Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Social Security, Should Young People Pay It?

capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
The reality appears to be that the funds for social security were spent, and that, in order to pay out currently, the government is using external funds (ie, printing treasury bills) (http://www.zerohedge.com...).

For various reasons, this matter doesn't directly affect me, but it would seem there is a choice of
1. continuing paying into it, although the <30yr olds will never get what is promised
2. reduce benefits now and stick it to the old, who allowed the funds to be spent through there representatives
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 6:13:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Social Security is expected to go bankrupt by 2033 due to the higher percentage of retirees receiving benefits than workers putting money in. With birth rates declining the situation will become increasingly untenable. There have been various proposals to remedy the problem, but neither the Dems or Rep. wish to enact anything due to backlash that may incur upon their respective parties. Unless incomes move out of stagnation and employment is increased the problem will persist.

Bit of info http://www.debate.org...
capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 11:00:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 6:13:12 PM, Peepette wrote:
Social Security is expected to go bankrupt by 2033 due to the higher percentage of retirees receiving benefits than workers putting money in. With birth rates declining the situation will become increasingly untenable. There have been various proposals to remedy the problem, but neither the Dems or Rep. wish to enact anything due to backlash that may incur upon their respective parties. Unless incomes move out of stagnation and employment is increased the problem will persist.

Bit of info http://www.debate.org...

What do you think of the zerohedge article I linked to?
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 2:51:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 11:00:16 PM, capob wrote:
At 8/1/2016 6:13:12 PM, Peepette wrote:
Social Security is expected to go bankrupt by 2033 due to the higher percentage of retirees receiving benefits than workers putting money in. With birth rates declining the situation will become increasingly untenable. There have been various proposals to remedy the problem, but neither the Dems or Rep. wish to enact anything due to backlash that may incur upon their respective parties. Unless incomes move out of stagnation and employment is increased the problem will persist.

Bit of info http://www.debate.org...

What do you think of the zerohedge article I linked to?

Yes, to keep it solvent taxes need to be raised or benefits lowered or a combination of the two. Selling SS as a marketable debt is a very bad idea. The Fed/treasury has no business selling Credit Debt Obligations/derivatives. That's passing debt onto investors and will end up in 401Ks and pension plans and will be subject o market volatility. What really needs to happen, but will not ,is to have more good paying jobs created and end stagnant wages, as well as tighter controls on non-retirement disability claims. Between the 3 trillion borrowed from SS during the Bush Administration and never repaid and more people collecting (baby boomer) than putting into the system some sort of overhaul needs to be done and the public will not like it.
capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 3:17:06 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 2:51:18 AM, Peepette wrote:

What really needs to happen, but will not ,is to have more good paying jobs created and end stagnant wages, as well as tighter controls on non-retirement disability claims. Between the 3 trillion borrowed from SS during the Bush Administration and never repaid and more people collecting (baby boomer) than putting into the system some sort of overhaul needs to be done and the public will not like it.

It would appear it will be solved through inflationary money printing - a tax few people complain about.

As for the good paying jobs, if you want good paying jobs, you have to have a good citizenry (high IQ, good culture) and a good education system (calculus minimum in high school), but we have neither.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 6:50:59 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM, capob wrote:
The reality appears to be that the funds for social security were spent, and that, in order to pay out currently, the government is using external funds (ie, printing treasury bills) (http://www.zerohedge.com...).

For various reasons, this matter doesn't directly affect me, but it would seem there is a choice of
1. continuing paying into it, although the <30yr olds will never get what is promised
2. reduce benefits now and stick it to the old, who allowed the funds to be spent through there representatives

My personal opinion is that I can save better for myself than the government can, which is obvious given the situation. The way to handle this utter failure of a system, is a voucher system. Continue to support all those currently on SS, and give a voucher to those who have yet to start. The initial payout will be massive, but the long term benefits are worth it.

There are also economic benefits to this. You will increase the spending power of the dollar and increase income. This is a stimulus I can get behind.
capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 8:19:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 6:50:59 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM, capob wrote:
The reality appears to be that the funds for social security were spent, and that, in order to pay out currently, the government is using external funds (ie, printing treasury bills) (http://www.zerohedge.com...).

For various reasons, this matter doesn't directly affect me, but it would seem there is a choice of
1. continuing paying into it, although the <30yr olds will never get what is promised
2. reduce benefits now and stick it to the old, who allowed the funds to be spent through there representatives

My personal opinion is that I can save better for myself than the government can, which is obvious given the situation. The way to handle this utter failure of a system, is a voucher system. Continue to support all those currently on SS, and give a voucher to those who have yet to start. The initial payout will be massive, but the long term benefits are worth it.

There are also economic benefits to this. You will increase the spending power of the dollar and increase income. This is a stimulus I can get behind.

Why would you replace it with anything?

You could have some period where people are able to opt-out permanently and give up any social security they might have gotten in favor of removing the social security tax from their income.

And, argument that this would defund those who seek SS or those getting SS is an admission that it is a ponzi scheme (or at least, has become that)
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 9:22:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 6:50:59 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM, capob wrote:
The reality appears to be that the funds for social security were spent, and that, in order to pay out currently, the government is using external funds (ie, printing treasury bills) (http://www.zerohedge.com...).

For various reasons, this matter doesn't directly affect me, but it would seem there is a choice of
1. continuing paying into it, although the <30yr olds will never get what is promised
2. reduce benefits now and stick it to the old, who allowed the funds to be spent through there representatives

My personal opinion is that I can save better for myself than the government can, which is obvious given the situation. The way to handle this utter failure of a system, is a voucher system. Continue to support all those currently on SS, and give a voucher to those who have yet to start. The initial payout will be massive, but the long term benefits are worth it.

There are also economic benefits to this. You will increase the spending power of the dollar and increase income. This is a stimulus I can get behind.

In this case the personal argument doesn't make sense when applied to policy for the masses. You may be different in your saving habits, congratulations, but most Americans live paycheck to pay check so saving isn't much of an option. http://www.fool.com...

And being given a massive amount of cash just begs for that money to be misspent on something expensive with minimal returns later.
capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 10:08:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 9:22:16 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 6:50:59 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM, capob wrote:
The reality appears to be that the funds for social security were spent, and that, in order to pay out currently, the government is using external funds (ie, printing treasury bills) (http://www.zerohedge.com...).

For various reasons, this matter doesn't directly affect me, but it would seem there is a choice of
1. continuing paying into it, although the <30yr olds will never get what is promised
2. reduce benefits now and stick it to the old, who allowed the funds to be spent through there representatives

My personal opinion is that I can save better for myself than the government can, which is obvious given the situation. The way to handle this utter failure of a system, is a voucher system. Continue to support all those currently on SS, and give a voucher to those who have yet to start. The initial payout will be massive, but the long term benefits are worth it.

There are also economic benefits to this. You will increase the spending power of the dollar and increase income. This is a stimulus I can get behind.

In this case the personal argument doesn't make sense when applied to policy for the masses. You may be different in your saving habits, congratulations, but most Americans live paycheck to pay check so saving isn't much of an option. http://www.fool.com...

And being given a massive amount of cash just begs for that money to be misspent on something expensive with minimal returns later.

If you start writing laws on the basis that people are dumb, the people become dumb, in respect to what the law is about, through the implementation of the law. This is a notion with welfare generally expressed as "created welfare dependents". But, not only do you disable people by deincentivising ability, you remove the natural selection trend towards that ability. And so, those less able are un-naturally represented in following generations. And, not only all of that, but social security tends to demotivate child-parent relations, and elderly-community relations, wherein, previously, those who were old or getting old would have to rely on either their savings, their children, or their community, now, the reliance upon children and community is decreased - decreasing the motivation to maintain good and full relations with both children and community. So, not only do you create dependents, not only do you create a less fit citizenry, but you help in the destruction of the culture that stems from the ties of parents to children and old people to their communities.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 11:14:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 10:08:56 PM, capob wrote:
At 8/2/2016 9:22:16 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 6:50:59 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM, capob wrote:
The reality appears to be that the funds for social security were spent, and that, in order to pay out currently, the government is using external funds (ie, printing treasury bills) (http://www.zerohedge.com...).

For various reasons, this matter doesn't directly affect me, but it would seem there is a choice of
1. continuing paying into it, although the <30yr olds will never get what is promised
2. reduce benefits now and stick it to the old, who allowed the funds to be spent through there representatives

My personal opinion is that I can save better for myself than the government can, which is obvious given the situation. The way to handle this utter failure of a system, is a voucher system. Continue to support all those currently on SS, and give a voucher to those who have yet to start. The initial payout will be massive, but the long term benefits are worth it.

There are also economic benefits to this. You will increase the spending power of the dollar and increase income. This is a stimulus I can get behind.

In this case the personal argument doesn't make sense when applied to policy for the masses. You may be different in your saving habits, congratulations, but most Americans live paycheck to pay check so saving isn't much of an option. http://www.fool.com...

And being given a massive amount of cash just begs for that money to be misspent on something expensive with minimal returns later.

If you start writing laws on the basis that people are dumb, the people become dumb, in respect to what the law is about, through the implementation of the law. This is a notion with welfare generally expressed as "created welfare dependents".

So in terms of healthcare, in your mind, a person living paycheck to pay check ought to be smart enough to save for unforseen things like cancer and accidents - not only that but be smart enough to navigate the private healthcare system which was such a 'for profit' mess it prompted Obamacare to get passed?

Do you know the history of why Social Security exists? Old people, not workers that need incentivizing, not single moms popping out babies - retired old people. The system would work if politicians would put the surplus gains back into the SS fund.

But, not only do you disable people by deincentivising ability, you remove the natural selection trend towards that ability. And so, those less able are un-naturally represented in following generations.

Are you saying we subject the elderly, poor, disabled and otherwise broken to the state of nature and 'survival of the fittest'? Are you kidding me? Where does your scope of morality lie? "Can't survive in a capitalist economy because you're sick or too old to work? Well then die."

Just because some people don't have direct market value doesn't mean they don't have value as human beings.

And, not only all of that, but social security tends to demotivate child-parent relations, and elderly-community relations, wherein, previously, those who were old or getting old would have to rely on either their savings, their children, or their community, now, the reliance upon children and community is decreased - decreasing the motivation to maintain good and full relations with both children and community.

So Federal welfare is bad but "community" welfare is acceptable ... uh-huh what if we define community as a nation? Or get this, 50 state "communities" where the states run the system but the Fed helps fund it and control prices.

So, not only do you create dependents, not only do you create a less fit citizenry, but you help in the destruction of the culture that stems from the ties of parents to children and old people to their communities.

Yea, those stupid old people! They shouldn't have invested so much money in the stock market only to run on the banks causing the "great" depression. If only the welfare state didn't exist! Oh wait that was before SS and FDR's new deal, Herbert Hoover was a hands off president when it came to the economy.
capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 11:40:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 11:14:16 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 10:08:56 PM, capob wrote:
At 8/2/2016 9:22:16 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 6:50:59 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM, capob wrote:
The reality appears to be that the funds for social security were spent, and that, in order to pay out currently, the government is using external funds (ie, printing treasury bills) (http://www.zerohedge.com...).

For various reasons, this matter doesn't directly affect me, but it would seem there is a choice of
1. continuing paying into it, although the <30yr olds will never get what is promised
2. reduce benefits now and stick it to the old, who allowed the funds to be spent through there representatives

My personal opinion is that I can save better for myself than the government can, which is obvious given the situation. The way to handle this utter failure of a system, is a voucher system. Continue to support all those currently on SS, and give a voucher to those who have yet to start. The initial payout will be massive, but the long term benefits are worth it.

There are also economic benefits to this. You will increase the spending power of the dollar and increase income. This is a stimulus I can get behind.

In this case the personal argument doesn't make sense when applied to policy for the masses. You may be different in your saving habits, congratulations, but most Americans live paycheck to pay check so saving isn't much of an option. http://www.fool.com...

And being given a massive amount of cash just begs for that money to be misspent on something expensive with minimal returns later.

If you start writing laws on the basis that people are dumb, the people become dumb, in respect to what the law is about, through the implementation of the law. This is a notion with welfare generally expressed as "created welfare dependents".

So in terms of healthcare, in your mind, a person living paycheck to pay check ought to be smart enough to save for unforseen things like cancer and accidents

Cancer, accidents, etc are all foreseeable as a possibility - that's why there's insurance. And, someone living paycheck to paycheck is living that way with social security deducted from their pay; removing that deduction would increase their pay, meaning they wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck unless they ended up spending more.

- not only that but be smart enough to navigate the private healthcare system which was such a 'for profit' mess it prompted Obamacare to get passed?

Man, you are brainwashed. Go look up all the government regulations that resulted in healthcare costing so much, that monopolized hospitals and care, and made alternatives illegal, and banned cheaper products, better products that would have competed with existing pharmaceuticals. The government medicade and medicare programs that paid exorbitant amounts causing prices to rise.

The idea that there was a free market in health care which was a mess and was solved by obamacare is some hyper level of insanity.

But, not only do you disable people by deincentivising ability, you remove the natural selection trend towards that ability. And so, those less able are un-naturally represented in following generations.

Are you saying we subject the elderly, poor, disabled and otherwise broken to the state of nature and 'survival of the fittest'? Are you kidding me? Where does your scope of morality lie? "Can't survive in a capitalist economy because you're sick or too old to work? Well then die."

I think you are becoming livid because you yourself have none of savings, ties with your children, or ties with the community in which you live. And, for those sorts of people, why does the community owe them anything? It does not.

If someone had no savings, ties to their children, or ties to their community that could help them, then they'd have to look for charity. All around, that system promotes a better society.

Just because some people don't have direct market value doesn't mean they don't have value as human beings.

Sure, and if they've done nothing to either save or create relationships, then let charity handle them - otherwise you are saying I must pay for someone merely because they exist.

And, not only all of that, but social security tends to demotivate child-parent relations, and elderly-community relations, wherein, previously, those who were old or getting old would have to rely on either their savings, their children, or their community, now, the reliance upon children and community is decreased - decreasing the motivation to maintain good and full relations with both children and community.

So Federal welfare is bad but "community" welfare is acceptable ... uh-huh what if we define community as a nation? Or get this, 50 state "communities" where the states run the system but the Fed helps fund it and control prices.

Yeah, you are insane. Community charity and volunteering is voluntary, government taxation is not.

So, not only do you create dependents, not only do you create a less fit citizenry, but you help in the destruction of the culture that stems from the ties of parents to children and old people to their communities.

Yea, those stupid old people! They shouldn't have invested so much money in the stock market only to run on the banks causing the "great" depression. If only the welfare state didn't exist! Oh wait that was before SS and FDR's new deal, Herbert Hoover was a hands off president when it came to the economy.

Ironic. You are complaining about the great depression, which was essentially worsened and prolonged by the actions of the federal reserve, if not coordinated and planned.

By the way, would you pass a calculus and statistics test?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 12:01:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 11:40:42 PM, capob wrote:
At 8/2/2016 11:14:16 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

If you start writing laws on the basis that people are dumb, the people become dumb, in respect to what the law is about, through the implementation of the law. This is a notion with welfare generally expressed as "created welfare dependents".

So in terms of healthcare, in your mind, a person living paycheck to pay check ought to be smart enough to save for unforseen things like cancer and accidents

Cancer, accidents, etc are all foreseeable as a possibility - that's why there's insurance. And, someone living paycheck to paycheck is living that way with social security deducted from their pay; removing that deduction would increase their pay, meaning they wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck unless they ended up spending more.

So when you pay it as insurance rates (which is already regulated and in some states mandated by the government) that's ok, but cut out the middle insurance man and call it a tax that's just unacceptable! lol really semantics is the refuge of libertarians.

- not only that but be smart enough to navigate the private healthcare system which was such a 'for profit' mess it prompted Obamacare to get passed?

Man, you are brainwashed. Go look up all the government regulations that resulted in healthcare costing so much, that monopolized hospitals and care, and made alternatives illegal, and banned cheaper products, better products that would have competed with existing pharmaceuticals. The government medicade and medicare programs that paid exorbitant amounts causing prices to rise.

You could be less of a sap and provide a link. You're essentially arguing government should dissolve pharma patents, are you an anarchist or a libertarian?

The idea that there was a free market in health care which was a mess and was solved by obamacare is some hyper level of insanity.

I never said it was solved, all Obamacare did was force people to buy private plans and if they couldn't afford it the government option. It's a way of stabilizing market prices. The real solution would be single payer.

But, not only do you disable people by deincentivising ability, you remove the natural selection trend towards that ability. And so, those less able are un-naturally represented in following generations.

Are you saying we subject the elderly, poor, disabled and otherwise broken to the state of nature and 'survival of the fittest'? Are you kidding me? Where does your scope of morality lie? "Can't survive in a capitalist economy because you're sick or too old to work? Well then die."

I think you are becoming livid because you yourself have none of savings, ties with your children, or ties with the community in which you live. And, for those sorts of people, why does the community owe them anything? It does not.

You don't know who I am, punk.

If someone had no savings, ties to their children, or ties to their community that could help them, then they'd have to look for charity. All around, that system promotes a better society.

And if there's not enough charity? Then what?

Just because some people don't have direct market value doesn't mean they don't have value as human beings.

Sure, and if they've done nothing to either save or create relationships, then let charity handle them - otherwise you are saying I must pay for someone merely because they exist.

Because their existence effects you.

And, not only all of that, but social security tends to demotivate child-parent relations, and elderly-community relations, wherein, previously, those who were old or getting old would have to rely on either their savings, their children, or their community, now, the reliance upon children and community is decreased - decreasing the motivation to maintain good and full relations with both children and community.

So Federal welfare is bad but "community" welfare is acceptable ... uh-huh what if we define community as a nation? Or get this, 50 state "communities" where the states run the system but the Fed helps fund it and control prices.

Yeah, you are insane. Community charity and volunteering is voluntary, government taxation is not.

Taxation is necessary, or are you one of those "taxation is theft/slavery" types?

So, not only do you create dependents, not only do you create a less fit citizenry, but you help in the destruction of the culture that stems from the ties of parents to children and old people to their communities.

Yea, those stupid old people! They shouldn't have invested so much money in the stock market only to run on the banks causing the "great" depression. If only the welfare state didn't exist! Oh wait that was before SS and FDR's new deal, Herbert Hoover was a hands off president when it came to the economy.

Ironic. You are complaining about the great depression, which was essentially worsened and prolonged by the actions of the federal reserve, if not coordinated and planned.

So you do acknowledge that your general economic philosophy caused the Great Depression, but think big government is bad for prolonging it? Even though FDR's labor plans did lift up the economy before a slight drop that technically prolonged the depression? http://www.oneutah.org...

By the way, would you pass a calculus and statistics test?

Pity you can't debate on merit of words and have to ask superfluous questions.
capob
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 12:09:19 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 12:01:28 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 11:40:42 PM, capob wrote:
At 8/2/2016 11:14:16 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

If you start writing laws on the basis that people are dumb, the people become dumb, in respect to what the law is about, through the implementation of the law. This is a notion with welfare generally expressed as "created welfare dependents".

So in terms of healthcare, in your mind, a person living paycheck to pay check ought to be smart enough to save for unforseen things like cancer and accidents

Cancer, accidents, etc are all foreseeable as a possibility - that's why there's insurance. And, someone living paycheck to paycheck is living that way with social security deducted from their pay; removing that deduction would increase their pay, meaning they wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck unless they ended up spending more.

So when you pay it as insurance rates (which is already regulated and in some states mandated by the government) that's ok, but cut out the middle insurance man and call it a tax that's just unacceptable! lol really semantics is the refuge of libertarians.

- not only that but be smart enough to navigate the private healthcare system which was such a 'for profit' mess it prompted Obamacare to get passed?

Man, you are brainwashed. Go look up all the government regulations that resulted in healthcare costing so much, that monopolized hospitals and care, and made alternatives illegal, and banned cheaper products, better products that would have competed with existing pharmaceuticals. The government medicade and medicare programs that paid exorbitant amounts causing prices to rise.

You could be less of a sap and provide a link. You're essentially arguing government should dissolve pharma patents, are you an anarchist or a libertarian?

The idea that there was a free market in health care which was a mess and was solved by obamacare is some hyper level of insanity.

I never said it was solved, all Obamacare did was force people to buy private plans and if they couldn't afford it the government option. It's a way of stabilizing market prices. The real solution would be single payer.

But, not only do you disable people by deincentivising ability, you remove the natural selection trend towards that ability. And so, those less able are un-naturally represented in following generations.

Are you saying we subject the elderly, poor, disabled and otherwise broken to the state of nature and 'survival of the fittest'? Are you kidding me? Where does your scope of morality lie? "Can't survive in a capitalist economy because you're sick or too old to work? Well then die."

I think you are becoming livid because you yourself have none of savings, ties with your children, or ties with the community in which you live. And, for those sorts of people, why does the community owe them anything? It does not.

You don't know who I am, punk.

If someone had no savings, ties to their children, or ties to their community that could help them, then they'd have to look for charity. All around, that system promotes a better society.

And if there's not enough charity? Then what?

Just because some people don't have direct market value doesn't mean they don't have value as human beings.

Sure, and if they've done nothing to either save or create relationships, then let charity handle them - otherwise you are saying I must pay for someone merely because they exist.

Because their existence effects you.

And, not only all of that, but social security tends to demotivate child-parent relations, and elderly-community relations, wherein, previously, those who were old or getting old would have to rely on either their savings, their children, or their community, now, the reliance upon children and community is decreased - decreasing the motivation to maintain good and full relations with both children and community.

So Federal welfare is bad but "community" welfare is acceptable ... uh-huh what if we define community as a nation? Or get this, 50 state "communities" where the states run the system but the Fed helps fund it and control prices.

Yeah, you are insane. Community charity and volunteering is voluntary, government taxation is not.

Taxation is necessary, or are you one of those "taxation is theft/slavery" types?

So, not only do you create dependents, not only do you create a less fit citizenry, but you help in the destruction of the culture that stems from the ties of parents to children and old people to their communities.

Yea, those stupid old people! They shouldn't have invested so much money in the stock market only to run on the banks causing the "great" depression. If only the welfare state didn't exist! Oh wait that was before SS and FDR's new deal, Herbert Hoover was a hands off president when it came to the economy.

Ironic. You are complaining about the great depression, which was essentially worsened and prolonged by the actions of the federal reserve, if not coordinated and planned.

So you do acknowledge that your general economic philosophy caused the Great Depression, but think big government is bad for prolonging it? Even though FDR's labor plans did lift up the economy before a slight drop that technically prolonged the depression? http://www.oneutah.org...

By the way, would you pass a calculus and statistics test?

Pity you can't debate on merit of words and have to ask superfluous questions.

Considering you refuted none of my arguments and seemingly finagled misinterpretation out of some of what I said, and considering, based on what you have said previously, you are probably insane, and considering you probably wouldn't pass a calculus and statistics test, I can't say arguing with you would be productive.

And so, I will ask you to please stop communicating with me and stop posting on my topics.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 12:12:49 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 12:09:19 AM, capob wrote:

Considering you refuted none of my arguments and seemingly finagled misinterpretation out of some of what I said, and considering, based on what you have said previously, you are probably insane, and considering you probably wouldn't pass a calculus and statistics test, I can't say arguing with you would be productive.

And so, I will ask you to please stop communicating with me and stop posting on my topics.

AHHAH HAHHA HAHA haha wow what a sap. This is the least sincere cop out I've seen recently. But thanks for saving me the time, I'll post where I please.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 1:16:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 9:22:16 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 6:50:59 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM, capob wrote:
The reality appears to be that the funds for social security were spent, and that, in order to pay out currently, the government is using external funds (ie, printing treasury bills) (http://www.zerohedge.com...).

For various reasons, this matter doesn't directly affect me, but it would seem there is a choice of
1. continuing paying into it, although the <30yr olds will never get what is promised
2. reduce benefits now and stick it to the old, who allowed the funds to be spent through there representatives

My personal opinion is that I can save better for myself than the government can, which is obvious given the situation. The way to handle this utter failure of a system, is a voucher system. Continue to support all those currently on SS, and give a voucher to those who have yet to start. The initial payout will be massive, but the long term benefits are worth it.

There are also economic benefits to this. You will increase the spending power of the dollar and increase income. This is a stimulus I can get behind.

In this case the personal argument doesn't make sense when applied to policy for the masses. You may be different in your saving habits, congratulations, but most Americans live paycheck to pay check so saving isn't much of an option. http://www.fool.com...

And being given a massive amount of cash just begs for that money to be misspent on something expensive with minimal returns later.

How is that my problem or responsibility? I should not be responsible for someone else's spending habits. Poor people are poor because of bad decision making. Force people to actually be responsible and the results will amaze you. Stop holding people's hands through life. Will there be people that fail continuously, of course, but that is life, that is reality.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 1:21:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 8:19:31 PM, capob wrote:
At 8/2/2016 6:50:59 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM, capob wrote:
The reality appears to be that the funds for social security were spent, and that, in order to pay out currently, the government is using external funds (ie, printing treasury bills) (http://www.zerohedge.com...).

For various reasons, this matter doesn't directly affect me, but it would seem there is a choice of
1. continuing paying into it, although the <30yr olds will never get what is promised
2. reduce benefits now and stick it to the old, who allowed the funds to be spent through there representatives

My personal opinion is that I can save better for myself than the government can, which is obvious given the situation. The way to handle this utter failure of a system, is a voucher system. Continue to support all those currently on SS, and give a voucher to those who have yet to start. The initial payout will be massive, but the long term benefits are worth it.

There are also economic benefits to this. You will increase the spending power of the dollar and increase income. This is a stimulus I can get behind.

Why would you replace it with anything?

You could have some period where people are able to opt-out permanently and give up any social security they might have gotten in favor of removing the social security tax from their income.

And, argument that this would defund those who seek SS or those getting SS is an admission that it is a ponzi scheme (or at least, has become that)

The voucher system is meant to be temporary. I think that this is the only way to pull in both sides of the aisle. It removes the "you hate old people" argument. From a moral standpoint, you have to pay back all the income taken.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 1:24:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 12:12:49 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:09:19 AM, capob wrote:

Considering you refuted none of my arguments and seemingly finagled misinterpretation out of some of what I said, and considering, based on what you have said previously, you are probably insane, and considering you probably wouldn't pass a calculus and statistics test, I can't say arguing with you would be productive.

And so, I will ask you to please stop communicating with me and stop posting on my topics.

AHHAH HAHHA HAHA haha wow what a sap. This is the least sincere cop out I've seen recently. But thanks for saving me the time, I'll post where I please.

All this guy does is post topics and then ask people to stop communicating with him when they come in and prove him wrong. He's not worth engaging with.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 4:02:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 1:16:00 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/2/2016 9:22:16 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 6:50:59 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM, capob wrote:
The reality appears to be that the funds for social security were spent, and that, in order to pay out currently, the government is using external funds (ie, printing treasury bills) (http://www.zerohedge.com...).

For various reasons, this matter doesn't directly affect me, but it would seem there is a choice of
1. continuing paying into it, although the <30yr olds will never get what is promised
2. reduce benefits now and stick it to the old, who allowed the funds to be spent through there representatives

My personal opinion is that I can save better for myself than the government can, which is obvious given the situation. The way to handle this utter failure of a system, is a voucher system. Continue to support all those currently on SS, and give a voucher to those who have yet to start. The initial payout will be massive, but the long term benefits are worth it.

There are also economic benefits to this. You will increase the spending power of the dollar and increase income. This is a stimulus I can get behind.

In this case the personal argument doesn't make sense when applied to policy for the masses. You may be different in your saving habits, congratulations, but most Americans live paycheck to pay check so saving isn't much of an option. http://www.fool.com...

And being given a massive amount of cash just begs for that money to be misspent on something expensive with minimal returns later.

How is that my problem or responsibility?

It's always curious to me how libertarains think they live on an island. It's your problem in a lot of ways. One example you may understand, extreme poverty leads to homelessness, lots of hobos devalue property, potentially your property. If it's no individuals responsibility do "we" solve homelessness? Do libertarians care?

I should not be responsible for someone else's spending habits.

True, but you are. Like I mocked that other libertard for, if you pay insurance you're already paying for other peoples actions/habits.

Poor people are poor because of bad decision making.

And rich people are rich through pure honesty and hard work! Ahahahahaha as is wealth doesn't inevitably concentrate in the hands of the wealthy via inheritance. So when there's a banking crisis that proves banks gave out bad loan, or when the government makes bad trade deals, it's the poors fault they're poor. I love the logic, as if just every poor person would pull themselves up by their boot straps then nobody would be poor! But given that wealth is relative, there would still be poor -- but they must be lazy still?

Force people to actually be responsible and the results will amaze you. Stop holding people's hands through life. Will there be people that fail continuously, of course, but that is life, that is reality.

Oh yes extreme poverty at the hands of an oligarchy is quite amazing. If only those darn Africans only understood that and could appreciate that a government that governs least governs best. Oh the rich would have no power if it wasn't for the hands of government ... well they'd still have money ... but w/e government is bad!
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 5:13:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 4:02:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/3/2016 1:16:00 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/2/2016 9:22:16 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 6:50:59 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM, capob wrote:
The reality appears to be that the funds for social security were spent, and that, in order to pay out currently, the government is using external funds (ie, printing treasury bills) (http://www.zerohedge.com...).

For various reasons, this matter doesn't directly affect me, but it would seem there is a choice of
1. continuing paying into it, although the <30yr olds will never get what is promised
2. reduce benefits now and stick it to the old, who allowed the funds to be spent through there representatives

My personal opinion is that I can save better for myself than the government can, which is obvious given the situation. The way to handle this utter failure of a system, is a voucher system. Continue to support all those currently on SS, and give a voucher to those who have yet to start. The initial payout will be massive, but the long term benefits are worth it.

There are also economic benefits to this. You will increase the spending power of the dollar and increase income. This is a stimulus I can get behind.

In this case the personal argument doesn't make sense when applied to policy for the masses. You may be different in your saving habits, congratulations, but most Americans live paycheck to pay check so saving isn't much of an option. http://www.fool.com...

And being given a massive amount of cash just begs for that money to be misspent on something expensive with minimal returns later.

How is that my problem or responsibility?

It's always curious to me how libertarains think they live on an island. It's your problem in a lot of ways. One example you may understand, extreme poverty leads to homelessness, lots of hobos devalue property, potentially your property. If it's no individuals responsibility do "we" solve homelessness? Do libertarians care?

hahaha what a sh!t example. As someone who is cares about MY property value, I would do something about it. Not run to the fed and ask for help. History has made it abundantly clear that the Fed sucks at solving community level problems. Maybe I don't know, start a private shelter or business that allows them to do fair wage work. If you want to prevent homelessness, lift ALL housing regulations and make all land privately owned(with the exception what is needed for interstate commerce). Don't worry I have the answer to all your problems.
I should not be responsible for someone else's spending habits.

True, but you are. Like I mocked that other libertard for, if you pay insurance you're already paying for other peoples actions/habits.

That is because libtards you like wanted universal healthcare. Before the ACA I could choose whether or not I paid for other peoples action/habits. I know that medical care is expensive, but that is because of government involvement.
Poor people are poor because of bad decision making.

And rich people are rich through pure honesty and hard work! Ahahahahaha as is wealth doesn't inevitably concentrate in the hands of the wealthy via inheritance. So when there's a banking crisis that proves banks gave out bad loan, or when the government makes bad trade deals, it's the poors fault they're poor. I love the logic, as if just every poor person would pull themselves up by their boot straps then nobody would be poor! But given that wealth is relative, there would still be poor -- but they must be lazy still?

Which rich people are you talking about? How do you know how they achieved that wealth? You are not automatically made evil by wealth and your are not automatically virtuous if you are poor. Andddd there it is...The idiotic notion that our economy is a zero sum game. I agree cronyism exist, and I want it to stop. The bank crisis was caused by bad government regulation. Trade deals are stupid, but technology advancements are the main cause of job loss(it happens get a new skill). 3 ways to avoid permanent poverty in the US Graduate HS, Dont' have a kid out of wedlock, get a full time job. Not that hard, so lace'em up.
Force people to actually be responsible and the results will amaze you. Stop holding people's hands through life. Will there be people that fail continuously, of course, but that is life, that is reality.

Oh yes extreme poverty at the hands of an oligarchy is quite amazing. If only those darn Africans only understood that and could appreciate that a government that governs least governs best. Oh the rich would have no power if it wasn't for the hands of government ... well they'd still have money ... but w/e government is bad!

What Africans? What are you talking about? Get it together. I know this can be hard to comprehend but I believe in you. Look at the poverty reduction prior to 1964. The Government sucks at reducing poverty as seen by the poverty reduction post 1964.
KendoRe2
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 5:27:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
This is what will happenwith no social security: there will be an influx of elderly people on the street, your brother may have to move back in with you because you had a good job and he didn't.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 5:44:30 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 5:27:04 PM, KendoRe2 wrote:
This is what will happenwith no social security: there will be an influx of elderly people on the street, your brother may have to move back in with you because you had a good job and he didn't.

If you never took the money from them in the first place, they would have it for retirement.

That's what family is for.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 9:22:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 5:13:51 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/3/2016 4:02:52 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/3/2016 1:16:00 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/2/2016 9:22:16 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 6:50:59 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:51:43 PM, capob wrote:
My personal opinion is that I can save better for myself than the government can, which is obvious given the situation. The way to handle this utter failure of a system, is a voucher system. Continue to support all those currently on SS, and give a voucher to those who have yet to start. The initial payout will be massive, but the long term benefits are worth it.

There are also economic benefits to this. You will increase the spending power of the dollar and increase income. This is a stimulus I can get behind.

In this case the personal argument doesn't make sense when applied to policy for the masses. You may be different in your saving habits, congratulations, but most Americans live paycheck to pay check so saving isn't much of an option. http://www.fool.com...

And being given a massive amount of cash just begs for that money to be misspent on something expensive with minimal returns later.

How is that my problem or responsibility?

It's always curious to me how libertarains think they live on an island. It's your problem in a lot of ways. One example you may understand, extreme poverty leads to homelessness, lots of hobos devalue property, potentially your property. If it's no individuals responsibility do "we" solve homelessness? Do libertarians care?

hahaha what a sh!t example. As someone who is cares about MY property value, I would do something about it. ... Maybe I don't know, start a private shelter or business that allows them to do fair wage work.

Sh!t answer for a sh!t example I suppose. I highly doubt you'd do anything you just said. The kind of person that has to ask "what's in it for me" isn't going to gamble his own resources to help those who can't help him (good luck getting a bank loan on that). There are other examples too, collective action problems are quite common yet libertarians will never have a solution because they seek short sighted personal gain over everything else.

If you want to prevent homelessness, lift ALL housing regulations and make all land privately owned(with the exception what is needed for interstate commerce). Don't worry I have the answer to all your problems.

The sad thing about libertarianism is that they always think they have a solution, it's always the ame thing too, get rid of government. Yet for all their "solutions" they never seem to understand that because there has never been a libertarian style government the entirety of the philosophy is theoretical. So unless you have real world evidence that removing housing regulation will solve all housing problems I'm gonna call BS on you.

I should not be responsible for someone else's spending habits.

True, but you are. Like I mocked that other libertard for, if you pay insurance you're already paying for other peoples actions/habits.

That is because libtards you like wanted universal healthcare. Before the ACA I could choose whether or not I paid for other peoples action/habits. I know that medical care is expensive, but that is because of government involvement.

HAHAHAHAHA why does everyone think that healthcare before Obama was so great? As if there was no political motivation to pass the ACA and Obama just did it for fun. Here's some stories about how shitty a fully private health market was and Obama somewhat improved it. [http://www.commondreams.org...] [http://www.theatlantic.com...] [http://patch.com...]

Poor people are poor because of bad decision making.

And rich people are rich through pure honesty and hard work! Ahahahahaha as is wealth doesn't inevitably concentrate in the hands of the wealthy via inheritance. So when there's a banking crisis that proves banks gave out bad loan, or when the government makes bad trade deals, it's the poors fault they're poor. I love the logic, as if just every poor person would pull themselves up by their boot straps then nobody would be poor! But given that wealth is relative, there would still be poor -- but they must be lazy still?

Which rich people are you talking about? How do you know how they achieved that wealth? You are not automatically made evil by wealth and your are not automatically virtuous if you are poor.

Yet in your mind all poor people are poor because they are lazy and stupid ... do you mind at least being consistent with your rhetorical BS?

Andddd there it is...The idiotic notion that our economy is a zero sum game. I agree cronyism exist, and I want it to stop. The bank crisis was caused by bad government regulation.

The crisis was caused by DE-regulation ... http://publications.lakeforest.edu... and when did I even imply it's a zero sum game? Collective action makes more than the sum of its parts, that's what FDR said.

Trade deals are stupid, but technology advancements are the main cause of job loss(it happens get a new skill).

Hahahahahaha there's a reason libertarians aren't popular in the US. You do realize trade deals and protectionism is what allowed US industry to make those tech advancements right??? Oh yes, tell the factory workers who's been working for 40 years in one industry to just get a new skill and expect the best. What a joke. Yes blame Obama and liberals for a bad economy even though your entire argument is based upon the individual boot straps - by your logic the only people to blame for economic failure is the people themselves.

3 ways to avoid permanent poverty in the US Graduate HS, Dont' have a kid out of wedlock, get a full time job. Not that hard, so lace'em up.

So when people lose their houses cause of cancer or fires .... lace'em up? Huh uh, and I'll repeat this again because you dodged, if everyone would lace'em up would that end poverty? No it wouldn't because poverty/wealth is relative. Nice try though.

Force people to actually be responsible and the results will amaze you. Stop holding people's hands through life. Will there be people that fail continuously, of course, but that is life, that is reality.

Oh yes extreme poverty at the hands of an oligarchy is quite amazing. If only those darn Africans only understood that and could appreciate that a government that governs least governs best. Oh the rich would have no power if it wasn't for the hands of government ... well they'd still have money ... but w/e government is bad!

What Africans? What are you talking about? Get it together. I know this can be hard to comprehend but I believe in you. Look at the poverty reduction prior to 1964. The Government sucks at reducing poverty as seen by the poverty reduction post 1964.

What Africans? The ones in Africa silly, the ones who live in rural villages unhindered by the evil government. Somalia is a libertarian paradise, no pesky government to get in the way of the free market. Iraq is also a good example of libertarian, no government there to get in the way either
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 4:52:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 9:22:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
Sh!t answer for a sh!t example I suppose. I highly doubt you'd do anything you just said. The kind of person that has to ask "what's in it for me" isn't going to gamble his own resources to help those who can't help him (good luck getting a bank loan on that). There are other examples too, collective action problems are quite common yet libertarians will never have a solution because they seek short sighted personal gain over everything else.

Why? You don't know me from the person standing next to you on the street. You are an authoritarian who seeks to control based on a preconceived notion of how people will operate. I believe people given the opportunity will excel. History shows this to be true as well.
If you want to prevent homelessness, lift ALL housing regulations and make all land privately owned(with the exception what is needed for interstate commerce). Don't worry I have the answer to all your problems.

The sad thing about libertarianism is that they always think they have a solution, it's always the ame thing too, get rid of government. Yet for all their "solutions" they never seem to understand that because there has never been a libertarian style government the entirety of the philosophy is theoretical. So unless you have real world evidence that removing housing regulation will solve all housing problems I'm gonna call BS on you.

Libertarian style governance, in terms of limited, was pre teddy government. So no it is not theoretical.
This is economics 101. There is greater demand than supply. Regulation has artificially limited supply. Remove barriers to supply and you have a better recipe for fixing homelessness. William Tucker and James Roger, both give great cases for de-regulation. Give me evidence that regulation has done anything to fix the problem.

HAHAHAHAHA why does everyone think that healthcare before Obama was so great? As if there was no political motivation to pass the ACA and Obama just did it for fun. Here's some stories about how shitty a fully private health market was and Obama somewhat improved it. [http://www.commondreams.org...] [http://www.theatlantic.com...] [http://patch.com...]

It was better than what we have now. The only thing the ACA did was put more people on the government dime. Exactly zero improvements were made to the system. The health care system hasn't been a free market system for nearly a century, AMA ring a bell.
http://www.heritage.org...
https://mises.org...

Yet in your mind all poor people are poor because they are lazy and stupid ... do you mind at least being consistent with your rhetorical BS?

I never said poor people were lazy and stupid, you said that. I said poor people are bad with money. Do you mind not misrepresenting my position?

The crisis was caused by DE-regulation ... http://publications.lakeforest.edu... and when did I even imply it's a zero sum game? Collective action makes more than the sum of its parts, that's what FDR said.

http://libertyviral.com...
FDR created the worst depression this country has ever faced. There is not one New Deal policy that can be considered a success.
http://spectator.org...
http://www.library.hbs.edu...
http://www.forbes.com...
You said something that wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a few, which assumes there is a finite amount of wealth and that is being taken from others. This zero sum economics.

Hahahahahaha there's a reason libertarians aren't popular in the US. You do realize trade deals and protectionism is what allowed US industry to make those tech advancements right??? Oh yes, tell the factory workers who's been working for 40 years in one industry to just get a new skill and expect the best. What a joke. Yes blame Obama and liberals for a bad economy even though your entire argument is based upon the individual boot straps - by your logic the only people to blame for economic failure is the people themselves.

Trade deals and protectionism delay tech advancement and creates monopolies. AT&T and Baltimore Gas are prefect examples of protectionism.
http://thehill.com...-
https://www.aei.org...
Who said anything about Obama? Once again stay on topic, you are losing it.

So when people lose their houses cause of cancer or fires .... lace'em up? Huh uh, and I'll repeat this again because you dodged, if everyone would lace'em up would that end poverty? No it wouldn't because poverty/wealth is relative. Nice try though.

271,000 home fires in 2013, minuscule problem at best. Also not my problem, hope they had insurance; which is required by most mortgage companies. US has the best cancer care in world, imagine if the FDA got out of the way. Wealth is relative, which is why you need context, Cost of living is usually a good frame. You are saying there will always be poverty even if the poorest household is pulling 100k, this is logically retarded.

What Africans? The ones in Africa silly, the ones who live in rural villages unhindered by the evil government. Somalia is a libertarian paradise, no pesky government to get in the way of the free market. Iraq is also a good example of libertarian, no government there to get in the way either

Government isn't evil it just has a bad habit of overstepping it's duties. Nice Somalia reference, that's a common one and completely ignorant of their big government history. Most of Africa suffers from the same problem. Iraq is an Islamic parliamentary Republic, I won't say anymore.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 6:43:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/4/2016 4:52:52 PM, Robkwoods wrote:

Libertarian style governance, in terms of limited, was pre teddy government. So no it is not theoretical.

Oh right, very true, the good ol days of America when employers could lock employees in the building to prevent them from leaving, legally pay women less and you didn't know the rat content in your beef. The era where the big fat banker and robber barons had majority power, the era that prompted the first Progressive movement as a REJECTION of libertarianism. Yea there's a reason you people are considered nuts.

This is economics 101. There is greater demand than supply. Regulation has artificially limited supply. Remove barriers to supply and you have a better recipe for fixing homelessness. William Tucker and James Roger, both give great cases for de-regulation. Give me evidence that regulation has done anything to fix the problem.

So when deregulation caused the current economic crisis you ask me how regulation fixes anything ... what?

It was better than what we have now. The only thing the ACA did was put more people on the government dime. Exactly zero improvements were made to the system. The health care system hasn't been a free market system for nearly a century, AMA ring a bell.

In terms of access it got better. It doesn't matter how advanced med tech is if only 1% of the pop can afford to use it.

Yet in your mind all poor people are poor because they are lazy and stupid ... do you mind at least being consistent with your rhetorical BS?

I never said poor people were lazy and stupid, you said that. I said poor people are bad with money. Do you mind not misrepresenting my position?

Yet you make the blanket statement that they just need to lace'em up. Nice back tracking.

The crisis was caused by DE-regulation ... http://publications.lakeforest.edu... and when did I even imply it's a zero sum game? Collective action makes more than the sum of its parts, that's what FDR said.

http://libertyviral.com...
FDR created the worst depression this country has ever faced. There is not one New Deal policy that can be considered a success.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA read a history book, the Depression started under Hoover. FDR was such a terrible president he was elected 4 times! hahahahah

You said something that wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a few, which assumes there is a finite amount of wealth and that is being taken from others. This zero sum economics.

Sigh. Read Thomas Pickety "Capital in the 21st Century"

Trade deals and protectionism delay tech advancement and creates monopolies.

Only when they are still in place after their original purpose. Protectionism protects local start up industry from competing against more advanced established markets. It called helping local people, which you care nothing about.

271,000 home fires in 2013, minuscule problem at best. Also not my problem, hope they had insurance; which is required by most mortgage companies.

Great job not including foreclosers due to medical debt. "not my problem" said every libertarian ever. Yea I really fuking doubt you'd open a homeless shelter.

US has the best cancer care in world, imagine if the FDA got out of the way.

hahahaha yea imagine if we didn't test drugs for effectiveness, you must be a big fan of pre-teddy snake oil salesmen.

Wealth is relative, which is why you need context, Cost of living is usually a good frame. You are saying there will always be poverty even if the poorest household is pulling 100k, this is logically retarded.

If every American could at least pull in 100k that would be HYPER INFLATION. Damn you're retarded. You can't even understand how wealth is relative hahaha wow. But perhaps because I keep mentioning this it misleads from my point. Under Democratic Socialism poverty/wealth would still be relative, its just that being poor wouldn't deny you access to health and education services giving you the opportunity to not be poor.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 2:01:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 6:43:17 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/4/2016 4:52:52 PM, Robkwoods wrote:

It is called the good ol days for a reason. You are going to have to give examples of employees being locked in the building, and your idiot's guide to being a liberal doesn't count. Women didn't have to work back then, and most were concerned with caring for the home; I don't disagree with this idea. Women have only increased the supply of workers, reducing the pay for everyone. There are also no significant numbers to determine if women were indeed paid less for the exact same work. If this were true even back then, NO man would ever get a job... you know because evil capitalist only care about their profit margin. The Jungle is a fictional piece with zero evidential backing. The robber barons and fat bankers, you really bought into that public education.

Deregulation didn't cause the problem. The government through regulation required banks to give out loans to people that weren't loan worthy. And surprise surprise, they defaulted.
It was better than what we have now. The only thing the ACA did was put more people on the government dime. Exactly zero improvements were made to the system. The health care system hasn't been a free market system for nearly a century, AMA ring a bell.

Remember when you were told you could keep your doctor? That if you liked your current health plan you could keep it? ACA is a complete failure. Actually not true. It did exactly what is was supposed to do... expanded government power.

Yet you make the blanket statement that they just need to lace'em up. Nice back tracking.

I didn't back track anything. You took my use of lace'em up at a moniker for lazy and stupid. Which is a complete misrepresentation, so that you can brand me as uncaring. Typical SJW BS.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA read a history book, the Depression started under Hoover. FDR was such a terrible president he was elected 4 times! hahahahah

You ignorance of history is showing again. The Depression plateaued with FDR. The New deal is what sent the US into the Great Depression. Germans voted Hitler into power what is your point.

Sigh. Read Thomas Pickety "Capital in the 21st Century"

Sigh. Read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics

Only when they are still in place after their original purpose. Protectionism protects local start up industry from competing against more advanced established markets. It called helping local people, which you care nothing about.

No it doesn't. Protectionism kills local business. The best thing that can be done for local business is to deregulate. Namely the Minimum wage, business licensing or taxes. Nice red herring, my caring of people has nothing to do with this point.

Great job not including foreclosers due to medical debt. "not my problem" said every libertarian ever. Yea I really fuking doubt you'd open a homeless shelter.

Do you have a number or are you just talking out of your brown eye? We were talking about fires. You literally can't stay on topic. Again with the red herring. You have no idea what I would or I am doing.

hahahaha yea imagine if we didn't test drugs for effectiveness, you must be a big fan of pre-teddy snake oil salesmen.

If you think the FDA is at all responsible for Medicinal safety you're too far gone.

If every American could at least pull in 100k that would be HYPER INFLATION. Damn you're retarded. You can't even understand how wealth is relative hahaha wow. But perhaps because I keep mentioning this it misleads from my point. Under Democratic Socialism poverty/wealth would still be relative, its just that being poor wouldn't deny you access to health and education services giving you the opportunity to not be poor.

No that would not be Hyper Inflation. "Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising and, consequently, the purchasing power of currency is falling." The definition because you are clearly Economically retarded. The overall amount of money people have can be increased without inflation. I understand how relativity works, but it needs frame or context; otherwise there is no discussion to be had.