Anyone Still thinking about privatizing social security?

[FalseReality]

Just wonderin...

[outsider]

I was hoping someone else was thinking that.

[FalseReality]

I'm surprised nobody in the media, or even the campaigns have even brought this up.

[GoodCitizenDan]

I'm surprised nobody in the media, or even the campaigns have even brought this up.
Why would you be suprised? It was one of the worst ideas to come over these last 8 years(and thats saying a lot).

You really think someone would want to transfer all of their social security over to the stock market in THIS condition? Nobody in their right mind would take the option.

[FalseReality]

Why would you be suprised? It was one of the worst ideas to come over these last 8 years(and thats saying a lot).

You really think someone would want to transfer all of their social security over to the stock market in THIS condition? Nobody in their right mind would take the option.

I'm meant I'm surprised that people aren't pointing out that it was such a bad idea, and how fucked this country would be if Bush's proposal actually passed.

[HaloGuardian]

I don't know the details of Bush's plan, but how could it be worse than how it is now? None of us will see anything remotely near what it is now. Unless it was somehow taking away a larger chunk of your paycheck it really couldn't be worse...

[GoodCitizenDan]

I don't know the details of Bush's plan, but how could it be worse than how it is now? None of us will see anything remotely near what it is now. Unless it was somehow taking away a larger chunk of your paycheck it really couldn't be worse...
Ya, wrong.

The bill would have allowed people to lose all of their social security funds on the stock market. It was promoted as a way to make social security finances more viable but nobody was stupid enough to fall for it.

[HaloGuardian]

They lose it all now because the government spends it all.

What's the difference?

[GoodCitizenDan]

They lose it all now because the government spends it all.

What's the difference?

Yes, yes, we all know. The government is horrible. blah blah blah...

Just because they perform poorly doesn't mean we should enact strategies that will actively screw the population. The difference would be that we'd be choosing shitty ideas for ourselves instead of watching the government fuck up a good idea. There's a huge difference between choosing a bad plan and simply executing a good plan badly.

[HaloGuardian]

So you would rather have the government choose your social security for you? I don't get the point. Unless I'm completely mistaken you would specifically have to opt out of the old plan.

[outsider]

They lose it all now because the government spends it all.

What's the difference?


On the contrary, had social security been privatized there would be no social security today. I'd type more but my keyboard is being a bitch today.

[HaloGuardian]

1st off, what would be the problem with that?

2nd, unless Bush and the Republicans completely lied (which isn't out of the question) the bill in question would not eliminate the current social security system.

[FalseReality]

1st off, what would be the problem with that?

2nd, unless Bush and the Republicans completely lied (which isn't out of the question) the bill in question would not eliminate the current social security system.

are you asking what would be the problem with people not having social security today?

Gore had a lock box idea where we would have a savings account where the government couldn't take out any money. But tht never worked out. We do in fact have an social security account but since that always had a surplus the government took it upon themselves to borrow...from themselves. However, if we privatized security, as bush recommended, and the investment banks crashed, as they just did, then Americans who are elderly, orphaned or on disability would not have social security. If you are questioning whether that last part is a problem, then I have serious concerns about you.

[HaloGuardian]

are you asking what would be the problem with people not having social security today?

In the strange (and almost impossible) scenario where all of a sudden social security dissapears there is no way we would still have many of the taxes we have now and the taxes that many of the older folks pay right now would most likely cover the difference. For the few that it wouldn't (in this made up reality) the children and communities of these folks could easily pay the differences voluntarily and most likely would.


Gore had a lock box idea where we would have a savings account where the government couldn't take out any money. But tht never worked out.

Being VP for 8 years he must have pushed that hard.


We do in fact have an social security account but since that always had a surplus the government took it upon themselves to borrow...from themselves.

We do not have a surplus and never had in recent times. When Clinton left office it was $5.77 Trillion. Now it's close to $10 Trillion. Future obligations (like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security) are close to $50 Trillion. And that money they borrowed wasn't from themselves, it was individuals money they stole.


However, if we privatized security, as bush recommended, and the investment banks crashed, as they just did, then Americans who are elderly, orphaned or on disability would not have social security.

No they wouldn't. The privatized social security would not apply to those people.


If you are questioning whether that last part is a problem, then I have serious concerns about you.

Well since it wouldn't happen, what is more likely is that the Federal Reserve will inflate our dollar to zero to fund these "bailouts" and other projects the government has, and then when the old lady gets her monthly social security check for $500 and a loaf of bread is $3000 it won't matter.

I am much more worried about that scenario which would harm much more than the common political targets politicians like the "old people" and the "chiiildren". It's all nonsense games to give them more power and money.

Who benefits from bailing out these corporations? Is it the woman making $9/hour feeding her 5 kids in downtown Detroit or the CEO's and Board Members of Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie, and AIG raking in multiple millions a year?

Is it the middle class family making $50k/year or the lobbiest for AIG in Washington?

[FalseReality]

In the strange (and almost impossible) scenario where all of a sudden social security dissapears there is no way we would still have many of the taxes we have now and the taxes that many of the older folks pay right now would most likely cover the difference. For the few that it wouldn't (in this made up reality) the children and communities of these folks could easily pay the differences voluntarily and most likely would.
You just argued in another thread that people generally are self-serving. If that is so, and it is, why do you think now people will all of a sudden support struggling families. If people were as good natured as you NOW believe them to be then we most certainly would not have a poverty or homelessness in America because the rich would be donating much of their money to the poor, (which they aren't). Don't believe it, statistics in 1998 show that the top 1% of America had more wealth than the botton 95%, a number that has only grown worse because of the recent upward movement of wealth in this country.

Secondly, I wonder why you believe that cutting taxes would suddenly eliminate the need for security. Is this some study you found? or are you hypothesising?

Third, you are eligable to recieve social security if you are disabled, orphaned or are retired. NONE of these groups work. Cutting income tax isn't going to effect them, and isn't going to alleviate their need for food and other amnentities.

Lastly, during the depression did anyone help the men, women and children in Hoover Camps? What in human history leads you to believe that people sacrafice themselves for strangers? And do those rare moment outweight the times when people have simply ignored their neighbors or worse brought harm to them? Because I know I can go on to cite a thousand instances where people simply ignored the homeless, tired and poor killed the innocent, helpless and unharmed.

Hell, I live in NYC, I see the general apathy to the homeless every single day.




Being VP for 8 years he must have pushed that hard.
He mentioned the idea during his campaign, I can't specifically state what he did, or what he failed to do during his time as VP. Generally, though it is accepted that the VP is only there to break ties in the congress and be ready if the prez dies. Of course, this administration is an exception, but all things are when you have someone so incompetent in office.




We do not have a surplus and never had in recent times. When Clinton left office it was $5.77 Trillion. Now it's close to $10 Trillion. Future obligations (like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security) are close to $50 Trillion. And that money they borrowed wasn't from themselves, it was individuals money they stole.
We had a surplus in the account that was specifically set up for social security, this did not include any obligations we had from bonds or loans. I'm not talking about our national debt. From the surplus of that account we borrowed something like 37 billion.




No they wouldn't. The privatized social security would not apply to those people. Why is that. Are those people all of a sudden defering social security?

"Social security primarily refers to social welfare service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_service) concerned with social protection, or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment and others"
wikipedia.org

...are eligible for pension benefits when they reach the minimum retirement age; survivor and disability benefits also require certain minimum work credits. To qualify as disabled, individuals must have a prolonged or terminal condition and may not earn more than $810 per month.

Under certain circumstances, a worker’s spouse, children, and parents may qualify for Social Security benefits based on the worker’s contribution history. Unmarried children under age eighteen (or over eighteen if severely disabled), elderly spouses, and spouses caring for young children are generally eligible for benefits if a worker retires, becomes disabled, or dies. The elderly parents of a deceased worker may be entitled to survivorship benefits if they were financially dependent on the child for at least half their support.
http://www.socsec.org/feature.asp?issueid=%7B6D4475C6-9734-4055-8779-F068C396F4CB%7D



Well since it wouldn't happen, what is more likely is that the Federal Reserve will inflate our dollar to zero to fund these "bailouts" and other projects the government has, and then when the old lady gets her monthly social security check for $500 and a loaf of bread is $3000 it won't matter. You can't say "since it won't happen" asd a justifiable argument. You're right that it didn't happen. It was Bush's proposal and got rightly shot down. But right now I am merely reflecting on how bad it would have been if it actually went through.

To put it simply, and I hope this clarifies things for you, if we privatized SS the government would have passed responsibility over to investment banks such as Lehman and Merrill Lynch. Instead of paying taxes to the government, EVERYBODY would be paying taxes to Lehman, or JP Morgan and expect that they would manage your money correctly and invest. The rationale is that over time the stock market generally rises. The problem with that way of thinking is that our economy tends to experience acute periods of downfall. (1999-2001, 1980's, 1939 ect) And it is at those periods when people would most struggle. Worse, is when the very banks you have trusted to manage you SS fail, which is happening now. And at that point, there is no words that can describe the situation better that being shit out of luck.


Who benefits from bailing out these corporations? Is it the woman making $9/hour feeding her 5 kids in downtown Detroit or the CEO's and Board Members of Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie, and AIG raking in multiple millions a year?
You are looking at things too simply. The investment banks and AIG pretty much back up every company, and institution in this country. Yes, it is true that Wall Street isn't a good marker for middle america because most american don't own stock, however the shit runs down. If the banks fail, you can't take out loans. If the banks can't finthe ance projects, than infastructure stops getting build (construction at the new WTC is feared to stop because they might not be able to finance the rest of the project). Our economy is no longer a manufacturing economy but a service based economy, and like it or not, the institutions that hold up that economy are Lehman Brothers and AIG. And when they fail, you have two options change our financial system or get fucked, and I need not say which is more likely.

There is also a reason why foreign nations are buying up bonds and pumping money into this country. It's that if America every becomes insolvent the world economy is officially over.

[HaloGuardian]

You just argued in another thread that people generally are self-serving. If that is so, and it is, why do you think now people will all of a sudden support struggling families. If people were as good natured as you NOW believe them to be then we most certainly would not have a poverty or homelessness in America because the rich would be donating much of their money to the poor, (which they aren't)

Many people do now. When is the last time you have heard or read anything about children or adults starving to death here (excluding parents who intentionally or not starve their kids)? There is so much charity here, and their used to be much more. This is something I've just started to research on my own (and I really need more information on it) but in many times in our history when the government didn't take care of every real or perceived weakness of people society did. Couldn't afford basic health care? You got taken care of. Couldn't afford school? The community will voluntary pay for it. Your lose your job? People voluntarily will find you another job and keep your head above water until you do. There were organizations set up in communities that were efficient, voluntarily funded, and very good at what they did which was help those who were disadvantaged.

Now what do we have? The few extremely rich in this country have convinced the general public that the government will take care of everything.

Why give the homeless guy a penny? He probably gets a welfare check.
Why should I as a doctor help someone who doesn't have insurance when they could go apply for government covered care?
Why should I volunteer my time helping someone find a job when their are government organizations that do this?
Why should I donate to charity? Government taxes over 50% of my income and they are supposed to take care of it.

This whole way government acts creates a mindset to the general public that they aren't responsible for helping people. Instead the government, who is run by the most evil, despotic, insane, and power hungry people should get the money at gunpoint instead and they choose how it will be distributed.



Don't believe it, statistics in 1998 show that the top 1% of America had more wealth than the botton 95%, a number that has only grown worse because of the recent upward movement of wealth in this country.
Had government grown or shrank before then? The extremely rich are the ones who benefit from regulations, government health care, social security, etc. Why would I start a business when I have to spend years just fighting the red tape before I can get a shovel in the ground on a building? Why would I start an agency that gives out loans for homes or provides health insurance when the government has an (effective) monopoly on these services? All the statistic shows is that government prevents growth and stops the lower and middle classes from growing.



Secondly, I wonder why you believe that cutting taxes would suddenly eliminate the need for security. Is this some study you found? or are you hypothesising?
Studies can prove anything so I won't even bother, but these needs exist now but people don't provide for them because they are convinced that the government does enough for them.



Third, you are eligable to recieve social security if you are disabled, orphaned or are retired. NONE of these groups work. Cutting income tax isn't going to effect them, and isn't going to alleviate their need for food and other amnentities.

Basic economics shows that the lower taxes are the more productive the economy will be. Prices of food will drop as supply increases. The number of donations to help them out would be guaranteed as most in society see the need and don't pawn off resposibility to the government.


Lastly, during the depression did anyone help the men, women and children in Hoover Camps? What in human history leads you to believe that people sacrafice themselves for strangers? And do those rare moment outweight the times when people have simply ignored their neighbors or worse brought harm to them? Because I know I can go on to cite a thousand instances where people simply ignored the homeless, tired and poor killed the innocent, helpless and unharmed.

Hell, I live in NYC, I see the general apathy to the homeless every single day.
Yes people did, but the Great Depression, created by the government (indirectly, of course they managed to push through the New Deal afterwords a program that is up there with Hitler and Stalin in government programs) made everyone who would support help the poor poor themselves. Government doesn't create wealth it only intereferes with it. I can cite a thousand instances where the government ignored, abused, killed, created, or locked up the homeless, tired and poor.



You can't say "since it won't happen" asd a justifiable argument. You're right that it didn't happen. It was Bush's proposal and got rightly shot down. But right now I am merely reflecting on how bad it would have been if it actually went through.
What would have happened exactly? The fed would have probably just printed more money like they do now.


To put it simply, and I hope this clarifies things for you, if we privatized SS the government would have passed responsibility over to investment banks such as Lehman and Merrill Lynch. Instead of paying taxes to the government, EVERYBODY would be paying taxes to Lehman, or JP Morgan and expect that they would manage your money correctly and invest. The rationale is that over time the stock market generally rises. The problem with that way of thinking is that our economy tends to experience acute periods of downfall. (1999-2001, 1980's, 1939 ect) And it is at those periods when people would most struggle. Worse, is when the very banks you have trusted to manage you SS fail, which is happening now. And at that point, there is no words that can describe the situation better that being shit out of luck.

I was just watching the news today and it mentioned that the new government owned companies will be free from lawsuits. So basically instead of a little liablility they will now have ZERO. Do you know how important that is? They can now take all your money, take your house if you have a mortgage out of them, remove your insurance. Who gives a damn about the contract you signed? Oh well, enjoy the streets and no health care, you can't sue us. Since we are the government we are always free from any liability.



You are looking at things too simply. The investment banks and AIG pretty much back up every company, and institution in this country. Yes, it is true that Wall Street isn't a good marker for middle america because most american don't own stock, however the shit runs down. If the banks fail, you can't take out loans. If the banks can't finthe ance projects, than infastructure stops getting build (construction at the new WTC is feared to stop because they might not be able to finance the rest of the project). Our economy is no longer a manufacturing economy but a service based economy, and like it or not, the institutions that hold up that economy are Lehman Brothers and AIG. And when they fail, you have two options change our financial system or get fucked, and I need not say which is more likely.
This is what will happen anyways. Do you really believe that pumping (literally) trillions of dollars into this will be good? Do you really think that the government who took over these companies who declared they are now free from any liabities be a good move? Democrats and socialists have a hernia when a corporation gets big and has a monopoly. The thing is those corporations generally had to serve their customers. Now? Nope, sorry. We take your house? Oh well, we'll see you in court sucker. Oh wait, it doesn't matter, we make the laws.

Do you also need to now who created fanny and freddie? A hint: It wasn't some guy who had a great idea in his basement and wrote the plan on a napkin.


There is also a reason why foreign nations are buying up bonds and pumping money into this country. It's that if America every becomes insolvent the world economy is officially over.
They are throwing their money away. This scenario was destined to happen when the tie between the dollar and anything of substance (like gold and silver) were removed in 1933. Printing off trillions of new dollars isn't going to fix anything. Instead it will delay the harsh reality, and make the fall much worse than it could and should be.

And I agree if America becomes insolvent the world economy is pretty much over which is why other countries keep propping us up, but eventually the bubble (created by the government) will burst and it ain't going to be pretty.

(And no in case you are wondering I support a free currency of customers choice, not a government centralized gold standard so please don't get off on that tangent)

[FalseReality]

Many people do now. When is the last time you have heard or read anything about children or adults starving to death here (excluding parents who intentionally or not starve their kids)? There is so much charity here, and their used to be much more. This is something I've just started to research on my own (and I really need more information on it) but in many times in our history when the government didn't take care of every real or perceived weakness of people society did. Couldn't afford basic health care? You got taken care of. Couldn't afford school? The community will voluntary pay for it. Your lose your job? People voluntarily will find you another job and keep your head above water until you do. There were organizations set up in communities that were efficient, voluntarily funded, and very good at what they did which was help those who were disadvantaged.

When was the last time I read about starving? Well, I read about africa not to far back, I also can bet their governments are handing out welfare checks and offering free medicare. I also rememeber this thing call the GREAT DEPRESSION by which many people where unemployed and starved and had to move under the dream of a better life, and consequently died. I've read about Russia in 1918 when there was bread lines and the government did nothing. I remember reading the news just recently and seeing that hundred of thousands of job have veen lost. I've read about Katrina, and its aftermath and how years later, despite the intial contributions of many there still isn't enough money to restore the region, and people have stopped feeling empathy and stopped giving. I have read about people who have lost their homes. I have read and seen schools in NYC that are inadequetly funded and do not provide kids with the oppurtunity to succed. I have read that schools in Chicago and elsewhere are worse. I have seen the homeless on the streets on my walk to school. I have seen them in the summer, spring fall and winter. I have seen a man being carried away because he froze to death in the night. And I can gurantee that if the check he was receiving from the government was good enough to pay for his expenses then he wouldn't be living that way.

I am an idealist, but I do not delude myself to the fact the people are self-serving. I have seen unemployment, seen poverty, seen extreme wealth and seen terrible conditions. In books I have read of times of great depression and do not tell myself that they will not come again, or are not here already.

You picture a world where people are borderline communist, where prejudices don't exist and apathy not present. I wonder how many poor neighborhoods you have walked through, or how many people have stopped you on the street to say that they just got out of prision and can't afford a meal. Truth is, look at any history book, even in the twentieth century perhaps the most destructive a brutal century for mankind and you will see that generally, people as a whole treat others as shit. Individually, we are empathetic, charitiable people but as a whole that simply is not the case.

There are reasons why charity groups stand hours on end at the corners of sidewalks begging for money. Or a man with a hollow water jugs sits on the street asking for only a penny. it's because the need is too great and the government gives too little, and even us commonfolk don't do much to quench the need.




Now what do we have? The few extremely rich in this country have convinced the general public that the government will take care of everything.
Is that why the extremely rich generally vote republican, who believe in less government intervention? And less social responsibility to their fellow humans.


This whole way government acts creates a mindset to the general public that they aren't responsible for helping people. Instead the government, who is run by the most evil, despotic, insane, and power hungry people should get the money at gunpoint instead and they choose how it will be distributed.
Yes all government is bad, there is not one thing they have ever done right. Individuals who hoard their money, then pass it along when they die to children who protest that the government is taxing them for being so rich and inherenting so much.

If the government, said tommorrow that they no longer would support the poor, trust me when I say that not a whisper would run through the crowd.




Had government grown or shrank before then? The extremely rich are the ones who benefit from regulations, government health care, social security, etc. Why would I start a business when I have to spend years just fighting the red tape before I can get a shovel in the ground on a building? Why would I start an agency that gives out loans for homes or provides health insurance when the government has an (effective) monopoly on these services? All the statistic shows is that government prevents growth and stops the lower and middle classes from growing.
How does universal healthcare benifit the rich?
How does SS for the retired and disabled help the rich?
Where are these statistics?


Studies can prove anything so I won't even bother, but these needs exist now but people don't provide for them because they are convinced that the government does enough for them.
Nice way to contradict yourself. Are you covering your ass hoping that I wouldn't ask?




Basic economics shows that the lower taxes are the more productive the economy will be. Prices of food will drop as supply increases. The number of donations to help them out would be guaranteed as most in society see the need and don't pawn off resposibility to the government.
Remember that time when the price of food dropped so low due to overproduction that thousands of farmers lost their farms and it led to massive food shortages, starving people, and the rise of agri-bussiness, who stepped in bought the farmss. Of course you don't. What would you know about the very era of this countries history that proves all your beliefs wrong.



Yes people did, but the Great Depression, created by the government (indirectly, of course they managed to push through the New Deal afterwords a program that is up there with Hitler and Stalin in government programs) made everyone who would support help the poor poor themselves. Government doesn't create wealth it only intereferes with it. I can cite a thousand instances where the government ignored, abused, killed, created, or locked up the homeless, tired and poor.
Government has the power to distribute wealth amongst the populace through a myriad of mechanisms. Deregulation and tax breaks lead to an upward movement of wealth, such as we have today. And the poor become poorer.

It's nice to know that you can stoop so low to say that the president who brought us out of the depression is akin to Stalin and Hitler. There is a very common saying that once you compare someone to Hitler you have already lost. It's such a blatant overstatement that I fail to provide words to show how ignorant it actually is. WWII ended the depression, but the new deal and prime the pump economics softened the blow. Please, there are books written on this, I don't need to be saying what dozens of others already have.




I was just watching the news today and it mentioned that the new government owned companies will be free from lawsuits. So basically instead of a little liablility they will now have ZERO. Do you know how important that is? They can now take all your money, take your house if you have a mortgage out of them, remove your insurance. Who gives a damn about the contract you signed? Oh well, enjoy the streets and no health care, you can't sue us. Since we are the government we are always free from any liability.
Whether that will hold up in court I do not know. Regardless, I agree with you that it is terrible thing that needs correction.


This is what will happen anyways. Do you really believe that pumping (literally) trillions of dollars into this will be good? Do you really think that the government who took over these companies who declared they are now free from any liabities be a good move? Democrats and socialists have a hernia when a corporation gets big and has a monopoly. The thing is those corporations generally had to serve their customers. Now? Nope, sorry. We take your house? Oh well, we'll see you in court sucker. Oh wait, it doesn't matter, we make the laws.

You are again muddling your arguments. If you want to find an example where government intervention and bailouts saved the economy read up on Sweeden in 1990. If you think monopolies are good then why do you protest that the government has one. Why can't you accept that SS, privatized would have failed today? It is an amazingly obvious fact, held true by any literate person. The banks that would have controlled SS have failed, thus SS would have failed. Accept it. there is no more argument.

[HaloGuardian]

When was the last time I read about starving? Well, I read about africa not to far back, I also can bet their governments are handing out welfare checks and offering free medicare. I also rememeber this thing call the GREAT DEPRESSION by which many people where unemployed and starved and had to move under the dream of a better life, and consequently died. I've read about Russia in 1918 when there was bread lines and the government did nothing. I remember reading the news just recently and seeing that hundred of thousands of job have veen lost. I've read about Katrina, and its aftermath and how years later, despite the intial contributions of many there still isn't enough money to restore the region, and people have stopped feeling empathy and stopped giving. I have read about people who have lost their homes. I have read and seen schools in NYC that are inadequetly funded and do not provide kids with the oppurtunity to succed. I have read that schools in Chicago and elsewhere are worse. I have seen the homeless on the streets on my walk to school. I have seen them in the summer, spring fall and winter. I have seen a man being carried away because he froze to death in the night. And I can gurantee that if the check he was receiving from the government was good enough to pay for his expenses then he wouldn't be living that way.

The criseses you describe where created by governments (Russia? Now there is a great example of free enterprise and government non-intervention).

And there are many homeless who have serious mental problems and choose to live that way, a government program, and some do exist for them, isn't going to prevent it (of course there are some that are homeless due to bad unforeseen situations as well)...


I am an idealist, but I do not delude myself to the fact the people are self-serving. I have seen unemployment, seen poverty, seen extreme wealth and seen terrible conditions. In books I have read of times of great depression and do not tell myself that they will not come again, or are not here already.

And do you know in our world history what has killed, starved, and ruined the lives of billions of people in the world? Who was starving the millions in Russia? Was it some corporation who decided it wanted to bankrupt itself by not giving food to it's customers? Who is slaughtering thousands in Africa? Is it some whiny child of a rich parent?


You picture a world where people are borderline communist, where prejudices don't exist and apathy not present. I wonder how many poor neighborhoods you have walked through, or how many people have stopped you on the street to say that they just got out of prision and can't afford a meal. Truth is, look at any history book, even in the twentieth century perhaps the most destructive a brutal century for mankind and you will see that generally, people as a whole treat others as shit. Individually, we are empathetic, charitiable people but as a whole that simply is not the case.

In the 20th century who murdered millions of Jews in death camps? Who starved millions to death in Russia? Who dropped a nuke on Japan murdering thousands?

These are the same people you want to give more power and control to. I can't, and won't, accept that.


There are reasons why charity groups stand hours on end at the corners of sidewalks begging for money. Or a man with a hollow water jugs sits on the street asking for only a penny. it's because the need is too great and the government gives too little, and even us commonfolk don't do much to quench the need.

I don't think you understand fundamentals. A government can't give, it doesn't produce anything. Anything it takes was made by the marketplace. The government takes those goods/money, and they choose where they are re-distributed, whether it's a couple hundred bucks to a food shelter, or $50 billion to an oil company.



Is that why the extremely rich generally vote republican, who believe in less government intervention? And less social responsibility to their fellow humans.

I can't begin to explain how far off the mark you are. Republicans do not believe in less government intervention. Do you see who is leading this bailout? Wars are intervention, who is usually first in line in supporting those?

When Republicans say they are free trade what do they give you? A 15,000 some-odd page document that regulates it (NAFTA)?

You are buying the hype of the political system and corporate owned news media. Republicans are for no less intervention than Democrats. Their form of intervention may be different, but it interverntion none-the-less...



Yes all government is bad, there is not one thing they have ever done right. Individuals who hoard their money, then pass it along when they die to children who protest that the government is taxing them for being so rich and inherenting so much.

So you think the government (who will decide some arbritary number who is rich and who isn't) should put a gun in the kids face and take some of that money from them? Sounds pretty violent and inhumane to me.


If the government, said tommorrow that they no longer would support the poor, trust me when I say that not a whisper would run through the crowd.

Whaaaa?


How does universal healthcare benifit the rich?
How does SS for the retired and disabled help the rich?
Where are these statistics?

1st one is extremely simple. The rich who run the pharmaceutical companies would love universal healthcare. It is a guaranteed payment, customers, and any limit on competition to the established medical practice. You want to start your own medical pracitice or medicinal treatment? You must come through us first if you want payment for it and authorization that we will not ban it. It gives the few who have say over it full and complete power and that is exactly what the extremely few rich want. Do they want to allow competition? Hell no. Now you may say, universal health care would still allow competition, but will it? How many private (not driveways) roads do you see? How many private police services are there? How many private fire houses are there?

Sure there are a few of these but they are extremely few and far between. And who are the only ones who can afford it? The very very rich. Is this what you want to create? A system where you are forced into whatever care the government decides? As soon as you give them the authority you sure as hell aren't going to get it back. They make the rules, the market won't.



Nice way to contradict yourself. Are you covering your ass hoping that I wouldn't ask?

Meh, just giving my opinion...





Remember that time when the price of food dropped so low due to overproduction that thousands of farmers lost their farms and it led to massive food shortages, starving people, and the rise of agri-bussiness, who stepped in bought the farmss. Of course you don't. What would you know about the very era of this countries history that proves all your beliefs wrong.


Who created this crises by signing into law Smoot-Hawley which were high tarriff rates of foreign imported goods, that the foreign governments responded by instituting a high tarriff on American exports (specifically agriculture) that created this crises? It wasn't the market that creates laws destroying farms.

And isn't it convenient how the government is the one who took farms over, and since then American agriculture has been nothing more than handouts to corporate farmers to not grow things, and handouts to grow corn, or some other crop that the government decides people should have.



Government has the power to distribute wealth amongst the populace through a myriad of mechanisms. Deregulation and tax breaks lead to an upward movement of wealth, such as we have today. And the poor become poorer.

We don't have deregulation and tax breaks. We have a welfare state that takes from the middle class and poor and gives it to the largest corporations with the best lobbies and no morals.


It's nice to know that you can stoop so low to say that the president who brought us out of the depression is akin to Stalin and Hitler. There is a very common saying that once you compare someone to Hitler you have already lost. It's such a blatant overstatement that I fail to provide words to show how ignorant it actually is. WWII ended the depression, but the new deal and prime the pump economics softened the blow. Please, there are books written on this, I don't need to be saying what dozens of others already have.

And I can find you a ton of books showing you exactly the opposite. Government programs are what took us into the Great Depression, and they weren't what got us out of it. How can a war end a depression? That's the old "broken glass" theory that has been proven wrong thousands of times. You can't create wealth and an increased standard of living by destroying things. If that was the case, why not wipe out the entire US and start over?




Whether that will hold up in court I do not know. Regardless, I agree with you that it is terrible thing that needs correction.

Woohoo, an agreement.




You are again muddling your arguments. If you want to find an example where government intervention and bailouts saved the economy read up on Sweeden in 1990. If you think monopolies are good then why do you protest that the government has one.

I don't think monopolies are good. Can you show me one time in history where a monopoly came to be without government helping it along?


Why can't you accept that SS, privatized would have failed today? It is an amazingly obvious fact, held true by any literate person. The banks that would have controlled SS have failed, thus SS would have failed. Accept it. there is no more argument.

SS was never going to be privatized because the Bush plan (if passed) wasn't real privatization.

Eventually all this bullshit will crash anyways and all we are doing is making the mountain higher and steeper so that when it crashes all of us will be fucked.

I was actually excited to see the market down and some things let to fail for a while, I thought maybe we will see reality here where things won't come to a screeching hault and the market will work out it's kinks, and after a few years we would pull out of this and everything wouldn't collapse all at once. But oh no, we can't let that happen, we must prop it up even further so the crash will wipe out everyone and everything...

[FalseReality]

First let me say this, the Federal Reserve is not elected, they're not partisan, not biased and in no way connected to the politicians who orchestrate wars. Generally, the fed work in the interest of the economy and the people who make it up. Politicians seek power and often work for their own interests. If you compare the Fed to foreign wars and masacres and dictators or tyrants, all I can do is simply stand back and laugh at your words, because they are put together with less care than a childs.

If it's all right and good with you lets start.


The criseses you describe where created by governments (Russia? Now there is a great example of free enterprise and government non-intervention).
Correct, but the Great Depression was not sole fault of governments although they contributed. There's a great book now called The World is Flat. It pretty much describes this process of globilization and the rise of the world economy that you have consistantly ignored. Government's are not nearly as powerful as they were, economies do not limit themselves to on country. Corporations have risen and grown powerful. The money passes through their hands and the policies they enact and the standards they are held to directly effect the economies of the world and the state of the consumer. During the Depression, huge agricultural farms run by big business would burn there produce, instead of giving it away, to raise prices. They would charge nothing for people to work. Companies today export jobs, and money, overseas and pay people next to nothing.

You think way too highly of corporations, ignoring their abuses.
There is a Gilded Age, and you long for it. But you see only the gold.



And there are many homeless who have serious mental problems and choose to live that way, a government program, and some do exist for them, isn't going to prevent it (of course there are some that are homeless due to bad unforeseen situations as well)...
Are mental illness not curable? or treatable? Or do you expect to remove more government responsibilty to allow Sally from down the street to take care of it. And it should be noted that homelessness is rising, mental illness isn't. People living on the streets these days who choose to by some crazy delusions they harbor are the exception, not the norm. Stop misrepresenting.




And do you know in our world history what has killed, starved, and ruined the lives of billions of people in the world? Who was starving the millions in Russia? Was it some corporation who decided it wanted to bankrupt itself by not giving food to it's customers?
Governments generally do fuck up more than most, but corporations that are given free reign to export anyone they want, any where they want in and way they want are exactly the same.

Before, regulation people worked in shitty conditions in factories and ran the risk of starving their family or losing an arm. Kid worked in coal mines. I go to school in a former shirt factory where women were locked in for 10 hours a day, and when that shirt factory caught fire they were burned or jumped to their death.

I don't argue that government is bad, I do argue that larg companies have caused their fair share of death and extortion, albeit in a more clandestine manner.



Who is slaughtering thousands in Africa? Is it some whiny child of a rich parent?
No George Bush is slaughtering thousands in Iraq.



I don't think you understand fundamentals. A government can't give, it doesn't produce anything. Anything it takes was made by the marketplace. The government takes those goods/money, and they choose where they are re-distributed, whether it's a couple hundred bucks to a food shelter, or $50 billion to an oil company.
We no longer live in a manufacture based economy,we are service based now. Just like globalization. The times have changed, learn about it.





I can't begin to explain how far off the mark you are. Republicans do not believe in less government intervention. Do you see who is leading this bailout? Wars are intervention, who is usually first in line in supporting those?
Republicans use war to win election, and boost the economy because they believe increased military raises the GDP, which it does, but the effect of that raise GDP means nothing.

Let me be more clear, because I do believe you are misconstrueing my words to fit an argument. So let me say is specific.

Republicans want to reduce government intervention when it comes to social programs. Such as SS, welfare, and everything I have talked about.


So you think the government (who will decide some arbritary number who is rich and who isn't) should put a gun in the kids face and take some of that money from them? Sounds pretty violent and inhumane to me.
I believe that if you die, and have 100 million dollars, that is not a "arbitrary number." I also, never mentioned any guns. Why is it again that you are taking the things I say and the topics we discuss and lowering them to the lowest common denominator.




1st one is extremely simple. The rich who run the pharmaceutical companies would love universal healthcare. It is a guaranteed payment, customers, and any limit on competition to the established medical practice. You want to start your own medical pracitice or medicinal treatment? You must come through us first if you want payment for it and authorization that we will not ban it. It gives the few who have say over it full and complete power and that is exactly what the extremely few rich want. Do they want to allow competition? Hell no. Now you may say, universal health care would still allow competition, but will it? How many private (not driveways) roads do you see? How many private police services are there? How many private fire houses are there?

That is correct, the alternative is people dying of illness on the street. Just the other day I literally saw a man walking around with a sign saying he was uninsured and growths hanging from his eyes. It's a trade-off I don't have a problem with anyone argueing otherwise, it is not a claim of my argument. I was talking about the rich in general, not those confined to the pharmacuetical field, (again a misrepresentation)

There are private militaries...black water comes to mind, yet if there was anything in this country that I would want our government to have complete control over is its military operations.

Roads are not built by the government, local roads at least are paved by contractors and often at the expense of busniess (gas company, water or WalMart) that have an interest in it. One example I know is that Wal-Mart wanted to open a store, so to pay copensate for traffic it they had to pay for a new addition to the highway next to it. Furthermore, governments give public project to contractors who bid on job...hence competition, the only difference is that they have to adhere to laws and regulations that keep the safety of themselves and citizens in mind.

Sure there are a few of these but they are extremely few and far between. And who are the only ones who can afford it? The very very rich. Is this what you want to create? A system where you are forced into whatever care the government decides? As soon as you give them the authority you sure as hell aren't going to get it back. They make the rules, the market won't.




Who created this crises by signing into law Smoot-Hawley which were high tarriff rates of foreign imported goods, that the foreign governments responded by instituting a high tarriff on American exports (specifically agriculture) that created this crises? It wasn't the market that creates laws destroying farms.
Is free-trade opposed to regulation of financial banks?

and Overproduction destroyed farms, not tarriffs.


And isn't it convenient how the government is the one who took farms over, and since then American agriculture has been nothing more than handouts to corporate farmers to not grow things, and handouts to grow corn, or some other crop that the government decides people should have.
Government, regulated farms to control production but agriculture never became socialism.





We don't have deregulation and tax breaks. We have a welfare state that takes from the middle class and poor and gives it to the largest corporations with the best lobbies and no morals.
The let's elect Robin Hood and take from the rich to give to the poor. Which is kind of what Obama wants.




And I can find you a ton of books showing you exactly the opposite. Government programs are what took us into the Great Depression, and they weren't what got us out of it. How can a war end a depression? That's the old "broken glass" theory that has been proven wrong thousands of times. You can't create wealth and an increased standard of living by destroying things. If that was the case, why not wipe out the entire US and start over?
Please give me the ton of books and i will quote a ton more far more credible and widley accepted.

The US. wasn't destroyed, just like in WWI the US emerged from the war as a world power, relatively unscathed. It is because of the massive redirection of materials toward war production. Increased production, increased wealth. The infastructure of the States was not even touched. After WWI America also became the foremost lender country. Everyone was borrowing from us, and we were collecting interest and boosting our economy.

Military-Industrial Complex, very important term in American history, really describe why the things you say are wrong.



I don't think monopolies are good. Can you show me one time in history where a monopoly came to be without government helping it along?
Monopolies come to be by government sitting on its hands.
I'm interested though, how did the gov't help microsoft?



SS was never going to be privatized because the Bush plan (if passed) wasn't real privatization.
How so?


Eventually all this bullshit will crash anyways and all we are doing is making the mountain higher and steeper so that when it crashes all of us will be fucked.

I was actually excited to see the market down and some things let to fail for a while, I thought maybe we will see reality here where things won't come to a screeching hault and the market will work out it's kinks, and after a few years we would pull out of this and everything wouldn't collapse all at once. But oh no, we can't let that happen, we must prop it up even further so the crash will wipe out everyone and everything...
Thanks for ending your post on such a happy note.

[TheZenMan]

HaloGuardian = My New Hero

Sorry Ray.