we can't just scrap the whole program and replace it with personal responsibility.
Got it?
Originally posted by trumptman
Got it.
Good.
Originally posted by giant
Got it?
Good.
You intentionally limit the choices to scrapping Social Security, or tossing disable people into the streets to fend for themselves via their personal responsibility.
So you claim Social Security is bad, but you can't scrap it because of... the limited choices you present which only allow one to support it in the end to be compassionate.
Those aren't the only choices.
Got it?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Those aren't the only choices.
I didn't realize I was giving you a bulleted list of choices. Last I checked what I said was:
Originally posted by giant
Sure SS is a mess. Sure people and the government totally abuse it in their own ways. But we can't just scrap the whole program and replace it with personal responsibility.
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually Social Security is in trouble when it begins dipping into the trust fund, which is just in a few years.
...
Remember when the government doesn't like the rules, they change them.
So I take it you're comfortable with the idea of the most massive government-enforced redistribution of income in the history of the world? Because we're too lazy and dumb to prevent it? This would make all the "confiscatory" taxes and welfare payments over the last 70 years look like chump change. We're talking about a trillion dollars over the past two decades, plus about another 2 trillion over the next decade, in money raised by highly regressive payroll taxes that was effectively used to pay for huge upper-bracket tax cuts (first in the 1980s, again in the 2000s).
That would bear a striking resemblance to Communism. Soak the working joes to pay off the ruling class. Stalin perfected this in the 30s, though he was a little more overt about it. Has any society in the history of the world ever prospered by continuously transferring wealth from the poor/peasants to the ruling class? That's a one-way street to stagnation and enervation. If Soviet Russia hits too close to home, try Hapsburg Spain for another great example.
[senatorial voice] So Mr. Trumpetman, are you, or have you ever been, a member of a Communist organization? [/senatorial voice]
One more question: if the "trust fund" is such an awful idea that it we should consider it to effectively not exist, were Alan Greenspan, Ronald Reagan and the entire SS commission in the 1980s who created it: a) criminally incompenent or b) just diabolically evil? Because this is all part of their plan...nothing has changed!
-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
Originally posted by Towel
So I take it you're comfortable with the idea of the most massive government-enforced redistribution of income in the history of the world? Because we're too lazy and dumb to prevent it? This would make all the "confiscatory" taxes and welfare payments over the last 70 years look like chump change. We're talking about a trillion dollars over the past two decades, plus about another 2 trillion over the next decade, in money raised by highly regressive payroll taxes that was effectively used to pay for huge upper-bracket tax cuts (first in the 1980s, again in the 2000s).
That would bear a striking resemblance to Communism. Soak the working joes to pay off the ruling class. Stalin perfected this in the 30s, though he was a little more overt about it. Has any society in the history of the world ever prospered by continuously transferring wealth from the poor/peasants to the ruling class? That's a one-way street to stagnation and enervation. If Soviet Russia hits too close to home, try Hapsburg Spain for another great example.
[senatorial voice] So Mr. Trumpetman, are you, or have you ever been, a member of a Communist organization? [/senatorial voice]
One more question: if the "trust fund" is such an awful idea that it we should consider it to effectively not exist, were Alan Greenspan, Ronald Reagan and the entire SS commission in the 1980s who created it: a) criminally incompenent or b) just diabolically evil? Because this is all part of their plan...nothing has changed!
I believe this was posted by myself in the first post.
Just so we are clear this has been done by Republicans, Democrats you name it. All have robbed this cash pile. Why should we support this in any fashion in the future?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Or that you support legalized pyramid schemes, even when they are run by the government.
Nick
This comment has no meaning.
And as for only balancing the budget for 2 years, he got it in shit shape so it took a while to fix. Breaking it for Bush was much easier and fixing it yet again will be harder still.
Originally posted by bunge
This comment has no meaning.
And as for only balancing the budget for 2 years, he got it in shit shape so it took a while to fix. Breaking it for Bush was much easier and fixing it yet again will be harder still.
Perhaps it has no meaning to you but someone else already eluded to the ponzi (pyramid) scheme as well. So it is already more than my view. In fact it is a well known view. Social Security run by anyone else would be illegal. They don't assign your money to you. It isn't a pension, insurance, or anything else. It is a pyramid and each "reform" be it done by Republicans or Democrats has just been a tax increase since the base of that pyramid is getting smaller and smaller.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
ponzi (pyramid) scheme
A ponzi scheme isn't really a pyramid scheme although they have strong similarities, and SS isn't really a pyramid or ponzi scheme although it shares many qualities of both.
Originally posted by giant
A ponzi scheme isn't really a pyramid scheme although they have strong similarities, and SS isn't really a pyramid or ponzi scheme although it shares many qualities of both.
Please add some supporting statements to your very nice topic sentence. Explain, explain...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
supporting statements
A horse is not a donkey is not a zebra.
en.wikipedia.org
Are state pensions a Ponzi scheme?
It has been suggested that some state pension schemes, e.g. the U.S. Social Security and the U.K. State pension schemes bear disturbing resemblances to Ponzi schemes in their mode of financing. This is because benefits are paid from taxes currently being collected, rather than from the taxes previously paid by the current beneficiaries. This also explains why the aging of the Baby Boomer generation presents a threat to the U.S. Social Security system: as more of the Baby Boomers retire, there will be more people collecting social security benefits than there will be workers paying taxes for social security benefits. However, critics of this view state that the balance income and outgoings from Social Security is sustainable because the returns from Social Security are not high enough to cause the system to run out of money.
you could at least link the worthwhile text.
Originally posted by trumptman
Perhaps it has no meaning to you but someone else already eluded to the ponzi (pyramid) scheme as well. So it is already more than my view. In fact it is a well known view. Social Security run by anyone else would be illegal. They don't assign your money to you. It isn't a pension, insurance, or anything else. It is a pyramid and each "reform" be it done by Republicans or Democrats has just been a tax increase since the base of that pyramid is getting smaller and smaller.
Nick
Just as you asked giant for an explanation, you shouldn't have to be asked to explain your pyramid scheme belief. It's just hot air.
Originally posted by alcimedes
you could at least link the worthwhile text.
I was just pointing that I shouldn't have to explain the terms he uses.
Originally posted by bunge
Just as you asked giant for an explanation, you shouldn't have to be asked to explain your pyramid scheme belief. It's just hot air.
I could explain it but Al already did a nice job. He even did it with giant's link.
If my view were hot air, we wouldn't have to worry about Social Security going broke. You would be getting a return on your own money invested. But it is a scheme and as such, someone gets screwed.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I could explain it but ...
Ah, but what you said was horse = donkey = zebra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
Originally posted by trumptman
giant's link.
Giant's link? That's wikipedia.
Originally posted by BR
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
What, no one has a response to this?
who knows it could change one day.... just maybe
fellows
Originally posted by BR
What, no one has a response to this?
Because it's irrelevant. If you don't want to pay taxes move to a Zambia.
Originally posted by Fellowship
Other than this last BR post...
I didn't tell anyone how to post.