Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By definition SS is a social insurance. So saying that it is theft is like saying that your premiums paid into health insurance going to cover a claim of another is theft. Social security should operate like an anti-poverty insurance...paid to those who need it to avoid poverty... as it was originally intended. That isn't theft...it's paying a premium into a large social insurance system to expand the reserves in case it's needed...maybe by you...maybe not. Hopefully you'd never need it.
If you believe in taking money at gunpoint and giving it to other people who didn't earn it... You're not a friend to the taxpayer or citizen, you're a flaming leftist. Period.
And government can help prevent extreme poverty by lowering taxes and reducing regulation. And eliminating Crony Capitalism would help too.
How can you say that income inequality isn't a bad thing? Significant research exists that unanimously points to higher crime rates, higher poverty, lower standard of life, and decreased life expectancy in countries with unfavorable Gini coefficients. There are way too many negatives to suggest a coincidence.
How can you say that income inequality isn't a bad thing? Significant research exists that unanimously points to higher crime rates, higher poverty, lower standard of life, and decreased life expectancy in countries with unfavorable Gini coefficients. There are way too many negatives to suggest a coincidence.
Ahhh...because his statement is technically right. Kinda like water isn't a bad thing.
Its when it gets too deep and you drown that its bad. Same thing for wealth inequality, certain levels of it are very good for a society. But once you get beyond a certain point its very very bad. And there is a lot of evidence that points to us being well beyond that point.
Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.
The idea that government should do something that private people or groups can do but you feel govt can do better, is insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it, and must be denied to govt unequivocally.
The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained. For this reason, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.
For the life of me...I don't understand how anyone could feel this way.
Because it is absolutely true.
Quote:
How did social security spread poverty during the Great Depression?
The federal government, by tax and spending policies, extended the Great Depression for nearly a decade. I know, you think that's kindness and light and sweetness, but for those who experienced it, they'd disagree in terms "vehemence" doesn't come close to approaching.
Quote:
How did Medicare at it's inception spread poverty to it's recipients?
Ahh, yes... the old "a little bit of harm is ok, if we can demagogue it hard enough."
Quote:
How does Medicaid spread poverty to it's recipients that would otherwise have no resources for health insurance? Without the Social Security check that my grandmother receives...she would have basically no money. She never worked because my grandfather did it all and managed their money...it was all but wiped out in 2008. Their retirement accounts were basically destroyed and my grandfather passed away in 2010, leaving her with effectively nothing. My grandmother never had to manage money until now and without social security she would be in the throughs of poverty.
SS and medicare steal more than 15% of everything you work for. If anyone saved that, they would be FILTHY STINKING RICH at retirement, instead of broke. Perhaps Grampa played risky with his money, because he never thought consequences would happen. You, like liberals demanding government control our lives, businesses, money, etc.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that unfortunately some people are going to succeed...and some people aren't. Some people simply are going to not do as well in life and it isn't fair for these people to be subjected to overwheming poverty just to stay ideologically consistent.
No, you're welcome to advocate your state try out such programs, if you want. Just stop forcing mindless stupidity on everyone, by the most incompetent, irresponsible, stupid, and worthless government we have.
Quote:
I'm not going to say that the federal government is efficient and operates as well as it could. No one that has ever dealt closely with the federal government would say this. But to say that it has never succeeded and only served to spread poverty is a purely ideological statement void of any reality. Even conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer as agreed that liberalism and government have had their successes.
How can you say that income inequality isn't a bad thing? Significant research exists that unanimously points to higher crime rates, higher poverty, lower standard of life, and decreased life expectancy in countries with unfavorable Gini coefficients. There are way too many negatives to suggest a coincidence.
And once again. Whose fault is that? Want to be equal? work for it. It's the American way.
Great reference and excellent points.
Current libertarian posturing seems reduced to online d_bags.
Interesting theory - and not much else.
Often guilty of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy as well.
Libertarian alternative "authority" from think tanks, academic soft sciences, publications, institutions, etc. creates quotable resources for libertarian positions.
No thinking required by the user and generally of little or no worth.
Heavily financed by wealthy sources.
The same strategy creationists use.
Your assertions don't make any of this true. Notice how you accuse people of fallacies... when your accusation is one itself.
I've had a bit of a political epiphany as of late and I'm not sure if I know how to accurately label myself anymore. I feel like I've always sort of been a moderate Republican or a centrist...but I've been told from random people that I'm more to the right than a centrist but more left than a moderate Republican.
So here is what I think...lable what I am.
Taxes: I think we should have a flat tax at 25% with limited deductions. The capital gains taxes should remain at 15% to incentivize investment and capital risks. Corporate taxes at 25% as well...limit deductions and work to create regulatoins to manage off shore tax evasion.
Banking Regulation: Create stronger regulations to manage the shadow banking sector...CDS, CDO, Etc.
Ways to address recessions: Rebate checks to citizens. Put the money in the hands of the people. This is particularly useful when aimed at the poor because they are less-inclined to save these tax refunds...they will spend them which will stimulate growth. The Bush Admin issued tax vouchers which had a moderating effect on the early 2000's recession and made it much more acute than it would have been otherwise.
Military: Scale it WAY back. Do we really need to outspend practically every other nation thrice over? We need to scrutinize the military as hard as we scrutinize domestic programs for spending cuts.
Foreign Policy: Close as many overseas bases as possible, safely. Stay out of foreign affairs. Let the UN address these issues.
Healthcare: I've vascilated on this one a lot. I've read a lot lately on healthcare and based on my
experience with our healthcare system and the system I used while studying abroad in Austria (single-payer)....I prefer the Austrian system. Their taxation isn't remarkably higher than ours and their Ministry of Health is their central negotiation body and it is remarkably efficient with handling their costs. The healthcare system in Austria is remarkably efficient and succeeds at holding costs down far better than ours. So...based purely on my experience with these two systems only...I choose the Austrian one.
Social Issues: Pro drug legalization/taxation, pro gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-legalizatoin of prostitution. My basic premise is...if you ain't hurtin' anyone and each party is a willing and legal consentor...go for it.
Education: Tax vouchers for parents...empower parents to pick better schools than our failing public system. We've tried forcing money into this system for years...It isn't getting better and more money just isn't the answer. Parents should be able to opt out and use their "share" of the tax dollars for vouchers so that they can send their kids to the school of their choice.
Social Security: It should be means tested and serve as a true social insurance. There is no reason that wealthy people should pull from social security. If you don't need it...you don't get it. The eligibility age needs to be raised as well. We live longer these days.
Well, those are all the issues I can think about off hand. If you need more to accurately label me...ask and I'll try to address it.
I'd say you are pretty left leaning. I'm curious where you think that 25% tax money is going to go. To "help the poor"? "Boost" the middle class? So you'll rob them to "help" them? You don't want to allow people to choose their own ways of paying for their health care. Parents can already choose what school they want to send their kids to, they make that choice when the buy their home. If they aren't looking at schools BEFORE they look in an area for a home, why should they now get a tax voucher? They also have the choice to send their kid to private school, or home school. So we, the people, have to pay for their bad decisions? Why? I agree we should stay the hell out of most of those foreign wars. I do not believe we should cut back on the military, if we close all those bases overseas, bam, tons of money saved. I agree with most of those social issues because as you say, if it doesn't hurt anyone, then let people take their drugs and kill their brain cells and themselves. BUT, if they DO hurt anyone else, then the penalties should be very harsh. I will never be for abortion because it's murder, that IS hurting someone else. If you stop taxing the crap out of the rich, maybe we could have more jobs back here, and we could have more income, and then we wouldn't need some b.s. hand out from the gov as if it were some sort of gift. It's our own fricken money and you call it a gift...rebate/gift same damn thing.
Last edited by Three Wolves In Snow; 11-15-2013 at 06:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
