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.
The writer makes the case which is usually forced by their own opinion. I looked at both pieces. People have fun trying to explain another person's way of thinking and they like to use big words to make it sound good. Still the same beliefs exist as they always have when the word conservative or liberal are used. Some people attach different meanings though which is understandable when you have "neo" attached to anything and everything you write. (not you in particular)
By the way---I just found this out---Dr. Rossiter's address shown on his curriculum vitae on-line is in the same building as the Free World Press, the publisher of his amazing book. (But the address is around the corner, in a different entrance on a different street.) What does that tell you? It tells me that he is the only book publisher on earth who would even touch this POS.
Rosinante, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for coming on this board and creating a thread that implies (falsely) that there is "published" validity to your political philosophy. Do you also live in St. Charles, Illinois?
Read your premise, think about your conclusion. If you still think it is valid, go to the school you attended and slap your professor in the face for failing at their job.
Even under the pessimistic economic assumptions used by the SS Trustees, Social Security -- even if we do nothing at all -- will be paying out every nickel and dime of scheduled retirement benefits for at least the next 34 years.
LBJ made no material changes to the SS system. Altering the order in which data are arrayed on a piece of paper does not change the nature of the data themselves.
Well, duh. I'm sorry, apparently you don't know how to do time value of money functions in a spreadsheet, sandanista. I would teach you how, but I suspect your following comments about LBJ vis a vis his involvement in the raiding of the SS, shows just how learning disabled you are.
If you'd taken the time to READ just a few paragraphs of Rossiter's column you would have found yourself perfectly described in the second paragraph.
For all of those other naysayers regarding the publication's validity, I think you'll find similarities in other pubs that have nothing to do with the fact that the publisher is also the author. Happens all the time.
Well, duh. I'm sorry, apparently you don't know how to do time value of money functions in a spreadsheet, sandanista. I would teach you how, but I suspect your following comments about LBJ vis a vis his involvement in the raiding of the SS, shows just how learning disabled you are.
You're right. In all that training in economics and in 35+ years as a practicing professional in the field, I've never come across anything so complex as those Excel financial functions. Wow, are they high-end! I'll guess that you're a whiz at them, though. I'll also guess that you don't know anything at all about Social Security. That's based on a limited sample size of course, but you're off to such a bad start that I don't really see much chance that an inflection point in the trend line is suddenly going to show up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosinante
If you'd taken the time to READ just a few paragraphs of Rossiter's column you would have found yourself perfectly described in the second paragraph. For all of those other naysayers regarding the publication's validity, I think you'll find similarities in other pubs that have nothing to do with the fact that the publisher is also the author. Happens all the time.
I'll readily admit that I'm not going to invest much time in this Rossiter fellow. Thirty seconds was time enough to suggest that he's just another whackjob with too much access to a thesaurus. If you like to read drivel, I'm sure his book would make for an entertaining evening, though...
All 47 minutes? I don't know about you, but I can read about 10 or 20 times as fast as I can listen.
Is there a link to a text version of his lecture? He was very absolute and referencing extremes however it was necessary to explain the systemic behavior branching off the main trunk of liberalism... it explained alot, but in fairness I would like to see an equivalent lecture on conservatism.
SS was not a bad idea but like you said, starting with LBJ it became a government piggybank and it lost its original purpose.
I disagree. If so many of the Founders and so many members of the state's governments feared infringement of rights by the federal government that they required the Bill of Rights, despite all the arguing that the amendments were implied within the body of the Constitution, I think Social Security is moronic.
If you can't trust the government to respect something as simple as your right to worship as you wish, for instance, how stupid does a country have to be to trust the government to handle their retirement program?
Regarding the article:
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
... the modern liberal mind... does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.
I'll also guess that you don't know anything at all about Social Security.
I think I do! Funds in excess of outlays purchase "special t-bills". The money is then in the hands of the Treasury and is spent by Congress. So, when other generations should have been saving their SS money, they said screw it and spent the money on government projects in order to stick their fiscal phallus up my generation's wazoo.
When SS started 17 people supported each person on SS. We are now down to 2 for every 1 person on SS. The baby boomers just started collected SS which is going to be an extremely heavy load on SS.
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.
