Politics and shit

[cziffra]

It's hilarious how you guys only bring up Medicare/SS which, since you are young, won't benefit you for many years. I suspect that if you survive to middle age your attitudes will change like everybody else's do.

Social Security will cease to exist well before I retire. In the meantime, I'm being robbed of a significant portion of my income. I will never see this money again. The fact you don't understand that reveals how little you understand about how Social Security works. Here's a decent explanation of why SS won't last:

Means-Testing Your Social Security Payments by Gary North

Now you're all about...yeah, let's starve the old people. What are they good for? I need mo' money!!! And sure, Medicare/SS are a bit of a Ponzi scheme...so what? What is your better and more reasonable solution that still keeps faith with the elderly?

Arguments against Social Security have nothing to do with wanting to "starve the old people." The program is financially and morally bankrupt. You aren't doing anyone any favors by supporting it.

 

[yoyomango]

It's not insurance it's a ponzi scheme.

And yes Arguments against Social Security have everything to do with to "starve the old people."


You may not "want" them to starve it will be the effect. If there is no social security how will poor people with no savings feed, house and cloth themselves? Workhouses for the old, death lotteries like logans run?

Financially and Morally bankrupt is allowing private enties to create your currency from thin air then allowing them to charge you interest on this money. How much of your federal tax goes to paying this interest? Start digging, you might learn something.

Republicans are so easily led into mouth frothing fury at the thought of poor people recieving assistance from their taxes that they are unable to see what's really going on. You are all being bled dry but from the top not the bottom.

 

[danke]

ITT: Young adults who don't understand the difference between insurance, self-insurance, and ponzi schemes.

How many people other than me in this thread are actually licensed insurance brokers (therefore maintain active insurance licenses that require mandatory continuing education)? I'm just curious exactly how qualified you guys are to put social security under your gun?

Because I distinctly remember 25% of one of my licensing exams (Life, Health, & Variable Annuities) being on Social Security... Not to mention I deal with it EVERY BUSINESS DAY OF MY LIFE... Especially now during Annual Enrollment Period when so many of the people my employees talk to are concerning themselves with it.

Oh... And calling Insurance a Ponzi Scheme is like calling compounding insurance a conspiracy to make money.

As you programmers would say: Risk Transference != Ponzi

The fact that you don't like something and just call it socialist by declaration doesn't mean it's not insurance (or even socialist for that matter).

As long as I've known WickedFire I've noticed that it's plagued by people who swear up and down all government is evil, that they understand finance/economics, and anything mainstream or traditional must be wrong... and I think that is flawed.

Not that I have time to debate it, I particularly find it amusing whenever someone on here advocates the gold standard, but that's another story.

And yes... I've financially supported and met Mitt Romney as well as other Republicans running for office this election cycle. Welcome to the real world that exists outside of the Internet. So you keep on debating Austrian economics and bickering about on the Internet (which in my opinion is nothing more than mental masturbation), but I'd rather make my dollars and thoughts matter.

I supported THE ONLY VIABLE Presidential Candidate who I KNOW has the financial services sector (My bread and butter) in his best interests and I'd do whatever I can to get President Obama out of office. Whenever you guys claim they're the same ideologically it just shows HOW IGNORANT you really are. Economic policy-wise they're diametrically opposed and I KNOW that a Romney administration wouldn't have allowed the Dodd-Frank Act to get passed. So don't even get me started on how different they are.

So keep on at it. I'll gladly take up the title of thread idiot here since I'm doing all right in the real world. I'll let you guys source YouTube and rack up all of the forum posts you want, but the fact that so many of you aren't Americans or have lived long enough to understand the benefits of everything you call socialist is enough for me to know that I don't need to waste my time debating you. Father time will teach you through experience.

 

[bitsdawg]

Social Security will cease to exist well before I retire. In the meantime, I'm being robbed of a significant portion of my income. I will never see this money again.

The elderly already put a significant portion of their income into the system for a lot longer than you have. Do you want to rob them when they are at a point where there is no chance to recover?

Do you want to pull down the federal road system so you can use your own "private roads?", which apparently you must own.

Again, I would love to hear a clear solution. You can insult me, but that doesn't really win arguments.

 

[MSTeacher]

Arguments against Social Security have nothing to do with wanting to "starve the old people." The program is financially and morally bankrupt. You aren't doing anyone any favors by supporting it.

Argue morally bankrupt all you want. I suspect your belief that it is financially bankrupt is a result of asset stripping privateers drumming that into your mind. I could be wrong, of course, but in any case morals and financials can't be argued in the same breath.

Also like it or not some of the biggest proponents of killing social security are also some of the biggest misanthropes. They actually do want to starve old people, zero fucks given. See Gingrich, Newt and Simpson, Alan among others.

And yeah, socialized or not, you're doing plenty of people favors by supporting it.

 

[pfgannon]

You sure are proud about putting guns in people's backs, aren't ya? Oh you have a license granted to you by the state, saying you understand insurance, you must be an expert like Romney is an expert on economics. I'd try to refute your points, but there's no way a common man like myself would understand the intricacies of insurance vs a blatant shakedown. I wish I could get off the philosophy kick I've been on, because apparently logic and reason don't translate into the "real world" that you live in.

When I grow up I hope I can vote to keep my cushy job at the expense of others, just like you.

 

[guerilla]

Now you're all about...yeah, let's starve the old people. What are they good for? I need mo' money!!! And sure, Medicare/SS are a bit of a Ponzi scheme...so what? What is your better and more reasonable solution that still keeps faith with the elderly?

I support my parents. Why am I paying for other people's parents?

Socialism: Roads, Public Schools, Police, Trash Collection (private firms contracted with city government, mandatory and regulated car insurance (private companies HIGHLY regulated by the state and yeah, only if you own a car which most adults to so whatever....).

I Like It!

I hate to find myself in a thread mostly agreeing with Danke.

You need to find your way to the anarchism thread. Bring MSTeacher. He's avoiding a discussion with me.

 

[guerilla]

Argue morally bankrupt all you want. I suspect your belief that it is financially bankrupt is a result of asset stripping privateers drumming that into your mind. I could be wrong, of course, but in any case morals and financials can't be argued in the same breath.

Sure they can.

Look, the USG steals the money and spends it as general revenue. There is no SS fund. No money in it, just Treasury IOUs.

It's been another revenue scheme for a government that spends more than its budget, for the last 50 years. Only now is the money out and the money in starting to matchup.

Soon, the money out will have to be straight printed. Then everyone, particularly the poor, are going to get hammered with inflation.

Not to mention, this money is being confiscated from young people today who won't see SS in the future because it is a ponzi scheme. It's pure theft.

Also like it or not some of the biggest proponents of killing social security are also some of the biggest misanthropes.

Poor argumentation bro. Guilt by association.

And yeah, socialized or not, you're doing plenty of people favors by supporting it.

That's like arguing that you're doing a dying crack addict favors by feeding him crack.

It's so sad that people like you won't recognize the problem until it collapses, because I know when that happens, you won't have any problem pointing fingers at everyone else for why it went bad.

This sort of willful ignorance is exactly why democracy doesn't work, and we're going to see several collapse in the next few decades.

 

[guerilla]

And yes Arguments against Social Security have everything to do with to "starve the old people."

No, they don't.

Ron Paul demonstrated that if you cut the military budget, you can afford to keep SS going.

Of course, old people didn't vote for Ron Paul because they want SS and to get dem damn mooslims!

You may not "want" them to starve it will be the effect. If there is no social security how will poor people with no savings feed, house and cloth themselves? Workhouses for the old, death lotteries like logans run?

What do you think is going to happen when the Ponzi scheme inevitably ends, as all Ponzi scheme do?

You're saying, "Keep the game going until it crashes horribly". People here are saying, "Find a way to end the game sooner, softer". You guys, in typical nonsense political language, want to amp up the conversation by accusing people of wanting to starve old people, WHICH ISN'T THE FUCKING ISSUE.

SS is insolvent. What are you going to do about it?

Republicans are so easily led into mouth frothing fury at the thought of poor people recieving assistance from their taxes that they are unable to see what's really going on. You are all being bled dry but from the top not the bottom.

It isn't a Republican problem. It is an everybody problem. Plenty of clueless Democrats, independents and maybe even some libertarians.

One thing is sure. As long as people pull chickenshit like "You're trying to starve gramma" which has to be the most ignorant, juvenile approach to a serious discussion about this issue, nothing will change, the system will collapse, and gramma will starve.

Good luck bros.

ITT: Young adults who don't understand the difference between insurance, self-insurance, and ponzi schemes.

It's amazing how obtuse you are, and ironic how a Romney voter attracts Obama voters to agree with him on something they are both wrong about. LOL

How many people other than me in this thread are actually licensed insurance brokers (therefore maintain active insurance licenses that require mandatory continuing education)? I'm just curious exactly how qualified you guys are to put social security under your gun?

Appeal to authority.

Oh... And calling Insurance a Ponzi Scheme is like calling compounding insurance a conspiracy to make money.

No, calling SS not insurance, but a Ponzi Scheme (because the terms are mutually exclusive) is correct. SS has always paid out more than people pay in, and it is unsustainable, just like Charles Ponzi's original program.

SS is insolvent. That's not me saying it. That's the former GAO head David Walker.

The fact that you don't like something and just call it socialist by declaration doesn't mean it's not insurance (or even socialist for that matter).

Insurance is not compatible with socialism. it is socialist because it is compulsory by force. Compulsion by force is a fucking sub-definition of socialism!

And yes... I've financially supported and met Mitt Romney as well as other Republicans running for office this election cycle. Welcome to the real world that exists outside of the Internet. So you keep on debating Austrian economics and bickering about on the Internet (which in my opinion is nothing more than mental masturbation), but I'd rather make my dollars and thoughts matter.

"I can't argue facts or logic, so I will just claim what I do is right and what you do is wrong without proving anything."

So keep on at it. I'll gladly take up the title of thread idiot here

You get given that title. And you have earned it.

Seriously, in your entire reply, you did not add one fact or logical argument.

In that entire, bombastic, long winded, arrogant post.

Amazing hunh.

@Bitsdawg, you won't see SS. You're too young. I am sorry about that, and I wish that wasn't true, but that's how it is. We reformed our SS system up here to make it financially viable, and old people barely get enough to live on, and they are cranking down the payouts to almost nothing for future retirees.

That's financially reality. Your parents, and their parents used all the money up living long and living well. Even if SS was morally ok (it isn't, it's theft) it still unsustainable. Again, that's former US Comptroller General David Walker and the US GAO office (folks who know a little more about SS than Danke) talking, not me.

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d061084cg.pdf

 

[slayerment]

The elderly already put a significant portion of their income into the system for a lot longer than you have. Do you want to rob them when they are at a point where there is no chance to recover?

Do you want to pull down the federal road system so you can use your own "private roads?", which apparently you must own.

Again, I would love to hear a clear solution. You can insult me, but that doesn't really win arguments.

They've already been robbed. SS dollars have already been spent long ago. So it has nothing to do with whether or not a future robbing is right or wrong. It already happened, not by me, but by the state. The money isn't there.

Yes I want to pull down the government road system so I can use private roads. They will be cheaper, have less traffic, have better drivers, more efficient placement and allow vehicles of all shapes and sizes.

You've already heard the clear solution, it's just that you don't understand it which leads you to support an inferior model. Rather than letting decisions be made at the individual level you prefer for them to be made at the group level. This is common with most people. You need to honestly search out how less government actually does everything you want at a cheaper cost in the long run. We wouldn't need social security if things were less expensive, we wouldn't need medicare if we didn't have inflated government medical prices, we wouldn't need any of this government crap if we just had a free society. Government creates high prices through inflation and inefficiency and then creates programs which are supposed to help us with these high prices. They create the problem and the solution. Really research it and think about it. It's not a surface level discussion.

I beg you to read the first 20 pages of this book and really meditate on it: http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

 

[MSTeacher]

Sure they can.

Look, the USG steals the money and spends it as general revenue. There is no SS fund. No money in it, just Treasury IOUs.

It's been another revenue scheme for a government that spends more than its budget, for the last 50 years. Only now is the money out and the money in starting to matchup.

Soon, the money out will have to be straight printed. Then everyone, particularly the poor, are going to get hammered with inflation.

Not to mention, this money is being confiscated from young people today who won't see SS in the future because it is a ponzi scheme. It's pure theft.

I know that. And your point applies to much more than social security. Which means the problem you're pointing to is more systemic than something like social security. Which would be the question behind the question of its financial solvency.

My point, which you make quite often in similar contexts, is that financing can be argued with numbers and morals can not.

Poor argumentation bro. Guilt by association.

I suppose but it's not wrong. Unless Alan Simpson is actually a fun loving teddy bear, and a certain percentage of the population will not support genocidal austerity if properly coaxed.

That's like arguing that you're doing a dying crack addict favors by feeding him crack.

It's so sad that people like you won't recognize the problem until it collapses, because I know when that happens, you won't have any problem pointing fingers at everyone else for why it went bad.

This sort of willful ignorance is exactly why democracy doesn't work, and we're going to see several collapse in the next few decades.

Not going pull my cock out and ask for comparisons bro but I understand the nature of government and economics as well as anyone around here. I'm not willfully ignorant and I'm a good way down the road past recognizing that there's a problem. You'll do better to find a willfully ignorant government loving statist and tell them about why their democracy is destined to fail. I know democracies tend toward failure. The point was made centuries ago and has been brought up at least once or twice since.

I also know that anarchies tend toward government. Go figure.

 

[MSTeacher]

Bring MSTeacher. He's avoiding a discussion with me.

Dude I totally am. I'm on staycation doing some intensely awesome woodworking. Wood gears and veneers and inlays and shit. Can't deal with it right now, even this thread is harshing my mojo.

 

[eVandals]

ITT: Young adults who don't understand the difference between insurance, self-insurance, and ponzi schemes.

Yep and that includes you.

 

[HKSEO Jonbones]

FYI SS isn't manditory, teachers in Texas ( and several other states ) pay into a teacher retirement system, and only collect SS if they had a job that didn't pay into Teacher Retirement Systems

 

[Benji49]

Social security is great idea that got screwed up because of all things, people decided to live longer. If the average person decided to smoke two packs of smokes day and die of lung cancer in the early sixties, we wouldn't have this problem.

I'm only half-kidding.

But really, a lot of the financial mess that pretty well all Western governments are in is due to increased life expectancy and boomer expectations of a good quality of life in later years.

Now it sorta sucks to be young and be thinking, "hey I'm footing the bill" for Mom and Dad but you have to look at the half-full part of the glass.

If life expectancy keeps going up, the average 20 year old today will live to 90 or even 100. And expect to have a good quality of life well into his or her eighties.

I don't think the actuarial tables of social security and most pension plans take that into account (Danke correct me if I am wrong on this), meaning there is a financial crisis coming up in the near/medium/far future.

But to repeat, increased life expectancy has a lot to do with precipitating that finanical crisis. It's not all bad news.

 

[guerilla]

Social security is great idea

I could probably write a 5,000 word essay on why this is false.

Here are a couple potential highlights.

It's theft.

It's government run, so it's going to fail.

It isn't economical in any sense, because no economic calculation occurs to set prices.

It can be done in the private sector more efficiently.

So, no. It is not a great idea. It's a horrible idea from the era when everyone believed in planned economies run by governments. Ironically, with the collapse of the USSR, East Germany etc, no one has picked up on the fact that planned economies don't work.

Maybe they will get it when more of the world looks like North Korea.

 

[guerilla]

I know that. And your point applies to much more than social security. Which means the problem you're pointing to is more systemic than something like social security. Which would be the question behind the question of its financial solvency.

Go deeper. Much deeper.

My point, which you make quite often in similar contexts, is that financing can be argued with numbers and morals can not.

Don't lecture me on morals, you explicitly support theft and violence.

But if you're telling me that morals transcend reality, good luck with that. We can only be effectively moral within the context of reality. Your high ideals like feeding the universe from the milk of your super imaginary charity boobies is great science fiction but it won't actually help a single person in need.

I suppose but it's not wrong. Unless Alan Simpson is actually a fun loving teddy bear, and a certain percentage of the population will not support genocidal austerity if properly coaxed.

Genocidal austerity? Have you ever been outside the US?

The poorest American lives better than people in 75% of the world.

Let's add "genocidal austerity" to "starve old people" on the thread list of idiotic, hyperbolic language that does nothing to advance the discussion.

Not going pull my cock out and ask for comparisons bro but I understand the nature of government and economics as well as anyone around here.

No, you don't bro. You should be embarrassed by the posts you make.

I'm not willfully ignorant and I'm a good way down the road past recognizing that there's a problem. You'll do better to find a willfully ignorant government loving statist and tell them about why their democracy is destined to fail. I know democracies tend toward failure. The point was made centuries ago and has been brought up at least once or twice since.

You support the state. You are a statist.

 

[JakeStratham]

I beg you to read the first 20 pages of this book and really meditate on it: http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

Buy a copy. Keep it on your shelf. Read it every few months. Read every word. Let the ideas sink in. Test them. Try to dismantle them logically. Try to tear them down.

Hazlitt's treatment of economics is beautiful because it is simple. It is also well-written, which makes the reading quick. It is a fantastic introduction to economic truths that clarify how things work.

Edit: this is not meant for you, slayerment. I know you are a fan of the book. It is meant for anyone who hasn't read it.