There is nothing to be had in the US. No safety-net, NOTHING.
What liitle there is, is being dismantled more and more.............leaving the vulnerable (the old, the sick and the disabled) destitute!!
America redistributes its wealth FAR LESS than other developed countries (via government transfers)
(http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4eb17fef69beddde61000025-590/america-redistributes-its-wealth-far-less-than-other-developed-countries-via-government-transfers.jpg)
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-charts-about-inequality-2011-11#america-redistributes-its-wealth-far-less-than-other-developed-countries-via-government-transfers-15#ixzz1dKEnCnXY
In fact, America has the highest income inequality of any country in the developed world
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-charts-about-inequality-2011-11#in-fact-america-has-the-highest-income-inequality-of-any-country-in-the-developed-world-18#ixzz1dKIciqyy
(http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4e9460a6ecad04797a00000a-590/in-fact-america-has-the-highest-income-inequality-of-any-country-in-the-developed-world.jpg)
This thread is probably not gonna be too popular with the "America is the best" crowd (which I know reside in this forum is significant numbers).
The numbers are truly shocking, but not surprising. Those statistics are the norm when your system of government/corporate regulation is unsustainable and based on fantasy.
This country was founded under the principles of individual freedom and responsibility. Having the federal government redistibute the wealth goes against those principles. I don't know that I am in the "America is best" crowd, but I have traveled to many places and I find our form of government to be the best system I have seen. Could we improve a few things? Yep. But copying the failing European socialist democracy system ain't one of them.
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 10, 2011, 12:48:43 PM
There is nothing to be had in the US. No safety-net, NOTHING.
What liitle there is, is being dismantled more and more.............leaving the vulnerable (the old, the sick and the disabled) destitute!!
America redistributes its wealth FAR LESS than other developed countries (via government transfers)
Then why are you here?
This is what perplexes me most about your 'we/them' comparisons - you have dual-citizenship! You of all people on this forum one of the easier paths to leaving permanently, yet you choose to stay. I'm sure you could fill the place up with some
bullshit grand, ideological explanation of how you're just trying to make the US a better place, but my guess is, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's truly better here - in the state that everything is in - than it would be for you 'over there'.
Faye,
I have seen you were originally from the Netherlands? Were you born there? If so, why did you come here?
You seem to do a lot of complaining about the US government. Just curious, seriously not trying to start anything.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 10, 2011, 02:02:12 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 10, 2011, 12:48:43 PM
There is nothing to be had in the US. No safety-net, NOTHING.
What liitle there is, is being dismantled more and more.............leaving the vulnerable (the old, the sick and the disabled) destitute!!
America redistributes its wealth FAR LESS than other developed countries (via government transfers)
Then why are you here?
This is what perplexes me most about your 'we/them' comparisons - you have dual-citizenship! You of all people on this forum one of the easier paths to leaving permanently, yet you choose to stay. I'm sure you could fill the place up with some bullshit grand, ideological explanation of how you're just trying to make the US a better place, but my guess is, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's truly better here - in the state that everything is in - than it would be for you 'over there'.
Oh here we go...the 'why are you here' crowd. Great...
Quote from: NotNow on November 10, 2011, 01:51:15 PM
This country was founded under the principles of individual freedom and responsibility. Having the federal government redistibute the wealth goes against those principles. I don't know that I am in the "America is best" crowd, but I have traveled to many places and I find our form of government to be the best system I have seen. Could we improve a few things? Yep. But copying the failing European socialist democracy system ain't one of them.
'Failing socialist democracy'??? I find it's the socialism and government that works fine. It's the finance/corporate structure (and deregulation) that destroys a working system.
Quote from: ben says on November 10, 2011, 02:04:12 PM
Oh here we go...the 'why are you here' crowd. Great...
I only use that argument based on what little I've about and from her on this site.
If the grass is so much greener, and there's no 'fence' holding you back, then why subject yourself - willingly?
Edit:
If the EU has better schools, better health care, better policy, better quality of life in general - you're doing yourself and your family a dis-service by staying here.
Quote from: ben says on November 10, 2011, 02:05:30 PM
Quote from: NotNow on November 10, 2011, 01:51:15 PM
This country was founded under the principles of individual freedom and responsibility. Having the federal government redistribute the wealth goes against those principles. I don't know that I am in the "America is best" crowd, but I have traveled to many places and I find our form of government to be the best system I have seen. Could we improve a few things? Yep. But copying the failing European socialist democracy system ain't one of them.
'Failing socialist democracy'??? I find it's the socialism and government that works fine. It's the finance/corporate structure (and deregulation) that destroys a working system.
Really? So the riots and protests against various European governments for cutting government "redistribution of wealth" is because of the finance/corporate structure?
It is an unsustainable system. As Mrs. Thatcher wisely pointed out,"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money."
I would think it would be obvious to any parent. Everyone must have a "stake" in the system. If you just give away things, they are abused and not appreciated. When you work for your property and your benefits, you not only appreciate what is required for them, but you build self worth in at least partially providing for yourself.
Now, before you start, I realize that there will be (few and far between) cases where some simply must be provided for due to various disabilities. But entitlements and freeloaders are not a myth. I see them every day. And yes, some are corporate and some are governmental.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 10, 2011, 02:27:21 PM
If the EU has better schools, better health care, better policy, better quality of life in general - you're doing yourself and your family a dis-service by staying here.
Isn't that what we do on this site in regards to other cities? I mean don't we bitch and moan about how great other cities are doing it? How we should be doing this here or that here?
Quote from: Bridges on November 10, 2011, 03:05:54 PM
Isn't that what we do on this site in regards to other cities? I mean don't we bitch and moan about how great other cities are doing it? How we should be doing this here or that here?
Sure. Some more, some less. Almost every post that I read anti-jacksonville, thought, is not about how much a shithole our city is but what other things we should be doing here to up our QOL. A majority of the 'discussion' here isn't strictly about j'ville v/s [insert city], but about how a decent mass transit system like the one in San Diego would help us out. How a medical university downtown like the one in Indy would be great. How if we developed our riverwalk like the one in Houston, wouldn't that be awesome. It's mostly about incorporating other ideas here, for us.
Not this:
Take a look at the first line of her post:
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 10, 2011, 12:48:43 PM
There is nothing to be had in the US.
And my general sentiment is, if that's the way you feel, then why are you here? Seems a pretty relevant question.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 10, 2011, 03:37:24 PM
Quote from: Bridges on November 10, 2011, 03:05:54 PM
Isn't that what we do on this site in regards to other cities? I mean don't we bitch and moan about how great other cities are doing it? How we should be doing this here or that here?
Sure. Some more, some less. Almost every post that I read anti-jacksonville, thought, is not about how much a shithole our city is but what other things we should be doing here to up our QOL. A majority of the 'discussion' here isn't strictly about j'ville v/s [insert city], but about how a decent mass transit system like the one in San Diego would help us out. How a medical university downtown like the one in Indy would be great. How if we developed our riverwalk like the one in Houston, wouldn't that be awesome. It's mostly about incorporating other ideas here, for us.
Not this:
Take a look at the first line of her post:
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 10, 2011, 12:48:43 PM
There is nothing to be had in the US.
And my general sentiment is, if that's the way you feel, then why are you here? Seems a pretty relevant question.
Well, I'm pretty sure the "nothing to be had in the U.S." was a direct reference to the idea that entitlements lead to freeloaders. Not a general "nothing in the US...ever, for anything".
I think Faye takes the same approach with this as we do with comparing other cities. Albeit, it comes across sometimes a little frantic, but so can a lot of other posters about trains, or waterways, or the homeless. I believe her main idea is, this works there why not try it here. You may disagree about what "this/that is" and whether it would work here, but it's not the same as saying "well just go there".
Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm just disagreeing with her thought process the wrong way.
I stand by my statement that everyone should have a stake in society. The goal should always be to earn what you recieve. While I accept a certain level of "safety net", I will not accept the government taking the majority of what I earn to provide a "nanny state".
Incidently, European governments are in trouble because they are in deep, deep debt. They have borrowed too much money to pay excessive social programs. Now, when it looks as if some governments may default, they can't continue to borrow year after year to keep up the programs. So the "austerity" is not the fault of the banks, it simply raises the chances that they will be paid back the money they loaned to governments. Those chances are still iffy though, which is why we are seeing so many financial houses who are exposed to Euro debt in trouble. Corporations didn't pass the social programs and they didn't borrow the money to finance them.
I agree that wages are much too low in this country. We could debate why that is for pages in another thread. I'm also sure that we would disagree on how to ensure wages increased.
Quote from: Bridges on November 10, 2011, 03:46:21 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 10, 2011, 03:37:24 PM
Quote from: Bridges on November 10, 2011, 03:05:54 PM
Isn't that what we do on this site in regards to other cities? I mean don't we bitch and moan about how great other cities are doing it? How we should be doing this here or that here?
Sure. Some more, some less. Almost every post that I read anti-jacksonville, thought, is not about how much a shithole our city is but what other things we should be doing here to up our QOL. A majority of the 'discussion' here isn't strictly about j'ville v/s [insert city], but about how a decent mass transit system like the one in San Diego would help us out. How a medical university downtown like the one in Indy would be great. How if we developed our riverwalk like the one in Houston, wouldn't that be awesome. It's mostly about incorporating other ideas here, for us.
Not this:
Take a look at the first line of her post:
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 10, 2011, 12:48:43 PM
There is nothing to be had in the US.
And my general sentiment is, if that's the way you feel, then why are you here? Seems a pretty relevant question.
Well, I'm pretty sure the "nothing to be had in the U.S." was a direct reference to the idea that entitlements lead to freeloaders. Not a general "nothing in the US...ever, for anything".
I think Faye takes the same approach with this as we do with comparing other cities. Albeit, it comes across sometimes a little frantic, but so can a lot of other posters about trains, or waterways, or the homeless. I believe her main idea is, this works there why not try it here. You may disagree about what "this/that is" and whether it would work here, but it's not the same as saying "well just go there".
Yeah exactly........there is very little for freeloaders to even latch onto, because even those with legitimate needs are very under-served in the US!!
Do the people on this board that gripe about freeloaders think it is alright to cut services for the needy beyond the deplorable state they are in already in the US, because of the the myth of the socalled "freeloaders"?
Do they realize they've been had with those buzz words of welfare queens and freeloaders when the reality is that there is very little to be had for those with legitimate needs in the US?
We will all eventually become disabled, old or sick!!!
But the US will leave you in the dust when that happens.
We are all disposable people in the US.
Quote from: NotNow on November 10, 2011, 02:58:16 PM
Quote from: ben says on November 10, 2011, 02:05:30 PM
Quote from: NotNow on November 10, 2011, 01:51:15 PM
Could we improve a few things? Yep. But copying the failing European socialist democracy system ain't one of them.
'Failing socialist democracy'??? I find it's the socialism and government that works fine. It's the finance/corporate structure (and deregulation) that destroys a working system.
Really? So the riots and protests against various European governments for cutting government "redistribution of wealth" is because of the finance/corporate structure?
When you work for your property and your benefits, you not only appreciate what is required for them, but you build self worth in at least partially providing for yourself.
Now, before you start, I realize that there will be (few and far between) cases where some simply must be provided for due to various disabilities. But entitlements and freeloaders are not a myth. I see them every day. And yes, some are corporate and some are governmental.
The red bolded is the other myth put out by people who begrudge the help provided to the needy.
But they actually live in fantasy land.
Don't they know that EVERONE will eventually become disabled, old or sick?
Should we turn our backs on everyone at their time of need ie when they become old, disabled or sick?
Some kind of civilized society we live in!!!
A society where people in need are reduced to beggars for scraps..............not much different from a third world country.
It can be done........that is to have a truly civilized society........in a prosperous country. All western European nations are considered prosperous countries and they do far better for their citizens.
Quote from: NotNow on November 10, 2011, 06:07:09 PM
I stand by my statement that everyone should have a stake in society. The goal should always be to earn what you recieve. While I accept a certain level of "safety net", I will not accept the government taking the majority of what I earn to provide a "nanny state".
I agree that wages are much too low in this country. We could debate why that is for pages in another thread. I'm also sure that we would disagree on how to ensure wages increased.
Wow another buzz word: "nanny state"
Actually we have a "nanny state" for Wal-mart and all other companies that don't pay their workers living wages, because we the tax-payer need to provide foodstamps for Wal-mart's workers!!
How is that for a nanny state for corporations?
(http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4eb7dada6bb3f73e7800000d-590/ceo-pay-has-skyrocketed-300-since-1990-corporate-profits-have-doubled-average-production-worker-pay-has-increased-4-the-minimum-wage-has-dropped.jpg)
A country keeping minimum wage deliberately below a living wage creates a nanny state for corporations.
This is sooooooo easy to solve. To start NEVER revisit the minimum wage issue (another bait issue for Republicans). Set it at a living wage standard to eliminate the nanny state for corporations (that currently use the handouts of foodstamps for their workers), and then index it for inflation.
THAT is where it is set in Western Europe and they have maintained their competitiveness over the years on par with the US. Why can't we be just as civilized.
For those who have raised the irrelevant issue of my supposed dual citizenship: I have been trying to get my dual citizenship, but the Dutch won't take be back because I wasn't married to an American when I "gave up" my dutch citizenship ( so much for discriminating against unmarried women).
But my children do have dual citizenship because I was still Dutch when they were born in the US.
Quote from: NotNow on November 10, 2011, 06:07:09 PM
European governments are in trouble because they are in deep, deep debt. They have borrowed too much money to pay excessive social programs.
"The assertion that Europe’s crisis proves that the welfare state doesn’t work comes from many Republicans. For example, Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of taking his inspiration from European “socialist democrats†and asserted that “Europe isn’t working in Europe.†The idea, presumably, is that the crisis countries are in trouble because they’re groaning under the burden of high government spending. But the facts say otherwise.
It’s true that all European countries have more generous social benefits â€" including universal health care â€" and higher government spending than America does. But the nations now in crisis don’t have bigger welfare states than the nations doing well â€" if anything, the correlation runs the other way. Sweden, with its famously high benefits, is a star performer, one of the few countries whose G.D.P. is now higher than it was before the crisis. Meanwhile, before the crisis, “social expenditure†â€" spending on welfare-state programs â€" was lower, as a percentage of national income, in all of the nations now in trouble than in Germany, let alone Sweden.
Oh, and Canada, which has universal health care and much more generous aid to the poor than the United States, has weathered the crisis better than we have.
The euro crisis, then, says nothing about the sustainability of the welfare state."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/opinion/legends-of-the-fail.html
Quote from: finehoe on November 11, 2011, 12:14:51 PM
Quote from: NotNow on November 10, 2011, 06:07:09 PM
European governments are in trouble because they are in deep, deep debt. They have borrowed too much money to pay excessive social programs.
"The assertion that Europe’s crisis proves that the welfare state doesn’t work comes from many Republicans. For example, Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of taking his inspiration from European “socialist democrats†and asserted that “Europe isn’t working in Europe.†The idea, presumably, is that the crisis countries are in trouble because they’re groaning under the burden of high government spending. But the facts say otherwise.
It’s true that all European countries have more generous social benefits â€" including universal health care â€" and higher government spending than America does. But the nations now in crisis don’t have bigger welfare states than the nations doing well â€" if anything, the correlation runs the other way. Sweden, with its famously high benefits, is a star performer, one of the few countries whose G.D.P. is now higher than it was before the crisis. Meanwhile, before the crisis, “social expenditure†â€" spending on welfare-state programs â€" was lower, as a percentage of national income, in all of the nations now in trouble than in Germany, let alone Sweden.
Oh, and Canada, which has universal health care and much more generous aid to the poor than the United States, has weathered the crisis better than we have.
The euro crisis, then, says nothing about the sustainability of the welfare state."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/opinion/legends-of-the-fail.html
The buzz words, and lies just seem to work better in the "America is better than the rest" fallacy, and with the status quo defenders.
What if the poor performing students in our schools had the attitude of not wanting to improve their lot?
Is that the example we want to set for our young generations?
That we have to fight tooth and nail AGAINST trying to improve things in the US because we are already "better than the rest"
I think it has downed on our youth that they've been lied to.
Shelton Hull said it best at the first Occupy Jacksonville event:
http://www.youtube.com/v/SFeJe6dXfcI
:) Again, our system is designed to allow individual independence and individual freedom. Citizens should be able to plan and prepare for themselves and design their own retirement. The only argument that you have is that the people are too stupid to run their own lives and therefore must pay the government to provide a lesser safety net than they could provide for themselves.
The "civilized" country allows its citizens to think for themselves, and does not require 60-75% taxation to pay for a bunch of government employees to provide substandard services. All of those government "services" are bought with other peoples money. In this country it is still fashionable (at least in some circles) to keep at least a majority of your own income.
I agree that compensation in this country needs to be looked at. I would not use the power of government to mandate any wage limits of course, as that is dictatorship. The salary issues in this country are due largely to government regulations and mismanagement in a number of areas already. Our Federal government overstepped its authority years ago, and we should rein it in, not continue to turn our backs on our Constitution and allow the socialist takeover that some here seem to want.
Quote from: NotNow on November 11, 2011, 02:54:00 PM
:) Again, our system is designed to allow individual independence and individual freedom.
Yeah you're perfectly free to exploit the 99%
My definition of freedom includes opportunity for upward mobility secure in the knowledge that injury and disease will not bankrupt you.
There are no bankruptcies in Europe due to illness or injury.
Here people are disposible.........if society has no use for you, it's ok for you to perish!
How morally bankrupt is that!!
Quote from: NotNow on November 11, 2011, 02:54:00 PM
The salary issues in this country are due largely to government regulations and mismanagement in a number of areas already. Our Federal government overstepped its authority years ago, and we should rein it in, not continue to turn our backs on our Constitution and allow the socialist takeover that some here seem to want.
Ah, the non-specifics in sentence one in the quote above.............Please extrapolate what you mean.
On the contrary, our government abdicated it's proper role of oversight and demanding accountability of corporations, at the expense of the people.
You must understand that the complexity of regulations were deliberately put in place to make them completely ineffective, so as to make the appearance that government is useless or only a burden.
HAMP is a symbolic gesture to the people that is completely useless as it is based on voluntary compliance by corporations to help homeowners get modifications when faced with foreclosure.
Remember that we need to have government of the people, by the people and for the people?
By not setting clear and unambiguous rules the people have no protections from exploitation and abuse by the powerful mega corporations.
The fact that we allow minimum wage to decrease (after inflation) from its already abysmal level is ludicrous.
Do we actually encourage the exploitation and abuse of people that cannot afford to buy a lobbyist?
No Faye, we made the lobbyist so powerful by allowing the Federal government to centralize so much power thousands of miles away from us. What made this country the dream of world immigration was decentralized power as envisioned by the founders of our country.
I can't make it any more specific for you because you apparently have either not read or you do not understand that our Federal government is limited in its powers. I don't blame you because we have so many people who seem to want to invest unlimited power in that same government in direct contradiction of ALL of our founding documents. But there will always be people like me, demanding that we remain a free and unfettered people, not just enjoying our liberties but bearing the burden of responsibility for our own lives.
Your right, it's not like Europe.
Quote from: NotNow on November 11, 2011, 10:40:17 PM
No Faye, we made the lobbyist so powerful by allowing the Federal government to centralize so much power thousands of miles away from us. What made this country the dream of world immigration was decentralized power as envisioned by the founders of our country.
I don't blame you because we have so many people who seem to want to invest unlimited power in that same government in direct contradiction of ALL of our founding documents.
Your right, it's not like Europe.
Oh, you mean to say the Tallahassee lobbyists aren't every bit as powerful?
But only for those that can afford to buy a lobbyist.
Your disabled adult child will not be able to buy a lobbyist, neither can a cancer-stricken middle class person who cannot afford to pay for COBRA.
If we all could "bear the burden of responsibility for our own lives" throughout our lifespan, none of us would need any type of insurance. A federal insurance program based on ability to pay as in social security (except for the rich who pay a lower percentage of their income into social security), is to protect our elderly.
Why weren't you there to protest raiding the social security fund when they used it for everything else including wars?
Why didn't you support the Gore proposed lock box for the social security fund.
Do you want our elderly to perish........just die because they are no longer able to "bear the burden of responsibility for their own lives"
Please answer those questions, because so far you have avoided answering these questions.
An effective federal government can protect the citizens of crazy states that elect folks like Rick Scott, who shamefully tried to take away what little disabled people get in terms of (3hours of) respite care for the families that care for these disabled people.
To me local control is often much more corrupting than a federal government taking on its proper responsibility of protecting its people from dangers outside our country as well as dangers within our country.
A more equitable protection for all Americans. Security at home!!
"Necessitous men are not FREE men"
FDR's Economic Bill of Rights
http://www.youtube.com/v/czvHtOh_Xew?
True civilization. Lets join other advanced nations and provide our people the securities they need to be truly FREE.
Freedom without security is not freedom at all.
Faye,
I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you. Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line. As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk. I don't think you want to do that with me. So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you. I hope that you understand and agree.
As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 09:43:35 AM
Faye,
I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you. Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line. As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk. I don't think you want to do that with me. So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you. I hope that you understand and agree.
As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Of course you don't want to answer those questions just like you don't disclose your age, or if you are male or female. That's all too close for comfort.
We are talking about domestic safety............economic security.............the hallmark of a civilized society.
Civilization and security is not a temporary thing, it is what we have when we are truly free from the threat of economic destruction due to illness, age or disability.
Quote from: NotNow on November 11, 2011, 02:54:00 PM
:) Again, our system is designed to allow individual independence and individual freedom. Citizens should be able to plan and prepare for themselves and design their own retirement. The only argument that you have is that the people are too stupid to run their own lives and therefore must pay the government to provide a lesser safety net than they could provide for themselves.
The "civilized" country allows its citizens to think for themselves, and does not require 60-75% taxation to pay for a bunch of government employees to provide substandard services. All of those government "services" are bought with other peoples money. In this country it is still fashionable (at least in some circles) to keep at least a majority of your own income.
I agree that compensation in this country needs to be looked at. I would not use the power of government to mandate any wage limits of course, as that is dictatorship. The salary issues in this country are due largely to government regulations and mismanagement in a number of areas already. Our Federal government overstepped its authority years ago, and we should rein it in, not continue to turn our backs on our Constitution and allow the socialist takeover that some here seem to want.
For millions and millions of people the idea of saving and working for your retirement just doesn't exist anymore.
Call me when you are forced out of your job, sit on the curb unemployed for several years and get turned down for every job you apply/interview for. Cut back to the barest of essentials, deplete all your assets, be forced to sell your home and earn either no wages/ or poverty wages.
Oh and be middle aged. That helps a lot.
Then listen to people carry on about entitlement programs like "Medicare" and "SS" which you have paid into for 40 plus years. Oh and don't forget about all those people who leech off the system.
When this happens to you, let me know if some of the safety net programs are Socialist.
(Especially since you have helped pay for them.)
Making sure people aren't starving and destitute is NOT evil.
Trust me as many wealthy people leech off the system as the poor and disabled and elderly.
It's just a different style of leeching.
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 09:51:05 AM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 09:43:35 AM
Faye,
I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you. Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line. As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk. I don't think you want to do that with me. So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you. I hope that you understand and agree.
As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Of course you don't want to answer those questions just like you don't disclose your age, or if you are male or female. That's all too close for comfort.
We are talking about domestic safety............economic security.............the hallmark of a civilized society.
Civilization and security is not a temporary thing, it is what we have when we are truly free from the threat of economic destruction due to illness, age or disability.
(Sigh) I don't see what my age or sex has to do with anything. I will say that when President Johnson opened the SS funds to be raided, I was alive but too young to know anything about it. I would bet that is true of most of us. I think "social security" is not the responsibility of the Federal government but the responsibility of state governments. As it stands, I believe that SS funds should be separated from the federal budget and that individual "accounts" should be set up. Deductions for SSI and other programs would then be visible to every FICA taxpayer. I did not support Mr. Gore for a variety of his policies. I support an elderly family member (in my own house with my own funds), but I have provided for my and Mrs. NotNow's retirement and elderly care, as well as our final arrangements. I am male. I have never been arrested. I am the sole provider for my family and I make a working man's wage. Without the details I had what many would consider a "hard childhood". Part of that I suppose was that there was very little money or other basic needs. Through the grace of a couple of wonderful people (not the government) I graduated from high school. Through the GI Bill I completed a B.S. degree at a major state university (while working two jobs and raising a baby). I have been employed (by others, meaning paying FICA and other taxes) every day of my life since I turned fifteen years old and I worked "off the books" well before that. I hope to retire by sixty five or so. I started defending this nation at eighteen and I have been sent to a lot of %&$# holes on this planet. It was in those places that I met some of the finest Americans I'll ever know and I learned not to belittle the political or religious beliefs of others and that people who appear very different from me aren't. I have served in law enforcement since leaving active duty and once again found that most of those who choose to put themselves in a position to defend others are some of the finest people on the planet. I am thankful to GOD for all of his blessings and I consider myself to be a lucky man.
I hope this answers some of your personal quesions about me. I hope that I have answered your questions. I am entitled to my opinions and I have done the hard things, the things that others WOULD NOT in developing them.
While there are some who belittle the occupations that I have been honored to have, this has been MY way and I am proud of it. I assume that others here are good people who are seeking truth and other opinions. I appreciate it when others assume the same about me. When some posters don't, and want to belittle me, any further discussion with that person becomes...difficult.
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 09:58:44 AM
Fayes remarks are completely in line, notnow.
Just becuase it makes you uncomfortable to have your own inconsistencies discussed doesnt mean that its out of line. It just sucks for your point of view.
And its pretty cheeky to print that quote of Franklin's considering that you supported the destruction of Habeus Corpus by Bush, support the Patriot Act, deny that the use of torture by the bush administration was illegal or immoral, and support unwarranted surveillance into the lives of ordinary americans----all in the name of national security.
You are an intellectual fraud, my friend.
I am of the opinion that you are not completely informed on the subjects that you mentioned, and that you lack the training and education to speak intelligently on the matters. With that said, the terror attacks of 9/11 presented this nation with unique challenges and the steps to counter that threat were necessary and immediate. As we move forward, we have the luxury of better intelligence and a more robust counter terror infrastructure. Perhaps this will lead us to more agreement in the future.
It always amuses me when YOU call ME an intellectual fraud! ;)
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 11:33:02 AM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 10:54:35 AM
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 09:51:05 AM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 09:43:35 AM
Faye,
I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you. Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line. As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk. I don't think you want to do that with me. So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you. I hope that you understand and agree.
As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Of course you don't want to answer those questions just like you don't disclose your age, or if you are male or female. That's all too close for comfort.
We are talking about domestic safety............economic security.............the hallmark of a civilized society.
Civilization and security is not a temporary thing, it is what we have when we are truly free from the threat of economic destruction due to illness, age or disability.
(Sigh) I don't see what my age or sex has to do with anything. I will say that when President Johnson opened the SS funds to be raided, I was alive but too young to know anything about it. I would bet that is true of most of us. I think "social security" is not the responsibility of the Federal government but the responsibility of state governments. As it stands, I believe that SS funds should be separated from the federal budget and that individual "accounts" should be set up. Deductions for SSI and other programs would then be visible to every FICA taxpayer. I did not support Mr. Gore for a variety of his policies. I support an elderly family member (in my own house with my own funds), but I have provided for my and Mrs. NotNow's retirement and elderly care, as well as our final arrangements. I am male. I have never been arrested. I am the sole provider for my family and I make a working man's wage. Without the details I had what many would consider a "hard childhood". Part of that I suppose was that there was very little money or other basic needs. Through the grace of a couple of wonderful people (not the government) I graduated from high school. Through the GI Bill I completed a B.S. degree at a major state university (while working two jobs and raising a baby). I have been employed (by others, meaning paying FICA and other taxes) every day of my life since I turned fifteen years old and I worked "off the books" well before that. I hope to retire by sixty five or so. I started defending this nation at eighteen and I have been sent to a lot of %&$# holes on this planet. It was in those places that I met some of the finest Americans I'll ever know and I learned not to belittle the political or religious beliefs of others and that people who appear very different from me aren't. I have served in law enforcement since leaving active duty and once again found that most of those who choose to put themselves in a position to defend others are some of the finest people on the planet. I am thankful to GOD for all of his blessings and I consider myself to be a lucky man.
I hope this answers some of your personal quesions about me. I hope that I have answered your questions. I am entitled to my opinions and I have done the hard things, the things that others WOULD NOT in developing them.
While there are some who belittle the occupations that I have been honored to have, this has been MY way and I am proud of it. I assume that others here are good people who are seeking truth and other opinions. I appreciate it when others assume the same about me. When some posters don't, and want to belittle me, any further discussion with that person becomes...difficult.
What on earth does this have to do with why you only notice spending when it actually goes to people who are poor?
That is what Faye asked you, in her own way, after all.
If you have a question about my opinion on any governmental spending, then ask it. To just be an insulting presence here is only a minor irritation to me, but it makes you look like quite the little...appendage.
My post and its contents were directed to Faye. If you think you know better what she asked, or if you have some question of your own, then perhaps you should ask me in a normal and respectful manner. If you cannot, then just make some smartass comment for the sake of the other readers and let's be done with it.
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 11:33:02 AM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 10:54:35 AM
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 09:51:05 AM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 09:43:35 AM
Faye,
I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you. Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line. As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk. I don't think you want to do that with me. So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you. I hope that you understand and agree.
As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Of course you don't want to answer those questions just like you don't disclose your age, or if you are male or female. That's all too close for comfort.
We are talking about domestic safety............economic security.............the hallmark of a civilized society.
Civilization and security is not a temporary thing, it is what we have when we are truly free from the threat of economic destruction due to illness, age or disability.
(Sigh) I don't see what my age or sex has to do with anything. I will say that when President Johnson opened the SS funds to be raided, I was alive but too young to know anything about it. I would bet that is true of most of us. I think "social security" is not the responsibility of the Federal government but the responsibility of state governments. As it stands, I believe that SS funds should be separated from the federal budget and that individual "accounts" should be set up. Deductions for SSI and other programs would then be visible to every FICA taxpayer. I did not support Mr. Gore for a variety of his policies. I support an elderly family member (in my own house with my own funds), but I have provided for my and Mrs. NotNow's retirement and elderly care, as well as our final arrangements. I am male. I have never been arrested. I am the sole provider for my family and I make a working man's wage. Without the details I had what many would consider a "hard childhood". Part of that I suppose was that there was very little money or other basic needs. Through the grace of a couple of wonderful people (not the government) I graduated from high school. Through the GI Bill I completed a B.S. degree at a major state university (while working two jobs and raising a baby). I have been employed (by others, meaning paying FICA and other taxes) every day of my life since I turned fifteen years old and I worked "off the books" well before that. I hope to retire by sixty five or so. I started defending this nation at eighteen and I have been sent to a lot of %&$# holes on this planet. It was in those places that I met some of the finest Americans I'll ever know and I learned not to belittle the political or religious beliefs of others and that people who appear very different from me aren't. I have served in law enforcement since leaving active duty and once again found that most of those who choose to put themselves in a position to defend others are some of the finest people on the planet. I am thankful to GOD for all of his blessings and I consider myself to be a lucky man.
I hope this answers some of your personal quesions about me. I hope that I have answered your questions. I am entitled to my opinions and I have done the hard things, the things that others WOULD NOT in developing them.
While there are some who belittle the occupations that I have been honored to have, this has been MY way and I am proud of it. I assume that others here are good people who are seeking truth and other opinions. I appreciate it when others assume the same about me. When some posters don't, and want to belittle me, any further discussion with that person becomes...difficult.
What on earth does this have to do with why you only notice spending when it actually goes to people who are poor?
That is what Faye asked you, in her own way, after all.
Thanks Stephen. That is exactly right.
"Setting up individual accounts" in social security, won't do the job of providing social security for all, since that requires us to rise above our selfish needs to help those that weren't as fortunate. That is what we do in a civilized society.
I have posted extensively about confining the Federal government to its Constitutional limits. Doing so would reduce Federal spending on a grand scale. I have repeatedly endorsed spending by STATE governments on various forms of aid to the disabled and mentally infirm. I'm not sure how you have missed those, since you have argued with me for pages on the subjects.
Perhaps if you actually read what people are posting and tried to understand them by asking questions, rather than formulating arguments in the interest of "winning", you might help provide a better experience here for all of us StephenDare!.
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 11:33:02 AM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 10:54:35 AM
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 09:51:05 AM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 09:43:35 AM
Faye,
I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you. Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line. As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk. I don't think you want to do that with me. So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you. I hope that you understand and agree.
As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Of course you don't want to answer those questions just like you don't disclose your age, or if you are male or female. That's all too close for comfort.
We are talking about domestic safety............economic security.............the hallmark of a civilized society.
Civilization and security is not a temporary thing, it is what we have when we are truly free from the threat of economic destruction due to illness, age or disability.
(Sigh) I don't see what my age or sex has to do with anything. I will say that when President Johnson opened the SS funds to be raided, I was alive but too young to know anything about it. I would bet that is true of most of us. I think "social security" is not the responsibility of the Federal government but the responsibility of state governments. As it stands, I believe that SS funds should be separated from the federal budget and that individual "accounts" should be set up. Deductions for SSI and other programs would then be visible to every FICA taxpayer. I did not support Mr. Gore for a variety of his policies. I support an elderly family member (in my own house with my own funds), but I have provided for my and Mrs. NotNow's retirement and elderly care, as well as our final arrangements. I am male. I have never been arrested. I am the sole provider for my family and I make a working man's wage. Without the details I had what many would consider a "hard childhood". Part of that I suppose was that there was very little money or other basic needs. Through the grace of a couple of wonderful people (not the government) I graduated from high school. Through the GI Bill I completed a B.S. degree at a major state university (while working two jobs and raising a baby). I have been employed (by others, meaning paying FICA and other taxes) every day of my life since I turned fifteen years old and I worked "off the books" well before that. I hope to retire by sixty five or so. I started defending this nation at eighteen and I have been sent to a lot of %&$# holes on this planet. It was in those places that I met some of the finest Americans I'll ever know and I learned not to belittle the political or religious beliefs of others and that people who appear very different from me aren't. I have served in law enforcement since leaving active duty and once again found that most of those who choose to put themselves in a position to defend others are some of the finest people on the planet. I am thankful to GOD for all of his blessings and I consider myself to be a lucky man.
I hope this answers some of your personal quesions about me. I hope that I have answered your questions. I am entitled to my opinions and I have done the hard things, the things that others WOULD NOT in developing them.
While there are some who belittle the occupations that I have been honored to have, this has been MY way and I am proud of it. I assume that others here are good people who are seeking truth and other opinions. I appreciate it when others assume the same about me. When some posters don't, and want to belittle me, any further discussion with that person becomes...difficult.
What on earth does this have to do with why you only notice spending when it actually goes to people who are poor?
That is what Faye asked you, in her own way, after all.
Thanks Stephen. That is exactly right.
"Setting up individual accounts" in social security, won't do the job of providing social security for all, since that requires us to rise above our selfish needs to help those that weren't as fortunate. That is what we do in a civilized society.
So you want SS taxes spent only in the way that YOU want to see them spent, right? The government shouldn't be able to use the funds, but you don't want the individual taxpayers to have any say or even be reminded in how the funds are spent, right Faye? Deductions for SSI and other "benefit" SS programs would allow the individual taxpayer to see where "their" government retirement funds were going. Can't have that, can we? In a "civilized" society, we encourage the free flow of information.
You keep saying "civilized" when what you really mean is "socialized".
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 12:15:48 PM
I have repeatedly endorsed spending by STATE governments on various forms of aid to the disabled and mentally infirm.
Yeah the kind of spending that Rick Scott proposes for the disabled and sick? Like NOTHING at all?
Americans should have the same rights to protection from bankruptcies regardless of where they live in the US or what medical conditions they suffer. The majority of personal economic destruction ie bankruptcies are due to medical conditions.
This doesn't occur in the member states of Europe..........at least not in western europe and the scandinavian countries. It's a much more civilized mind-set.
And no, I mean a civilized society, as in NOT "Third World" where the weak perish.
Europe has Economic Democracies based on a capitalist system. None of the european members states have socialism vs capitalism.
They are mixed economies, just as the US is.
The notion of making Social Security the provenance of any particular state falls apart when you consider that todays society is extremely mobile, making accountability and record keeping problematic if not impossible. The centrality of the federal government at least keeps the books all in one place.
We already have individual retirement accounts. They are administered by Uncle Sam and the funds distributed according to an earnings formula. What is bothering some is that the money deposited in the SS bank is not invested as is the money controlled directly by the depositor or his/her financial planner. That is a good thing because all too many people are just not competent enough to control their own investments.
What you are both really calling for is for our children and grandchildren to be the slaves of the government. While you complain about "slavery to corporations" individuals can still avoid corporate life and (compared to most countries) live a free and prosperous life unfettered by exterior demands. Yet you both call for a nanny state that would suck up the majority of EVERY citizens income and STATUTORILY REQUIRE every citizen to accept the crappy services that governments generally provide. The government decides what you get based on ?(well, in the past we have seen age, income, race, sex, and any other currently PC reason).
No thanks. That is not my kind of "security".
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 12:23:26 PM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 12:15:48 PM
I have posted extensively about confining the Federal government to its Constitutional limits. Doing so would reduce Federal spending on a grand scale. I have repeatedly endorsed spending by STATE governments on various forms of aid to the disabled and mentally infirm. I'm not sure how you have missed those, since you have argued with me for pages on the subjects.
Perhaps if you actually read what people are posting and tried to understand them by asking questions, rather than formulating arguments in the interest of "winning", you might help provide a better experience here for all of us StephenDare!.
But you don't really believe your first statement, notnow. That would take out Homeland Security, The Air Force and the USDA. Not to mention the CIA, the FBI, the OSS, and most of the surveillance systems that you support. It would also take away federal participation in any kind of interstate crime databases.
Are you for that?
I am "for" what I said I am for. I have argued in the past based on what exists in the real world. You DO understand the difference, don't you?
Now, tell me how you would reduce Federal spending StephenDare!? How about you, Faye? And Faye, while you compained about Rick Scott, how would you have brought the state budget into balance?
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 12:25:29 PM
ah. now we are calling faye a 'socialist', because thats a bad word, right?
Are you of the opinion that socialized policies are the opposite of civilized policies?
I am of the opinion that Faye is misusing the word "civilized". I don't think that "socialist" is bad, but I wish that you guys woudl at least be honest about it and say the word.
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 12:31:46 PM
What you are both really calling for is for our children and grandchildren to be the slaves of the government. While you complain about "slavery to corporations" individuals can still avoid corporate life and (compared to most countries) live a free and prosperous life unfettered by exterior demands. Yet you both call for a nanny state that would suck up the majority of EVERY citizens income and STATUTORILY REQUIRE every citizen to accept the crappy services that governments generally provide. The government decides what you get based on ?(well, in the past we have seen age, income, race, sex, and any other currently PC reason).
No thanks. That is not my kind of "security".
Yeah the only security you want to provide is the one for yourself. All I can say is I hope you stay able-bodied far into old age, because people like you do not care to pitch in to help people who through no fault of their own can no longer provide "security" for themselves.
Let the weak perish :o
That is your motto based on what you've said, even though you've not dared to directly say so.
I'm out of here. Since I guess you don't have family members either that through no fault of their own ie age, disability or sickness aren't able to provide for their own security.
You are on the margin of American society. The word society implies a social contract, but the type of "social contract" you suggest can only be found in third world countries.
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 12:25:46 PM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 12:15:48 PM
I have repeatedly endorsed spending by STATE governments on various forms of aid to the disabled and mentally infirm.
Yeah the kind of spending that Rick Scott proposes for the disabled and sick? Like NOTHING at all?
Americans should have the same rights to protection from bankruptcies regardless of where they live in the US or what medical conditions they suffer. The majority of personal economic destruction ie bankruptcies are due to medical conditions.
This doesn't occur in the member states of Europe..........at least not in western europe and the scandinavian countries. It's a much more civilized mind-set.
And no, I mean a civilized society, as in NOT "Third World" where the weak perish.
Europe has Economic Democracies based on a capitalist system. None of the european members states have socialism vs capitalism.
They are mixed economies, just as the US is.
Faye,
You have acquired StephenDare!'s habit of telling me what I think. I ask again that you participate in discussion with me on a basis of mutual respect. The idea is to exchange ideas, not to yell at each other.
You are right that both the US and most of Europe have "mixed" economies. I am arguing for a government based on the US Constitution, which limits federal power to certain enumerated powers, and a society less dependent on government and maximizing individual freedom. I believe in the individual, much more than I will ever believe in any government. It really is that simple.
Quote from: Ralph W on November 12, 2011, 12:27:05 PM
The notion of making Social Security the provenance of any particular state falls apart when you consider that todays society is extremely mobile, making accountability and record keeping problematic if not impossible. The centrality of the federal government at least keeps the books all in one place.
We already have individual retirement accounts. They are administered by Uncle Sam and the funds distributed according to an earnings formula. What is bothering some is that the money deposited in the SS bank is not invested as is the money controlled directly by the depositor or his/her financial planner. That is a good thing because all too many people are just not competent enough to control their own investments.
Ralph,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. But are you aware of the international cooperation in social retirements? The same cooperation is quite easy among states. I think we might all be safer in the "books" weren't all kept in one place.
As for IRA's, they are not "administered" by the government but are regulated. I think what is bothering most people is that the money deposited in the SS trust fund has been spent by the Federal government. That money has been replaced with special Treasury paper. So what the government has done is placed all of the SS Trust retirement fund in one pot. Sound like good advice to you? As for the "most people are too incompetent" argument, I...just.....disagree. I have faith in most people. And the government could provide advice or provide limited investment avenues in necessary or voluntarily. And of course, statements would remind and show folks where they stand.
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 12:31:46 PM
What you are both really calling for is for our children and grandchildren to be the slaves of the government. While you complain about "slavery to corporations" individuals can still avoid corporate life and (compared to most countries) live a free and prosperous life unfettered by exterior demands. Yet you both call for a nanny state that would suck up the majority of EVERY citizens income and STATUTORILY REQUIRE every citizen to accept the crappy services that governments generally provide. The government decides what you get based on ?(well, in the past we have seen age, income, race, sex, and any other currently PC reason).
No thanks. That is not my kind of "security".
huh?
more accusations, no answers to the questions asked.
I seem to be the only one here answering questions.
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 12:36:08 PM
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 12:23:26 PM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 12:15:48 PM
I have posted extensively about confining the Federal government to its Constitutional limits. Doing so would reduce Federal spending on a grand scale. I have repeatedly endorsed spending by STATE governments on various forms of aid to the disabled and mentally infirm. I'm not sure how you have missed those, since you have argued with me for pages on the subjects.
Perhaps if you actually read what people are posting and tried to understand them by asking questions, rather than formulating arguments in the interest of "winning", you might help provide a better experience here for all of us StephenDare!.
But you don't really believe your first statement, notnow. That would take out Homeland Security, The Air Force and the USDA. Not to mention the CIA, the FBI, the OSS, and most of the surveillance systems that you support. It would also take away federal participation in any kind of interstate crime databases.
Are you for that?
I am "for" what I said I am for. I have argued in the past based on what exists in the real world. You DO understand the difference, don't you?
Now, tell me how you would reduce Federal spending StephenDare!? How about you, Faye? And Faye, while you compained about Rick Scott, how would you have brought the state budget into balance?
Perhaps you can clear it up with a single yes or no.
Are you for abolishing Homeland Security, The Air Force and the USDA, the CIA, the FBI, the OSS, and most of the surveillance systems that you support, as well as federal participation in any kind of interstate crime databases, in the name of our government working within it strict constitutional limits?
I am for a return to Constitutional government and ALL of the machinations that would go with it. Much of the services you describe are not only reserved to the states, but would be better served at that level.
Now, can you answer my questions? As previously asked?
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 12:41:35 PM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 12:31:46 PM
What you are both really calling for is for our children and grandchildren to be the slaves of the government. While you complain about "slavery to corporations" individuals can still avoid corporate life and (compared to most countries) live a free and prosperous life unfettered by exterior demands. Yet you both call for a nanny state that would suck up the majority of EVERY citizens income and STATUTORILY REQUIRE every citizen to accept the crappy services that governments generally provide. The government decides what you get based on ?(well, in the past we have seen age, income, race, sex, and any other currently PC reason).
No thanks. That is not my kind of "security".
Yeah the only security you want to provide is the one for yourself. All I can say is I hope you stay able-bodied far into old age, because people like you do not care to pitch in to help people who through no fault of their own can no longer provide "security" for themselves. Let the weak perish :o
That is your motto based on what you've said, even though you've not dared to directly say so.
I'm out of here. Since I guess you don't have family members either that through no fault of their own ie age, disability or sickness aren't able to provide for their own security.
You are on the margin of American society. The word society implies a social contract, but the type of "social contract" you suggest can only be found in third world countries.
I am sorry that you have chosen to be confrontational and to name call. I have already told you that I am supporting an elderly member of my own family. I am no more "able bodied" than you are. I am simply apparently better prepared.
With that said, it is obvious that you simply wish to state your own opinion, and don't wish to acknowledge any other view. That appears to be a common condition on this forum, and I will leave you to it.
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 12:45:47 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 12:41:35 PM
You are on the margin of American society. The word society implies a social contract, but the type of "social contract" you suggest can only be found in third world countries.
usually colonized third world countries, as there has never been a successful example of the kind of social contract that he advocates, Faye. From what he will admit to, his political ideology is the usual mixture of 'state's rights' nonsense, radical capitalism, enabled by state sponsored security forces that allows him to bemoan social security as a 'ponzi scheme' but deny that trillions of dollars of military spending is even quesitonable.
StephenDare!'s opinion of what I think. Not the first time we have heard it, and it won't be the last. :)
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2011, 12:58:54 PM
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 12:57:47 PM
Faye,
You have acquired StephenDare!'s habit of telling me what I think. I ask again that you participate in discussion with me on a basis of mutual respect. The idea is to exchange ideas, not to yell at each other.
whose habit?
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 12:31:46 PM
What you are both really calling for is for our children and grandchildren to be the slaves of the government. While you complain about "slavery to corporations" individuals can still avoid corporate life and (compared to most countries) live a free and prosperous life unfettered by exterior demands. Yet you both call for a nanny state that would suck up the majority of EVERY citizens income and STATUTORILY REQUIRE every citizen to accept the crappy services that governments generally provide. The government decides what you get based on ?(well, in the past we have seen age, income, race, sex, and any other currently PC reason).
No thanks. That is not my kind of "security".
besides being one of the dopiest straw men arguments that ive ever heard that didnt come from Michelle Bachmann, this form of argumentation pretty much sums up your engagement style here doesnt it?
I think that our "styles" have been summed up pretty well in this thread.
Quote from: Ralph W on November 12, 2011, 12:27:05 PM
The notion of making Social Security the provenance of any particular state falls apart when you consider that todays society is extremely mobile, making accountability and record keeping problematic if not impossible. The centrality of the federal government at least keeps the books all in one place.
We already have individual retirement accounts. They are administered by Uncle Sam and the funds distributed according to an earnings formula. What is bothering some is that the money deposited in the SS bank is not invested as is the money controlled directly by the depositor or his/her financial planner. That is a good thing because all too many people are just not competent enough to control their own investments.
Thank you for this wonderful comment.
Not all individuals can handle their own investments and conversely not everyone has a member like NotNow in their family who is able to support an elderly member of his family.
Good thing he only has one elderly member to support.
If you don't have someone like NotNow in your family You are On Your Own in the YOYO society that NotNow advocates......... and will likely die in misery.
Again: let the weak perish is the motto of those who proclaim a YOYO society.
Same thing happens in third world countries.
If you want to know the state of affairs you need look no further than the debates tonight. I know it doesn't fit in this discussion, but Cain, the joke, and Bachman, the alien think it's ok to waterboard. It's ok to torture. God they make me sick. But just imagine, if they are willing to torture they wouldn't mind letting poor people and elderly starve. Starvation is just a form of slow torture anyway. The only person in the debate that had anything sensible to say was Huntsman. Romney just bashed O'Bama and never gave a direct answer and one of the genius panel actually stated that instead of wasting money on our infrastructure we should build more warships and beef up our Navy since O'Bama has single-handedly torn it down. More to the military industrial complex and less to those pesky entitlement programs. And I think it was moron Perry that said something like we have to stop China from taking all our jobs. How about major corporations that they want to deregulate and give ridiculous tax breaks to? If I recall we willingly sent our jobs and manufacturing to China. God knows we wouldn't want American companies to pay a decent wage and make quality products. So bottom line it's ok to put people out of work and in near poverty, but how dare they hope for a safety net.
Quote from: NotNow on November 12, 2011, 01:07:37 PM
Quote from: Ralph W on November 12, 2011, 12:27:05 PM
The notion of making Social Security the provenance of any particular state falls apart when you consider that todays society is extremely mobile, making accountability and record keeping problematic if not impossible. The centrality of the federal government at least keeps the books all in one place.
We already have individual retirement accounts. They are administered by Uncle Sam and the funds distributed according to an earnings formula. What is bothering some is that the money deposited in the SS bank is not invested as is the money controlled directly by the depositor or his/her financial planner. That is a good thing because all too many people are just not competent enough to control their own investments.
Ralph,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. But are you aware of the international cooperation in social retirements? The same cooperation is quite easy among states. I think we might all be safer in the "books" weren't all kept in one place.
As for IRA's, they are not "administered" by the government but are regulated. I think what is bothering most people is that the money deposited in the SS trust fund has been spent by the Federal government. That money has been replaced with special Treasury paper. So what the government has done is placed all of the SS Trust retirement fund in one pot. Sound like good advice to you? As for the "most people are too incompetent" argument, I...just.....disagree. I have faith in most people. And the government could provide advice or provide limited investment avenues in necessary or voluntarily. And of course, statements would remind and show folks where they stand.
If you mean international cooperation such as this:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/482a0aced8049067c12563ed005acf9e?Opendocument
In so too many words the great thinkers get together and offer platitudes and advice to each other on what to do with an aging population.
Nothing seems to have changed since this pap was offered up in 1995. The old get older. The social safety nets are full of holes and cooperation is all on paper.
I was talking about the simple bookkeeping of seeing to each persons needs even when that person has moved about the US for a lifetime. It's a logistical nightmare and expense compounded if a pension check has to be issued from every state where every state would have to keep and update records forever just to keep track of where to send the social security check. So much simpler to have the feds keep track - they do know where to find you if you owe taxes - since everyone <G> pays into the system. Where ONE entity doles out the whole instead of a multitude of parts from all over.
The individual retirement accounts are not IRA's regulated but are every ones SS accounts. I'm not bothered that the SS trust fund has been absorbed into the general fund. It's all one big pot of money in the end and the formula determines how much of the pot goes to each contributor. This is one business that is really to big to fail, unlike the individual parts (States, counties, cities, towns, pension funds).
How many small time Bernie Madoffs or just plain bad luck in working the markets would it take to wipe out a raft of IRA's owned by all those individuals I believe to be incompetent to handle their own investments?
Or imagine having your retirement funds in MF Global, a brokerage firm that took customer funds and assets at will, and used them for their own undisclosed speculation. JP Morgan and Bank of America are trying to subordinate the customers' claims to their stolen funds and keep them in a pool of money to be distributed to the creditors by the Trustee, without any representation for the customers. Who knows when, or if, these people will have their stolen money returned.
Ralph,
By international cooperation, I was talking abou the agreements that the US has entered into regarding SS and other countries "retirement" systems.
Rollovers and moving retirement systems happens all the time, and would not present any problem. In fact, I would argue that a state system would be more efficient and cheaper to operate.
As for investment safety, your FICA taxes are spent as soon as they are debited by the Federal government. The current SS "trust" fund is just a pile of IOU's from the same government that can't seem to do anything about their 15TRILLION dollar (and growing) debt. In coming years, when the feds no longer receive any income from FICA, but instead find a bill for BILLIONS of dollars...let's see how "safe" that investment was. The SS board is currently saying that they "should" be able to pay 77% of benefits when the government defaults on the trust fund. But that is a typical government "rosy" prediction. Most financial planners are telling pre retirees to plan on 60-65% of stated benefits. Of course you realize that your SS contributions are "taxes" and that you have no legal claim to the money. The government can tell you how much, if any, you will get at any one time. At least if my FICA "taxes" were saved I would have some idea of what I had coming in retirement.
With all the insider trading, ponzi schemes, accounting frauds, and misapporpriation of customer assets, investors have to be asking themselves, 'what is the real value of things, what are the hidden risks, and what is really safe anymore?'
So the average person seems to be flocking to US Treasuries, often held for them by brokers. This rush to paper dollars may be the last bubble, the great killing field of personal wealth and value, as the oligarchs take your savings and wipe you out with a few strokes of the keyboard.
If you think they will protect and save you because you are 'one of them,' and vote their party line and watch their news channels and promote their interests and look down on your fellows you are wrong.
You are not one of the elite, the .1%, except in your own aspirations and delusions of grandeur. To the powers of darkness in high places you are prey, and your purpose is to be devoured.
The time to do something to protect yourself and your family, and restore equal protection and the rule of law, is now. You will not appease the madness by throwing victims to it and hoping it becomes satiated. Its hunger only grows and serves no other.
Quote from: finehoe on November 14, 2011, 05:23:01 PM
With all the insider trading, ponzi schemes, accounting frauds, and misapporpriation of customer assets, investors have to be asking themselves, 'what is the real value of things, what are the hidden risks, and what is really safe anymore?'
So the average person seems to be flocking to US Treasuries, often held for them by brokers. This rush to paper dollars may be the last bubble, the great killing field of personal wealth and value, as the oligarchs take your savings and wipe you out with a few strokes of the keyboard.
If you think they will protect and save you because you are 'one of them,' and vote their party line and watch their news channels and promote their interests and look down on your fellows you are wrong.
You are not one of the elite, the .1%, except in your own aspirations and delusions of grandeur. To the powers of darkness in high places you are prey, and your purpose is to be devoured.
The time to do something to protect yourself and your family, and restore equal protection and the rule of law, is now. You will not appease the madness by throwing victims to it and hoping it becomes satiated. Its hunger only grows and serves no other.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. Are you, as are many others who represent themselves as part of the "Occupy" movement, calling for a revolution? Who is "throwing victims" into anything? Your terminology seems to invoke religion. Is this really the tone you guys want to take?
Maybe Bill Maher can explain it better to you:
http://www.youtube.com/v/MmusrhoEPyU