PDA

View Full Version : i never thought that i'd write this.



Pages : [1] 2

suds00
03-15-2016, 02:58 PM
unless voting for gary Johnson is going to put trump in the white house that's my pick.i can't bring myself to vote for Hillary.8 months to go!

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 03:10 PM
unless voting for gary Johnson is going to put trump in the white house that's my pick.i can't bring myself to vote for Hillary.8 months to go!
TRANSLATION: I much prefer for the Republicans to take away the gains made in this country and to severely CUT BACK services for Americans that are desperately needed and to continue with their obstruction and non-action.

del
03-15-2016, 03:13 PM
TRANSLATION: I much prefer for the Republicans to take away the gains made in this country and to severely CUT BACK services for Americans that are desperately needed and to continue with their obstruction and non-action.


translation: if hillary stops short, i get a broken nose

Chris
03-15-2016, 03:16 PM
TRANSLATION: I much prefer for the Republicans to take away the gains made in this country and to severely CUT BACK services for Americans that are desperately needed and to continue with their obstruction and non-action.



Gary Johnson is Libertarian.

Ethereal
03-15-2016, 03:17 PM
i can't bring myself to vote for Hillary.

You have a functional brain and a conscience. Congratulations.

Mark III
03-15-2016, 03:18 PM
Jerry Springer was recently interviewed for a news show. While seen as something of a circus ringmaster on his own show, Springer is an ex-politician who has stayed up with it. He is also a Democrat. He quite wisely said that it is very important that a Democrat be elected president, because even one of the more moderate Republicans like Kasich , if elected president, would sign whatever crazed far right legislation came through the House and Senate to the president's desk. Someone like Kasich would not veto far right legislation, because if he did he would be primaried in 2020 by a right wing candidate. No sitting president in over a century has been re-elected after being challenged from within his own party after his first term. Kasich would go along with the far right to get along.

People who think this election is a joke should get over it, soon.

Ethereal
03-15-2016, 03:21 PM
Jerry Springer was recently interviewed for a news show. While seen as something of a circus ringmaster on his own show, Springer is an ex-politician who has stayed up with it. He is also a Democrat. He quite wisely said that it is very important that a Democrat be elected president, because even one of the more moderate Republicans like Kasich , if elected president, would sign whatever crazed far right legislation came through the House and Senate to the president's desk. Someone like Kasich would not veto far right legislation, because if he did he would be primaried in 2020 by a right wing candidate. No sitting president in over a century has been re-elected after being challenged from within his own party after his first term. Kasich would go along with the far right to get along.

People who think this election is a joke should get over it, soon.

And Hillary Clinton will sign whatever crazed neocon foreign policies the Republicans push through. She has put her stamp of approval on every worthless military intervention since 2001. I don't think there is a single war that Hillary has been opposed to since she became a Senator. She will probably be the President who instigates WWIII.

Mark III
03-15-2016, 03:22 PM
Gary Johnson is Libertarian.

Gary Johnson wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, OSHA, environmental protections, labor law, the minimum wage, income tax, etc. basically every function of government not related to commerce and criminal justice.

He is an extremist .

Ethereal
03-15-2016, 03:30 PM
Gary Johnson wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, OSHA, environmental protections, labor law, the minimum wage, income tax, etc. basically every function of government not related to commerce and criminal justice.

He is an extremist .

I'm pretty sure none of that is true. Even Ron Paul did not run on abolishing SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Most likely, he wants to reform those programs so that they survive and adapt. Democrats, on the other hand, simply want to do nothing and continue piling on unsustainable debt until the country turns into a giant version of Detroit or Greece. It's easy to be a Democrat because they get to run on making empty promises full of pixie dust. But it doesn't help America.

Mark III
03-15-2016, 03:33 PM
I'm pretty sure none of that is true. Even Ron Paul did not run on abolishing SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Most likely, he wants to reform those programs so that they survive and adapt. Democrats, on the other hand, simply want to do nothing and continue piling on unsustainable debt until the country turns into a giant version of Detroit or Greece. It's easy to be a Democrat because they get to run on making empty promises full of pixie dust. But it doesn't help America.


It is in the Libertarian Party platform and he is the Libertarian Party candidate.

I suppose without much support in Congress he would have to adapt if elected, but the Libertarian Party wants to end, not adjust, most functions of government, no question.

nic34
03-15-2016, 03:35 PM
Democrats, on the other hand, simply want to do nothing and continue piling on unsustainable debt until the country turns into a giant version of Detroit or Greece.

Wrong, but it does make a nice R/W soundbyte.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm

Safety
03-15-2016, 03:40 PM
Gary Johnson wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, OSHA, environmental protections, labor law, the minimum wage, income tax, etc. basically every function of government not related to commerce and criminal justice.

He is an extremist .

I like someone with some gumption. But he isn't for abolishing everything, just sensible waste.

domer76
03-15-2016, 03:41 PM
unless voting for gary Johnson is going to put trump in the white house that's my pick.i can't bring myself to vote for Hillary.8 months to go!

A significant percentage of Republicans are saying the same thing about Trump

Ethereal
03-15-2016, 03:43 PM
It is in the Libertarian Party platform and he is the Libertarian Party candidate.

I suppose without much support in Congress he would have to adapt if elected, but the Libertarian Party wants to end, not adjust, most functions of government, no question.

So can you give me a direct quote of Johnson saying his 2016 platform is to abolish SS, Medicaid, and Medicare?

Chris
03-15-2016, 03:44 PM
Gary Johnson wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, OSHA, environmental protections, labor law, the minimum wage, income tax, etc. basically every function of government not related to commerce and criminal justice.

He is an extremist .


It is in the Libertarian Party platform and he is the Libertarian Party candidate.

I suppose without much support in Congress he would have to adapt if elected, but the Libertarian Party wants to end, not adjust, most functions of government, no question.



So then be accurate. For example, he nor the PL simply "wants to end Social Security." No, what they say is this:


Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

@ https://www.lp.org/platform

And that was 2014.

Ethereal
03-15-2016, 03:45 PM
Democrats, on the other hand, simply want to do nothing and continue piling on unsustainable debt until the country turns into a giant version of Detroit or Greece.

Wrong, but it does make a nice R/W soundbyte.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm

So his solution to the debt problem is to spend more money on welfare?

Mac-7
03-15-2016, 03:48 PM
unless voting for gary Johnson is going to put trump in the white house that's my pick.i can't bring myself to vote for Hillary.8 months to go!

Since you are a liberal who hates trump a vote for johnson is a vote for trump

Ethereal
03-15-2016, 03:50 PM
Since you are a liberal who hates trump a vote for johnson is a vote for trump

Actually, it's a vote for Johnson.

Chris
03-15-2016, 03:52 PM
Since you are a liberal who hates trump a vote for johnson is a vote for trump


Wacky math.

Mark III
03-15-2016, 03:53 PM
I like someone with some gumption. But he isn't for abolishing everything, just sensible waste.


We would end the welfare system with its culture of dependence and hopelessness.

Libertarians believe that if government's role were limited to protecting our lives, rights and property, then America would prosper and thrive as never before. Then the federal government could concentrate on protecting our Constitutional rights and defending us from foreign attack. A federal government that did only those two things, could do them better and at a small fraction of the cost.

Someone starting a business today needs a battery of lawyers just to comply with the myriad of government regulations from a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies: OSHA, EPA, FTC, CPSC, etc. Zoning and occupational licensing laws are particularly damaging to the type of small businesses that may help people work their way out of poverty.
In addition, government regulations such as minimum wage laws and mandated benefits drive up the cost of employing additional workers. We call for the repeal of government regulations and taxes that are steadily cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder.

http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare



This is just a part of what the Libertarian Party calls for, there is quite a bit more, and gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate.

Libertarians want no labor law, no worker safety laws, no minimum wage, no income tax, and many other things that have no chance of succeeding at the ballot box.

Ethereal
03-15-2016, 03:56 PM
We would end the welfare system with its culture of dependence and hopelessness.

Libertarians believe that if government's role were limited to protecting our lives, rights and property, then America would prosper and thrive as never before. Then the federal government could concentrate on protecting our Constitutional rights and defending us from foreign attack. A federal government that did only those two things, could do them better and at a small fraction of the cost.

Someone starting a business today needs a battery of lawyers just to comply with the myriad of government regulations from a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies: OSHA, EPA, FTC, CPSC, etc. Zoning and occupational licensing laws are particularly damaging to the type of small businesses that may help people work their way out of poverty.
In addition, government regulations such as minimum wage laws and mandated benefits drive up the cost of employing additional workers. We call for the repeal of government regulations and taxes that are steadily cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder.

http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare



This is just a part of what the Libertarian Party calls for, there is quite a bit more, and gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate.




Okay, so provide a quote from Johnson endorsing that policy. It shouldn't be that hard if it's what he really believes.

Chris
03-15-2016, 03:57 PM
We would end the welfare system with its culture of dependence and hopelessness.

Libertarians believe that if government's role were limited to protecting our lives, rights and property, then America would prosper and thrive as never before. Then the federal government could concentrate on protecting our Constitutional rights and defending us from foreign attack. A federal government that did only those two things, could do them better and at a small fraction of the cost.

Someone starting a business today needs a battery of lawyers just to comply with the myriad of government regulations from a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies: OSHA, EPA, FTC, CPSC, etc. Zoning and occupational licensing laws are particularly damaging to the type of small businesses that may help people work their way out of poverty.
In addition, government regulations such as minimum wage laws and mandated benefits drive up the cost of employing additional workers. We call for the repeal of government regulations and taxes that are steadily cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder.

http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare



This is just a part of what the Libertarian Party calls for, there is quite a bit more, and gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate.

Libertarians want no labor law, no worker safety laws, no minimum wage, no income tax, and may other things that have no chance of succeeding at the ballot box.





Yes, replacing a bad system with a better system.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 03:58 PM
We would end the welfare system with its culture of dependence and hopelessness.

Libertarians believe that if government's role were limited to protecting our lives, rights and property, then America would prosper and thrive as never before. Then the federal government could concentrate on protecting our Constitutional rights and defending us from foreign attack. A federal government that did only those two things, could do them better and at a small fraction of the cost.

Someone starting a business today needs a battery of lawyers just to comply with the myriad of government regulations from a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies: OSHA, EPA, FTC, CPSC, etc. Zoning and occupational licensing laws are particularly damaging to the type of small businesses that may help people work their way out of poverty.
In addition, government regulations such as minimum wage laws and mandated benefits drive up the cost of employing additional workers. We call for the repeal of government regulations and taxes that are steadily cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder.

http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare



This is just a part of what the Libertarian Party calls for, there is quite a bit more, and gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate.

Libertarians want no labor law, no worker safety laws, no minimum wage, no income tax, and many other things that have no chance of succeeding at the ballot box.


Sounds good to me. Let's do it. Let's return the federal government to its Constitutional limits.

Mac-7
03-15-2016, 04:01 PM
Actually, it's a vote for Johnson.

No.

the next president will be either the democrat or republican nominee.

If you want free stuff - and what liberal progressive socialist democrat doesnt? - you have to vote for Hillary

anything else is a wasted vote

Dangermouse
03-15-2016, 04:03 PM
ATM the vote is either for the fascist insanity of Trump or the only person who can beat him. Go Bernie!

Ethereal
03-15-2016, 04:09 PM
No.

Yes.

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 05:24 PM
ATM the vote is either for the fascist insanity of Trump or the only person who can beat him. Go Bernie!

Fascism is on the left. When they start advocating for limited government and more liberty let me know so I can sign up.

Cletus
03-15-2016, 05:29 PM
Gary Johnson wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, OSHA, environmental protections, labor law, the minimum wage, income tax, etc. basically every function of government not related to commerce and criminal justice.

He is an extremist .

He was an excellent Governor of New Mexico.

Cletus
03-15-2016, 05:32 PM
It is in the Libertarian Party platform and he is the Libertarian Party candidate.

I suppose without much support in Congress he would have to adapt if elected, but the Libertarian Party wants to end, not adjust, most functions of government, no question.

Any exercise of powers by government not specifically enumerated in the Constitution should be eliminated.

AZ Jim
03-15-2016, 05:32 PM
And Hillary Clinton will sign whatever crazed neocon foreign policies the Republicans push through. She has put her stamp of approval on every worthless military intervention since 2001. I don't think there is a single war that Hillary has been opposed to since she became a Senator. She will probably be the President who instigates WWIII.What a crock.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 05:46 PM
So then be accurate. For example, he nor the PL simply "wants to end Social Security." No, what they say is this:


We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

@ https://www.lp.org/platform

And that was 2014.
In other words, for those who are unable to save for their futures or end up in a messy divorce where one spouse takes at least, half (perhaps even more), of the other's retirement savings, libertarians are counting on an unknown level charity from an equally unknown number of kind people to ensure that people are not reduced to begging. Is it your impression that recent generations are particularly prone to charity, especially when they are struggling to even find jobs that will pay enough to keep a roof over their own heads?

Cletus
03-15-2016, 05:50 PM
In other words, for those who are unable to save for their futures or end up in a messy divorce where one spouse takes at least, half (perhaps even more), of the other's retirement savings, libertarians are counting on an unknown level charity from an equally unknown number of kind people to ensure that people are not reduced to begging. Is it your impression that recent generations are particularly prone to charity, especially when they are struggling to even find jobs that will pay enough to keep a roof over their own heads?

Charity is not a legitimate function of government.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - James Madison

For those who can't figure out what Madison meant by the above statement, he simplified it.

“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” - James Madison

Chris
03-15-2016, 05:52 PM
In other words, for those who are unable to save for their futures or end up in a messy divorce where one spouse takes at least, half (perhaps even more), of the other's retirement savings, libertarians are counting on an unknown level charity from an equally unknown number of kind people to ensure that people are not reduced to begging. Is it your impression that recent generations are particularly prone to charity, especially when they are struggling to even find jobs that will pay enough to keep a roof over their own heads?

Any others depend on government coercion and corruption. Dependency leads to more and leaves self-reliance in the dust.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 05:53 PM
TRANSLATION: I much prefer for the Republicans to take away the gains made in this country and to severely CUT BACK services for Americans that are desperately needed and to continue with their obstruction and non-action.


What Services do you think they are going to Cut Back? And just what Gains do you think we have made in the last 7 years.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 05:59 PM
Gary Johnson wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, OSHA, environmental protections, labor law, the minimum wage, income tax, etc. basically every function of government not related to commerce and criminal justice.

He is an extremist .

Maybe I will vote for him.

I can't think of anyone in there right mind that would want the current SS and Medicare system. Are you aware that SS pays less than 1% on investment for most people and that even those like myself that will receive the maximum amount? It is still a system of poverty. When if a life long Minimum wage earner were to invest 6.5% of his or her wages, they would retire upper middle class. And Medicare is the worlds largest denier of Medical Treatments.

Those things sound like good things to me??? Why do you think we should keep them especially when both are going bankrupt.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 06:09 PM
No.

the next president will be either the democrat or republican nominee.

If you want free stuff - and what liberal progressive socialist democrat doesnt? - you have to vote for Hillary

anything else is a wasted vote

If there is any election in which a third party can win, it is this one. If Bernie does well tonight and continues to take delegates, and the super delegates used to take the nomination from him? and the GOP take the nomination from Trump and Cruz with a Contested convention

They could team up in a landslide victory.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 06:35 PM
Any others depend on government coercion and corruption. Dependency leads to more and leaves self-reliance in the dust.
Lovely. However how pathetic is it to see elderly people who have worked their entire lives, in grocery stores picking over the produce that has been reduced for quick sale, because it's basically going bad?

Chris
03-15-2016, 06:43 PM
Lovely. However how pathetic is it to see elderly people who have worked their entire lives, in grocery stores picking over the produce that has been reduced for quick sale, because it's basically going bad?

It is pathetic that that happens now under the very system you advocate. That system tends to isolate people in the collective state that destroys the family. Anthropologically the social order evolved around family, tribe, clan, and they took care of each other; historically, with the coming if the state the average family size is around 1 point something.

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 06:46 PM
Gary Johnson wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, OSHA, environmental protections, labor law, the minimum wage, income tax, etc. basically every function of government not related to commerce and criminal justice.

He is an extremist .
Of course he is. And therefore, more closely aligned with Republicans than with Democrats. That's a fact.

Cletus
03-15-2016, 06:47 PM
Lovely. However how pathetic is it to see elderly people who have worked their entire lives, in grocery stores picking over the produce that has been reduced for quick sale, because it's basically going bad?

Nothing is preventing you from filling up a shopping cart and purchasing it for them.

Chris
03-15-2016, 06:49 PM
Of course he is. And therefore, more closely aligned with Republicans than with Democrats. That's a fact.

Of course he is if you ignore the rest of the thread.

And, no, libertarians are not more aligned with Reps over Dems. So that's false. Rothbard, for example, made a great effort to align with the Democrats. Ron Paul happened to align with Republicans.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 06:49 PM
Lovely. However how pathetic is it to see elderly people who have worked their entire lives, in grocery stores picking over the produce that has been reduced for quick sale, because it's basically going bad?

So why would you want to keep the system that causes this to happen???

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 06:51 PM
Of course he is. And therefore, more closely aligned with Republicans than with Democrats. That's a fact.

But he is a long way from the GOP Establishment platform as well. And The government in it's current form is unsustainable.

HoneyBadger
03-15-2016, 06:51 PM
Nothing is preventing you from filling up a shopping cart and purchasing it for them.

I'm sure Dr Who is brimming with compassion and would love.... for someone else to pay for it.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 06:52 PM
Nothing is preventing you from filling up a shopping cart and purchasing it for them.

Actually I think that he could loose his Liberal credentials if he actually uses his own money and not that of others? :)

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 06:53 PM
I'm pretty sure none of that is true. Even Ron Paul did not run on abolishing SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Most likely, he wants to reform those programs so that they survive and adapt. Democrats, on the other hand, simply want to do nothing and continue piling on unsustainable debt until the country turns into a giant version of Detroit or Greece. It's easy to be a Democrat because they get to run on making empty promises full of pixie dust. But it doesn't help America.
Let me tell you something. If Republicans would cease giving Huge Tax Cuts to the rich and make them pay more than they do there would be enough money to keep Social Security and other programs solvent. That is the answer. Now get to it, tell your Congress members and Senators to STOP GIVING HUGE TAX CUTS TO THE RICH IN THIS COUNTRY!

Chris
03-15-2016, 06:56 PM
I'm sure Dr Who is brimming with compassion and would love.... for someone else to pay for it.

Dr. Who is good and wants what we all want. We just disagree on the means.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 06:57 PM
Let me tell you something. If Republicans would cease giving Huge Tax Cuts to the rich and make them pay more than they do there would be enough money to keep Social Security and other programs solvent. That is the answer. Now get to it, tell your Congress members and Senators to STOP GIVING HUGE TAX CUTS TO THE RICH IN THIS COUNTRY!

You do understand that when you Cut taxes, revenue to the government goes up? Right???

It has never went down?

But if we give the 6.5% that the workers are investing to the workers and let them invest it in a managed fund, then they will not need SS or Medicare, as they will have enough to live on and purchase much better medical insurance. Keep the current system for workers over 50 and a modified system for those over 30, and you can have a system that makes people lives better. Add to this, when they pass away, they get to leave the balance to their families

Why would anyone want to keep the current system?

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 06:59 PM
So his solution to the debt problem is to spend more money on welfare?
What you call "welfare" is actually their own money from Middle Class and Poor American citizens coming from their tax dollars that they have paid to their government that they are now entitled to receive in order to help them out during their hard times.

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 07:17 PM
What Services do you think they are going to Cut Back? And just what Gains do you think we have made in the last 7 years.
Don't even go there. With a slight bit of knowledge you would know the answer to be that in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Clean Water, the Environment, Education, Health Care, Women's Issues, etc. etc. And gains in Women's Reproductive Freedoms, Gay and Lesbian Rights and Marriage, Voting Rights, Minimum Wage, Equal Pay for Women, etc. etc. Republicans would end up appointing the most Conservative Supreme Court Justices to reverse, limit or do away with many important laws that we cannot afford to lose. All of that would be imperiled with a Republican Congress and a Republican President. We simply cannot afford to let that happen and we won't!

Crepitus
03-15-2016, 07:19 PM
So then be accurate. For example, he nor the PL simply "wants to end Social Security." No, what they say is this:



@ https://www.lp.org/platform

And that was 2014.

Lol, the wording is considerably more flowery but it still says abolish social security.

Boris The Animal
03-15-2016, 07:26 PM
Of course he is. And therefore, more closely aligned with Republicans than with Democrats. That's a fact.
And both Hitlery and Komrade Sanders are aligned with Communism, as are you.

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 07:27 PM
Lovely. However how pathetic is it to see elderly people who have worked their entire lives, in grocery stores picking over the produce that has been reduced for quick sale, because it's basically going bad?


Nothing is preventing you from filling up a shopping cart and purchasing it for them.
Let me tell you something. I see Dr. Who doing just what you suggest long before you ever would. The difference between you and she lies on the fact that she has a heart and would be willing to help a person in need. Your heart appears cold and devoid of feelings for the poor, elderly and disadvantaged based on what you have advocated. Therein lies the difference.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 07:28 PM
Nothing is preventing you from filling up a shopping cart and purchasing it for them.
You don't think that the elderly have pride and won't feel like they are suddenly worthless charity cases? Many would rather starve than take charity.

Boris The Animal
03-15-2016, 07:30 PM
Let me tell you something. I see Dr. Who doing just what you suggest long before you ever would. The difference between you and she lies on the fact that she has a heart and would be willing to help a person in need. Your heart appears cold and devoid of feelings for the poor, elderly and disadvantaged based on what you have advocated. Therein lies the difference.
The difference here, Komrade, is that Conservatives would rather charity not be under force.

Chris
03-15-2016, 07:30 PM
Lol, the wording is considerably more flowery but it still says abolish social security.

It reads replace it with something else.

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 07:31 PM
Let me tell you something. If Republicans would cease giving Huge Tax Cuts to the rich and make them pay more than they do there would be enough money to keep Social Security and other programs solvent. That is the answer. Now get to it, tell your Congress members and Senators to STOP GIVING HUGE TAX CUTS TO THE RICH IN THIS COUNTRY!

Which tax cuts?

Who pays taxes in the US? The article (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/)is one year old. The chart's data is 3 years old. I know the article says the rich isn't paying enough. That is not why I posted it.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/03/FT_15.03.23_taxesInd.png

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 07:32 PM
What you call "welfare" is actually their own money from Middle Class and Poor citizens coming from their tax dollars that they have paid to the government that they are now entitled to in order to help them out during their hard times.

How do poor people pay their welfare benefits? I mean the generationally poor people.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 07:34 PM
Don't even go there. With a slight bit of knowledge you would know the answer to be that in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Clean Water, the Environment, Education, Women's Issues, etc. etc. And gains in Women's Reproductive Freedoms, Gay and Lesbian Rights and Marriage, Voting Rights, Minimum Wage, Equal Pay for Women, etc. etc. Republicans would end up appointing the most Conservative Supreme Court Justices to reverse, limit or do away with many important laws that we cannot afford to lose. All of that would be imperiled with a Republican Congress and a Republican President. We simply cannot afford to let that happen and we won't!

What the country can't afford is the current path of spending.

Funding Planned parenthood is not needed with the ACA.

A constitutional Conservative would not reverse things he would send them back to the states as the constitution intended.

SS/Medicare/Medicaid are going broke, I understand that the left wants to take the rich more and will talk about times when they were taxed at 90% but they won't tell you that they did not pay taxes at all back then.

We can change these programs to become a wealth building system.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 07:35 PM
How do poor people pay their welfare benefits? I mean the generationally poor people.

If they work, they pay FICA taxes and that is used for that system. So in a way he is right. But the system is designed to trap these people, so they can't escape.

Crepitus
03-15-2016, 07:35 PM
It reads replace it with something else.

Which involves doing what with social security? Leaving it in place? Not messing with it? Letting it continue?

No. Ending it. Dropping it. Dare I say abolishing it?

Chris
03-15-2016, 07:36 PM
Which involves doing what with social security? Leaving it in place? Not messing with it? Letting it continue?

No. Ending it. Dropping it. Dare I say abolishing it?

Uh, replacing it. Need a dictionary?

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 07:37 PM
Which tax cuts?

Who pays taxes in the US? The article (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/)is one year old. The chart's data is 3 years old. I know the article says the rich isn't paying enough. That is not why I posted it.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/03/FT_15.03.23_taxesInd.png

Most people are blind to the fact that the highest increases in Revenue to the USA came after the Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Tax Cuts.

It happens every time.

Crepitus
03-15-2016, 07:37 PM
Uh, replacing it. Need a dictionary?

No, but apparently you do.

Boris The Animal
03-15-2016, 07:40 PM
Most people are blind to the fact that the highest increases in Revenue to the USA came after the Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Tax Cuts.

It happens every time.
That's the dirty little secret the Left doesn't want to acknowledge. They are all about control and power. Nothing else matters to them.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 07:47 PM
Let me tell you something. I see Dr. Who doing just what you suggest long before you ever would. The difference between you and she lies on the fact that she has a heart and would be willing to help a person in need. Your heart appears cold and devoid of feelings for the poor, elderly and disadvantaged based on what you have advocated. Therein lies the difference.
Many simply will not take charity of any kind. Even my own mother fights me if I, or my siblings, try to pay for things. She gets really upset and she was left in pretty good financial shape by my father, but she is still living on less than she did when he was alive.

Boris The Animal
03-15-2016, 07:50 PM
Many simply will not take charity of any kind. Even my own mother fights me if I, or my siblings, try to pay for things. She gets really upset and she was left in pretty good financial shape by my father, but she is still living on less than she did when he was alive.So they would rather accept the meager pittance from the all beneficent, all compassionate big daddy government?

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 07:52 PM
You do understand that when you Cut taxes, revenue to the government goes up? Right???

It has never went down?

But if we give the 6.5% that the workers are investing to the workers and let them invest it in a managed fund, then they will not need SS or Medicare, as they will have enough to live on and purchase much better medical insurance. Keep the current system for workers over 50 and a modified system for those over 30, and you can have a system that makes people lives better. Add to this, when they pass away, they get to leave the balance to their families

Why would anyone want to keep the current system?
Because that was what was promised to working Americans decades ago and something they rightfully deserve to keep. And it is a lie that Social Security and Medicare are in financial trouble. They are both solvent for many years still. The answer is in Washington bureaucrats tightening the belt on their own pork barrel projects and not raiding and taking money from Social Security or Medicare like they have been doing. That is a shame! That money should be immediately replaced into those two programs that were unfairly raided. That's not why we pay our taxes to have those programs later raided and done that way!

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 07:56 PM
Because that was what was promised to working Americans decades ago and something they rightfully deserve to keep. And it is a lie that Social Security and Medicare are in financial trouble. They are both solvent for many years still. The answer is in Washington bureaucrats tightening the belt on their own pork barrel projects and not raiding and taking money from Social Security or Medicare like they have been doing. That is a shame! That money should be immediately replaced into those two programs that were unfairly raided. That's not why we pay our taxes to have those programs later raided and done that way!

I agree that it was a crime that these programs were raided. But the fact remains that they are a terrible return on investment. And the truth is we will need fewer and fewer workers. Using an investment based system. we can build wealth, instead of promise poverty.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 07:58 PM
ATM the vote is either for the fascist insanity of Trump or the only person who can beat him. Go Bernie!
Explain. What do you mean "fascist insanity of Trump"? We already live in a fascistic nation where hundreds of independent agencies regulate/control every facet of every business. Fascism is a tactic of authoritarian statists. They are creatures of the left.

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 07:58 PM
And both Hitlery and Komrade Sanders are aligned with Communism, as are you.
Says the one aligned with Nazism.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:02 PM
Lovely. However how pathetic is it to see elderly people who have worked their entire lives, in grocery stores picking over the produce that has been reduced for quick sale, because it's basically going bad?
Do you believe they should have a portion of the wealth I have created given their inability to plan their lives?

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:06 PM
What you call "welfare" is actually their own money from Middle Class and Poor citizens coming from their tax dollars that they have paid to the government that they are now entitled to in order to help them out during their hard times.
Really? So the people who paid almost nothing in to a corrupt system should encourage greater levels of plunder by the government on their behalf? They are not entitled to anything.

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 08:09 PM
Many simply will not take charity of any kind. Even my own mother fights me if I, or my siblings, try to pay for things. She gets really upset and she was left in pretty good financial shape by my father, but she is still living on less than she did when he was alive.
That's true enough as personal pride in some is tough for others to deal with. But when push comes to shove we can't just let them starve, regardless. We should be there to help. We are, after all, human beings with a heart and a conscience. Even animals take care of their own in loving ways. Many would sure put us to shame so how could we do less?

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 08:10 PM
So they would rather accept the meager pittance from the all beneficent, all compassionate big daddy government?
She is happy to accept money that my father paid into. It came out of his paycheck. It wasn't free. It's not welfare. However rather than working on ensuring that SS is solvent and viable, many would rather just throw the baby out with the bathwater. SS would not exist if savings and personal investment was a guaranteed barrier to elder poverty. A government that can spend trillions on objectively dubious wars, that don't show any direct benefit to citizens, can at the very least ensure that the elderly don't have to visit soup kitchens to survive in their last years. Even primitive tribal groups never threw their elderly to the wolves.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:11 PM
Don't even go there. With a slight bit of knowledge you would know the answer to be that in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Clean Water, the Environment, Education, Health Care, Women's Issues, etc. etc. And gains in Women's Reproductive Freedoms, Gay and Lesbian Rights and Marriage, Voting Rights, Minimum Wage, Equal Pay for Women, etc. etc. Republicans would end up appointing the most Conservative Supreme Court Justices to reverse, limit or do away with many important laws that we cannot afford to lose. All of that would be imperiled with a Republican Congress and a Republican President. We simply cannot afford to let that happen and we won't!
Cool.

1) Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, (Unconstitutional - no basis in the Constitution for these)
2) Food Stamps, Clean Water, the Environment, (Unconstitutional - no basis in the Constitution for these)
3) Education, Health Care, Women's Issues, etc. etc. (Unconstitutional - no basis in the Constitution for these)
4) And gains in Women's Reproductive Freedoms, Gay and Lesbian Rights and Marriage, Voting Rights, Minimum Wage, Equal Pay for Women, etc. etc. (Unconstitutional - no basis in the Constitution for these)

Your entire list of gains involves the unconstitutional expansion of the authoritarian state which diminishes individual liberty.

"Republicans would end up appointing the most Conservative Supreme Court Justices to reverse, limit or do away with many important laws that we cannot afford to lose. All of that would be imperiled with a Republican Congress and a Republican President."

This is precisely why we need to reverse the enormous damage done by the socialists in both parties. A President Cruz would be the surest path to reverse these abominations. But a President Trump could also be effective.

del
03-15-2016, 08:12 PM
constitutional fetishists are always amusing

Mark III
03-15-2016, 08:15 PM
So then be accurate. For example, he nor the PL simply "wants to end Social Security." No, what they say is this:



@ https://www.lp.org/platform

And that was 2014.

Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system.

Do you know what "out" means Chris? It means gone. kaput. finito.

Boris The Animal
03-15-2016, 08:15 PM
She is happy to accept money that my father paid into. It came out of his paycheck. It wasn't free. It's not welfare. However rather than working on ensuring that SS is solvent and viable, many would rather just throw the baby out with the bathwater. SS would not exist if savings and personal investment was a guaranteed barrier to elder poverty. A government that can spend trillions on objectively dubious wars, that don't show any direct benefit to citizens, can at the very least ensure that the elderly don't have to visit soup kitchens to survive in their last years. Even primitive tribal groups never threw their elderly to the wolves.But the problem is SS, along with ALL other social welfare programs should never be in the purview of the Federal government. This should and must be left up to the individual states.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:15 PM
Let me tell you something. I see Dr. Who doing just what you suggest long before you ever would. The difference between you and she lies on the fact that she has a heart and would be willing to help a person in need. Your heart appears cold and devoid of feelings for the poor, elderly and disadvantaged based on what you have advocated. Therein lies the difference.
Do you believe that "having a heart" should give one a license to plunder one's neighbors? Come to my house in the open to steal from me rather than encouraging agents of the state to do so. And when you do so I will use deadly force to stop you.

But you are a thief of a different sort. You vote for politicians who will steal from me to give a bit of the plunder to you. It is time to reverse the culture of plunder.

Don
03-15-2016, 08:15 PM
Of course he is if you ignore the rest of the thread.

And, no, libertarians are not more aligned with Reps over Dems. So that's false. Rothbard, for example, made a great effort to align with the Democrats. Ron Paul happened to align with Republicans.

I think Ron Paul aligned with republicans in the sense that America is supposed to be a republic. It's most of the rest of those cretins who aren't real republicans.:wink: :laugh:

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:17 PM
constitutional fetishists are always amusing
But, of course, Marxists, such as yourself are not amusing. You still must be stopped.

Mark III
03-15-2016, 08:18 PM
Any others depend on government coercion and corruption. Dependency leads to more and leaves self-reliance in the dust.

You people are out of your minds if you think Americans will ever vote , as a majority, to end Social Security. If you don't want your fellow citizens taken care of when they get old, move to another country or start your own somewhere.

del
03-15-2016, 08:19 PM
But, of course, Marxists, such as yourself are not amusing. You still must be stopped.

if you're representative of the caliber of opposition, i'm not laying awake nights, bursitis

i just laugh myself to sleep

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:19 PM
She is happy to accept money that my father paid into. It came out of his paycheck. It wasn't free. It's not welfare. However rather than working on ensuring that SS is solvent and viable, many would rather just throw the baby out with the bathwater. SS would not exist if savings and personal investment was a guaranteed barrier to elder poverty. A government that can spend trillions on objectively dubious wars, that don't show any direct benefit to citizens, can at the very least ensure that the elderly don't have to visit soup kitchens to survive in their last years. Even primitive tribal groups never threw their elderly to the wolves.
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. Nothing more. It was a method to extract more wealth from citizens. It was theft by deception.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 08:19 PM
That's true enough as personal pride in some is tough for others to deal with. But when push comes to shove we can't just let them starve, regardless. We should be there to help. We are, after all, human beings with a heart and a conscience. Even animals take care of their own in loving ways. Many would sure put us to shame so how could we do less?
I agree, but it's really easier for them to accept that government check than the embarrassment of charity. It gives them dignity and growing old is hard enough on human dignity. We grow old and frail in body, but often our minds are neither old nor frail. We don't forget who we were and that is a challenge. Those who never depended on others for anything have it the worst if they end up destitute in their final years. The very idea of leaving them dependent on charity shows a complete lack of understanding of who these people were. Many would sooner commit suicide than feel like they are now charity cases.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:21 PM
if you're representative of the caliber of opposition, i'm not laying awake nights, bursitis
I suppose we shall see. A time for bloodshed is coming. President Trump may be able to avert or postpone it. When your time comes I am confident you will be caught unaware. It is your nature.

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 08:21 PM
Cool.

1) Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, (Unconstitutional - no basis in the Constitution for these)
2) Food Stamps, Clean Water, the Environment, (Unconstitutional - no basis in the Constitution for these)
3) Education, Health Care, Women's Issues, etc. etc. (Unconstitutional - no basis in the Constitution for these)
4) And gains in Women's Reproductive Freedoms, Gay and Lesbian Rights and Marriage, Voting Rights, Minimum Wage, Equal Pay for Women, etc. etc. (Unconstitutional - no basis in the Constitution for these)

Your entire list of gains involves the unconstitutional expansion of the authoritarian state which diminishes individual liberty.

"Republicans would end up appointing the most Conservative Supreme Court Justices to reverse, limit or do away with many important laws that we cannot afford to lose. All of that would be imperiled with a Republican Congress and a Republican President."

This is precisely why we need to reverse the enormous damage done by the socialists in both parties. A President Cruz would be the surest path to reverse these abominations. But a President Trump could also be effective.
What you have enumerated, called Caring For Others, that the Democrats place high on their priority list is exactly why your party did not win the White House and has not won for the past eight years and will not win for the next eight and beyond. People know that Republicans don't care at all about these things and will effectively throw them out of office this November. They are not being fooled again into thinking that they are better off with a right-winger in the White House because they're not.

del
03-15-2016, 08:23 PM
I suppose we shall see. A time for bloodshed is coming. President Trump may be able to avert or postpone it. When your time comes I am confident you will be caught unaware. It is your nature.

you're still pissed that your mom doesn't cut the crusts off your sandwiches that she leaves at the top of the stairs, aren't you?

let it go, corky

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:23 PM
You people are out of your minds if you think Americans will ever vote , as a majority, to end Social Security. If you don't want your fellow citizens taken care of when they get old, move to another country or start your own somewhere.
Isn't this the common cry of the authoritarian statist? You do great damage to the Constitution, all in the name of the public good. Of course, you are intent upon defrauding the citizens of their right to a limited government. It has always been this way. Evil people conceal their evil by claiming to do good.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 08:23 PM
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. Nothing more. It was a method to extract more wealth from citizens. It was theft by deception.
The fact that it has been mismanaged it not a reason to eliminate it. If necessary, outsource it as an investment program through multiple vehicles and ensure that the dividends are untouchable by any other government program. It's not rocket science.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:24 PM
you're still pissed that your mom doesn't cut the crusts off your sandwiches that she leaves at the top of the stairs, aren't you?

let it go, corky
Are you out of steam so soon? I am not surprised.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:25 PM
The fact that it has been mismanaged it not a reason to eliminate it. If necessary, outsource it as an investment program through multiple vehicles and ensure that the dividends are untouchable by any other government program. It's not rocket science.
It is not rocket science. It is theft. One does not reform thefts. One ends them.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 08:27 PM
That's true enough as personal pride in some is tough for others to deal with. But when push comes to shove we can't just let them starve, regardless. We should be there to help. We are, after all, human beings with a heart and a conscience. Even animals take care of their own in loving ways. Many would sure put us to shame so how could we do less?

You don't spend much time in nature do you. Deer starving in winter dear yards will actually try to kill or chase off the offspring to conserve the food for them

Listen the last person to starve to death in the USA was Terry Schivo. And it took a judge to stop us from feeding her.

But these people don't need more government, they need a job, they don't need more money in educations so we can raise teachers salaries, that are already the highest paid in the world Democrats have been spending more for decades and it is getting worse'

What we need is to give parents choices and hold systems and students accountable.

It is time that every program and policy of this great country is reviewed and if the results are good we need to double down. And if they are not good it needs to be abolished.

It is time to get back to the country that works and holds people accountable. If you are part of the solution, Great if you are part of the problem shame on you.

Mark III
03-15-2016, 08:27 PM
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. Nothing more. It was a method to extract more wealth from citizens. It was theft by deception.

You are an extremist. maybe quarantine is in order.

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 08:28 PM
Do you believe that "having a heart" should give one a license to plunder one's neighbors? Come to my house in the open to steal from me rather than encouraging agents of the state to do so. And when you do so I will use deadly force to stop you.

But you are a thief of a different sort. You vote for politicians who will steal from me to give a bit of the plunder to you. It is time to reverse the culture of plunder.
Never mind. I can plainly see that only those who have a good, compassionate heart would understand what I'm talking about.

del
03-15-2016, 08:28 PM
Are you out of steam so soon? I am not surprised.

stupid people bore me.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:29 PM
What you have enumerated, called Caring For Others, that the Democrats place high on their priority list is exactly why your party did not win the White House and has not won for the past eight years and will not win for the next eight and beyond. People know that Republicans don't care at all about these things and will effectively throw them out of office this November. They are not being fooled again into thinking that they are better off with a right-winger in the White House because they're not.
You see. It is not so hard to get the radical leftists to admit their unconstitutional schemes. Show me where "Caring for Others" is a legitimate duty for the Federal government. I was unable to locate it in the online copy of the Constitution I use.

I am well aware the Democratic Party, long filled with closeted Marxists is now openly socialist. Thank you for publicly admitting it.

Private Pickle
03-15-2016, 08:29 PM
You are an extremist. maybe quarantine is in order.

The "progressive" mantra repeated throughout time... From Stalin to Mao to Polpot...

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 08:29 PM
constitutional fetishists are always amusing

Only to those that don't give a crap about the constitution. Those that see it as and obstacle to their power and control over people tend to see it that way

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:30 PM
stupid people bore me.
I understand. I do have more patience with them/you. Perhaps I should be less forgiving of your vices.

del
03-15-2016, 08:30 PM
Only to those that don't give a crap about the constitution. Those that see it as and obstacle to their power and control over people tend to see it that way

tell me about your service again.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:31 PM
Never mind. I can plainly see that only those who have a good, compassionate heart would understand what I'm talking about.
This is the way evil people conceal their crimes. I can see that you are one of the evil people. Only now your crimes are in the open.

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 08:33 PM
You don't spend much time in nature do you. Deer starving in winter dear yards will actually try to kill or chase off the offspring to conserve the food for them

Listen the last person to starve to death in the USA was Terry Schivo. And it took a judge to stop us from feeding her.

But these people don't need more government, they need a job, they don't need more money in educations so we can raise teachers salaries, that are already the highest paid in the world Democrats have been spending more for decades and it is getting worse'

What we need is to give parents choices and hold systems and students accountable.

It is time that every program and policy of this great country is reviewed and if the results are good we need to double down. And if they are not good it needs to be abolished.

It is time to get back to the country that works and holds people accountable. If you are part of the solution, Great if you are part of the problem shame on you.
Shame on you for not doing your part to help your fellow man in his time of greatest need but that is your personal choice and that of those who think as you do that you will all have to explain to God at your appointed time. I would sure hate to be in your shoes when you do knowing that you could have done a lot better!

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:34 PM
You are an extremist. maybe quarantine is in order.
Give it your best shot. Come and try to quarantine me.

Radical leftists always speak as you do.

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 08:36 PM
You see. It is not so hard to get the radical leftists to admit their unconstitutional schemes. Show me where "Caring for Others" is a legitimate duty for the Federal government. I was unable to locate it in the online copy of the Constitution I use.

I am well aware the Democratic Party, long filled with closeted Marxists is now openly socialist. Thank you for publicly admitting it.
I am proclaiming what GOD expects for us to do, that Democrats follow. What's your excuse?

del
03-15-2016, 08:36 PM
I understand. I do have more patience with them/you. Perhaps I should be less forgiving of your vices.

perhaps you should suspend your extended visual study of your duodenum

just a thought

Boris The Animal
03-15-2016, 08:38 PM
I am proclaiming what GOD expects for us to do, that Democrats follow. What's your excuse?God never commanded the use of force by the government to steal other people's money for worthless social programs.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 08:40 PM
Never mind. I can plainly see that only those who have a good, compassionate heart would understand what I'm talking about.

I think that compassion is GREAT, but instituting a policy that is designed to be compassionate, but does not help people, but when we pass these policies like SS, and now there clearly is a better way, we hold on to them because they were intended to be compassionate. That to me is not Compassion.

Just like the way we do Welfare, it punishes people if they take a summer or temporary job, and nobody is willing to change that system. We have the everyone passes and everyone is special policies in education and we are turning out idiots.

To me that is foolish and we should try something else. It is not compassion to support things that hurt people.

TrueBlue
03-15-2016, 08:40 PM
This is the way evil people conceal their crimes. I can see that you are one of the evil people. Only now your crimes are in the open.
That's also the way Satan thought. Try to explain that one to GOD.

Private Pickle
03-15-2016, 08:41 PM
God never commanded the use of force by the government to steal other people's money for worthless social programs.

Governments? No. Disciples? Yup.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 08:41 PM
So they would rather accept the meager pittance from the all beneficent, all compassionate big daddy government?
Yes, because that doesn't put them in the position of accepting charity from individuals. A goverment check is anonymous. Personal charity can be humiliating.

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 08:41 PM
If they work, they pay FICA taxes and that is used for that system. So in a way he is right. But the system is designed to trap these people, so they can't escape.

I said generationally poor- I wasn't clear, but I mean those that don't work generation after generation. They aren't paying for their checks.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 08:43 PM
Do you believe they should have a portion of the wealth I have created given their inability to plan their lives?
They should have the money that they paid into the system. What's wrong with that?

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 08:43 PM
constitutional fetishists are always amusing

Thought that oath you swore was worthless?

Unsurprising.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 08:44 PM
stupid people bore me.

Stop talking to yourself?

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:44 PM
I am proclaiming what GOD expects for us to do, that Democrats follow. What's your excuse?
Do you believe the US has a theocracy? You are such a fraud. You do violence to the Constitution and then blame god. Your evil is complete.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:46 PM
They should have the money that they paid into the system. What's wrong with that?

It is a tax. Nothing more. They, you, I, we own nothing of value in our social security and medicare accounts. It was a lie from the beginning. It is time to end the lies. It is time to stop stealing. What's wrong with that?

Private Pickle
03-15-2016, 08:46 PM
Thought that oath you swore was worthless?

Unsurprising.

Ohhhhhhhhhh!

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:47 PM
perhaps you should suspend your extended visual study of your duodenum

just a thought
Not much of a thought. But I suppose it will have to do given it is the best you can offer.

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 08:50 PM
You people are out of your minds if you think Americans will ever vote , as a majority, to end Social Security. If you don't want your fellow citizens taken care of when they get old, move to another country or start your own somewhere.

Just let people opt out and use the market to make 3-8% more than SS will give them. Or better if they are lucky.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 08:52 PM
Thought that oath you swore was worthless?

Unsurprising.
del served?

LOL.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 08:59 PM
The fact that it has been mismanaged it not a reason to eliminate it. If necessary, outsource it as an investment program through multiple vehicles and ensure that the dividends are untouchable by any other government program. It's not rocket science.

Nobody and I mean Nobody wants to eliminate it for people that have earned it, but there is a better way.

Once again I will post the averages.

Your estimated monthly benefit amount, beginning at age 68 and 6 months in 2016, is $878.00. For your estimate, we assumed no future increases in prices or earnings

This is what a life long Minimum wage earner gets per month under the current system


Totals

$ 48,029.80
$ .0
$ 323,465.02



This is what you would have at the end of 49 years starting at 18. Which is about $1752.00 per month.

And you still leave your family 323 thousand dollars upon your death

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 09:01 PM
del served?

LOL.

Yes he did, and that my friend is not something to laugh at! It is something to respect. I tease him, but I did not serve I did it for the money, the glory, and the fun, Mostly for the money. He served his country.

MisterVeritis
03-15-2016, 09:03 PM
Yes he did, and that my friend is not something to laugh at! It is something to respect. I tease him, but I did not serve I did it for the money, the glory, and the fun, Mostly for the money. He served his country.
It seems so unlikely. I cannot imagine someone so screwed up doing anything that is selfless.

Cletus
03-15-2016, 09:06 PM
That's also the way Satan thought. Try to explain that one to GOD.

Why don't you head on down to your local homeless shelter and sign everything you own over to them?

If you truly believe what you are saying, you should be anxious to do so.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 09:07 PM
Shame on you for not doing your part to help your fellow man in his time of greatest need but that is your personal choice and that of those who think as you do that you will all have to explain to God at your appointed time. I would sure hate to be in your shoes when you do knowing that you could have done a lot better!

What do you mean by that? Did you build a gated community for low income? How much were your charitable donations?

Nothing in my post says that I don't what to take care of people As a matter of fact I want them to have 2 to 20 times the money as you do? So by supporting policies that you thought were compassionate, but actually brought suffering to the people, and then doubling down on those policies, because you don't want to admit that you are wrong?

I am not worried about my meeting at the pearly gates, What about you. Compassion that brings suffering is not compassion.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 09:10 PM
I am proclaiming what GOD expects for us to do, that Democrats follow. What's your excuse?

Really, where does god proclaim Killing the unborn child? I think that he states that he knew you before you were conceived in your mothers womb?

Where does it say that you should deny people healthcare, Medicare is the largest denier of medical services in the world.

Gay Marriage and Abomination don't seem to go together?

Charity does not have to come from the government, as a matter of fact, that is the worst possible way to take care of people.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 09:11 PM
But the problem is SS, along with ALL other social welfare programs should never be in the purview of the Federal government. This should and must be left up to the individual states.
Why? The welfare of the people is covered in the Constitution. Worked properly the Federal government is in the best position to make investments to benefit the people. That they have not is not a fault of the idea itself but of the administrations who have failed to treat those SS payments with the respect that they are due. They were turned into an ersatz welfare scheme that did not create a benefit that related to the contributions, meaning that those who contributed the most collected far less than they should and those who contributed the least collected far more than they were due. It has been political abuse of the system that has made SS unviable.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 09:12 PM
That's also the way Satan thought. Try to explain that one to GOD.

Actually it was Satin that promised Christ the world if he would just denounce God. And it is the Democrats that promise a bunch of free stuff and yet the lives of the people they pretend to care for, continue to struggle and their standard of living continues to decline.

that is not compassion.

Cletus
03-15-2016, 09:13 PM
Why? The welfare of the people is covered in the Constitution.

Please tell me you are not going to pretend the General Welfare Clause has anything to do with "Welfare".

Private Pickle
03-15-2016, 09:14 PM
Why? The welfare of the people is covered in the Constitution. .

huh?

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 09:15 PM
They should have the money that they paid into the system. What's wrong with that?

Actually that is not good enough, they should have 10 to 20 times the money they invested into the system because that is what the private sector gets when they invest. The government confiscates 6.5% of their income and then gives then less than 1% return on their money? NO that is not compassion that is theft.

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 09:33 PM
It seems so unlikely. I cannot imagine someone so screwed up doing anything that is selfless.

It was Navy. Fairly high rank.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 09:34 PM
It is a tax. Nothing more. They, you, I, we own nothing of value in our social security and medicare accounts. It was a lie from the beginning. It is time to end the lies. It is time to stop stealing. What's wrong with that?I understand the cynicism however, it was never intended to be a tax. If it's to be a contribution to an investment program, those contributions must be isolated from the public funds, and there should be no political manipulations that change the original premise. They are for retirement, not for disability and they should not multiply into more payout than could be realized by the investment. Government needs to create a separate silo for SS that is not available to political social programs. It is not an insurance program, which is somewhat what it has become. That's wrong and that's why it's in trouble. The only warantee that should exist is that the goverment guarantee the investment, no matter what.

Boris The Animal
03-15-2016, 09:34 PM
Why? The welfare of the people is covered in the Constitution. Worked properly the Federal government is in the best position to make investments to benefit the people. That they have not is not a fault of the idea itself but of the administrations who have failed to treat those SS payments with the respect that they are due. They were turned into an ersatz welfare scheme that did not create a benefit that related to the contributions, meaning that those who contributed the most collected far less than they should and those who contributed the least collected far more than they were due. It has been political abuse of the system that has made SS unviable.Wrong. To the Constitutionally atrophied and illiterate brain dead Lefturds, it is to PROMOTE the GENERAL Welfare, not provide individual welfare. Sorry, but you lose once again.

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 09:36 PM
Actually that is not good enough, they should have 10 to 20 times the money they invested into the system because that is what the private sector gets when they invest. The government confiscates 6.5% of their income and then gives then less than 1% return on their money? NO that is not compassion that is theft.

The government could bail out retirees who retiree when the market is in recession and still spend less than SS. And retirees in the market would be wealthy.

But the left won't have that.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 09:40 PM
The government could bail out retirees who retiree when the market is in recession and still spend less than SS. And retirees in the market would be wealthy.

But the left won't have that.

That should never be needed, but it could be like the FICA insurance. Money should start moving to securities when they hit 52 years old. If it is in a down market you let it recover and them move the money. It does not have to be set in stone.

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 09:47 PM
That should never be needed, but it could be like the FICA insurance. Money should start moving to securities when they hit 52 years old. If it is in a down market you let it recover and them move the money. It does not have to be set in stone.

Yes, a FICA like arraignment would be a bail out. Exactly what I said.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 09:47 PM
Nobody and I mean Nobody wants to eliminate it for people that have earned it, but there is a better way.

Once again I will post the averages.

Your estimated monthly benefit amount, beginning at age 68 and 6 months in 2016, is $878.00. For your estimate, we assumed no future increases in prices or earnings

This is what a life long Minimum wage earner gets per month under the current system


Totals

$ 48,029.80
$ .0
$ 323,465.02



This is what you would have at the end of 49 years starting at 18. Which is about $1752.00 per month.

And you still leave your family 323 thousand dollars upon your death
Which is great, but can you guarantee it against any and all economic downturns?

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 09:50 PM
Only within the framework of Art. 1, sec. 8, US Const. All of it, not part of it. We have discussed this already. Bookmark please.


Why? The welfare of the people is covered in the Constitution. Worked properly the Federal government is in the best position to make investments to benefit the people. That they have not is not a fault of the idea itself but of the administrations who have failed to treat those SS payments with the respect that they are due. They were turned into an ersatz welfare scheme that did not create a benefit that related to the contributions, meaning that those who contributed the most collected far less than they should and those who contributed the least collected far more than they were due. It has been political abuse of the system that has made SS unviable.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 09:52 PM
Please tell me you are not going to pretend the General Welfare Clause has anything to do with "Welfare".
General welfare meaning the ultimate good of the people. Not "welfare" in the sense of providing income to the indigents of society.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 10:04 PM
Wrong. To the Constitutionally atrophied and illiterate brain dead Lefturds, it is to PROMOTE the GENERAL Welfare, not provide individual welfare. Sorry, but you lose once again.
Well, that really depends on your definition of general welfare. If your definition leaves the elderly on their own when they are incapable of working, disregarding their prior contribution to the "general welfare" of society through their labors and taxes paid, perhaps if you find yourself elderly and in the position of being incapable of keeping a roof over your head and able to buy food, for whatever reason, you will also have the courage to ensure that you don't present a burden to society.

Boris The Animal
03-15-2016, 10:06 PM
Well, that really depends on your definition of general welfare. If your definition leaves the elderly on their own when they are incapable of working, disregarding their prior contribution to the "general welfare" of society through their labors and taxes paid, perhaps if you find yourself elderly and in the position of being incapable of keeping a roof over your head and able to buy food, for whatever reason, you will also have the courage to ensure that you don't present a burden to society.
It does not mean that 85% of my hard earned goes towards worthless social programs that do nothing but guarantee governmental dependency. Sorry, but you lose yet again. Liberalism is a lie.

del
03-15-2016, 10:09 PM
It does not mean that 85% of my hard earned goes towards worthless social programs that do nothing but guarantee governmental dependency. Sorry, but you lose yet again. Liberalism is a lie.

people earning $15k don't pay 85%

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 10:11 PM
Actually that is not good enough, they should have 10 to 20 times the money they invested into the system because that is what the private sector gets when they invest. The government confiscates 6.5% of their income and then gives then less than 1% return on their money? NO that is not compassion that is theft.
Just because it is currently run improperly, doesn't mean that it cannot be run with responsibility. I will grant that a government cannot invest public funds in reckless vehicles, but there are relatively safe investment vehicles that are used by financial institutions. If they are good enough for financial institutions, they are good enough for a guaranteed pension fund.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 10:13 PM
It does not mean that 85% of my hard earned goes towards worthless social programs that do nothing but guarantee governmental dependency. Sorry, but you lose yet again. Liberalism is a lie.
You are pulling into this discussion social welfare programs that are not germane. I am discussing SS and nothing else.

Boris The Animal
03-15-2016, 10:17 PM
You are pulling into this discussion social welfare programs that are not germane. I am discussing SS and nothing else.Of course they're germane. SS is just like all other social welfare programs. Totally unconstitutional.

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 10:18 PM
General welfare meaning the ultimate good of the people. Not "welfare" in the sense of providing income to the indigents of society.

Incorrect 100%

see above.

There would be no US if our states thought they were ceding all power to a federal government.

Boris The Animal
03-15-2016, 10:18 PM
Just because it is currently run improperly, doesn't mean that it cannot be run with responsibility. I will grant that a government cannot invest public funds in reckless vehicles, but there are relatively safe investment vehicles that are used by financial institutions. If they are good enough for financial institutions, they are good enough for a guaranteed pension fund.
It needs to be dissolved and the states need to pick up the slack. The Federal Government has zero business in any social welfare programs.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 10:22 PM
Of course they're germane. SS is just like all other social welfare programs. Totally unconstitutional.
People pay a specific portion of their income into SS, they don't direct a specific portion of their income to welfare. Don't conflate them. If you think it's unconstitutional, retain counsel and take it to SCOTUS.

Mark III
03-15-2016, 10:25 PM
It needs to be dissolved and the states need to pick up the slack. The Federal Government has zero business in any social welfare programs.

That is just ridiculous.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 10:29 PM
Incorrect 100%

see above.

There would be no US if our states thought they were ceding all power to a federal government.
My new refrain will be, for all those who think it is unconstitutional, retain counsel and take it to SCOTUS. Form a class action. Otherwise, find a political solution with the caveat being, that you may be in the minority.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 10:31 PM
It needs to be dissolved and the states need to pick up the slack. The Federal Government has zero business in any social welfare programs.
OK. Start a class action against the government.

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 10:35 PM
My new refrain will be, for all those who think it is unconstitutional, retain counsel and take it to SCOTUS. Form a class action. Otherwise, find a political solution with the caveat being, that you may be in the minority.

Fine. It won't work with me. :wink:

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 10:39 PM
Fine. It won't work with me. :wink:
Why don't you start a class action?

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 10:47 PM
Why don't you start a class action?

No reason too. The court is coming back my way. Starting with Lopez in 1995. :wink:

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 10:50 PM
No reason too. The court is coming back my way. Starting with Lopez in 1995. :wink:
The next appointee might not be sympathetic.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 11:24 PM
Which is great, but can you guarantee it against any and all economic downturns?

Yes you can, in a managed account. at age 52 you start moving your money into securities. Unless the country is in a downturn. If it is then you ride it out. we have NEVER had a downturn that lasted 15 years. even with everything FDR did to try and prevent the recovery. So you have a managed system.

What is AMAZING to me, is that people are still frightened by the markets, If it was a much of a risk as they left would have us believe, there would be NO rich people because that is where they keep the majority of their money.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 11:25 PM
General welfare meaning the ultimate good of the people. Not "welfare" in the sense of providing income to the indigents of society.

True, but the statement is Promote, not provide. that are two very different things.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 11:27 PM
Just because it is currently run improperly, doesn't mean that it cannot be run with responsibility. I will grant that a government cannot invest public funds in reckless vehicles, but there are relatively safe investment vehicles that are used by financial institutions. If they are good enough for financial institutions, they are good enough for a guaranteed pension fund.

Even so, people are living longer and you don't have the numbers in your favor to rescue it. So it is still going to Suck and it still must steal your money when you die.

That is just not right. Let people have a life after work.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 11:30 PM
OK. Start a class action against the government.

That is nice it gets you out of justifying what a Crappy return on investment the program is

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 11:30 PM
Yes you can, in a managed account. at age 52 you start moving your money into securities. Unless the country is in a downturn. If it is then you ride it out. we have NEVER had a downturn that lasted 15 years. even with everything FDR did to try and prevent the recovery. So you have a managed system.

What is AMAZING to me, is that people are still frightened by the markets, If it was a much of a risk as they left would have us believe, there would be NO rich people because that is where they keep the majority of their money.
If you are 65, you may not have 15 years to ride it out. That 15 years may be all you have left living in poverty.

zelmo1234
03-15-2016, 11:32 PM
If you are 65, you may not have 15 years to ride it out. That 15 years may be all you have left living in poverty.

But if you start moving to Securities when you are 52 like any responsible program does, you wont' have it happen to you at 65.

I really think that liberals don't understand money and how it works, and that is why they want the government to take care of them, and will accept them stealing from them.

Dr. Who
03-15-2016, 11:40 PM
But if you start moving to Securities when you are 52 like any responsible program does, you wont' have it happen to you at 65.

I really think that liberals don't understand money and how it works, and that is why they want the government to take care of them, and will accept them stealing from them.I suspect that your parents didn't come from the great depression. If they did you would better understand the notion that all investments can really evaporate overnight, however, you still need to eat tomorrow. How long do you think you could live without any income if you were elderly and perhaps not particularly healthy?

Peter1469
03-15-2016, 11:57 PM
If you are 65, you may not have 15 years to ride it out. That 15 years may be all you have left living in poverty.


SS is poverty.

Peter1469
03-16-2016, 12:00 AM
If people want a secured poverty level existence give it to them. For those that don't, let them opt out for wealth.

Is that hard for you redistributionists. The answer is yes. The lowest common demoniator is your ultimate goal.

Tahuyaman
03-16-2016, 12:00 AM
TRANSLATION: I much prefer for the Republicans to take away the gains made in this country and to severely CUT BACK services for Americans.....


What gains and services?

del
03-16-2016, 12:12 AM
Thought that oath you swore was worthless? Unsurprising. incorrect. carry on.

Peter1469
03-16-2016, 12:13 AM
incorrect. carry on.

Oh?

And is carry on proper here? One must outrank another for that command.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:02 AM
What a crock.

Notice that you did not refute a single thing I said because it was all true. Hillary Clinton is a crazed war monger. That's a fact.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:03 AM
In other words, for those who are unable to save for their futures or end up in a messy divorce where one spouse takes at least, half (perhaps even more), of the other's retirement savings, libertarians are counting on an unknown level charity from an equally unknown number of kind people to ensure that people are not reduced to begging. Is it your impression that recent generations are particularly prone to charity, especially when they are struggling to even find jobs that will pay enough to keep a roof over their own heads?

Yes, look at how well welfare statism has worked for the urban black community.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:08 AM
What you call "welfare" is actually their own money from Middle Class and Poor American citizens coming from their tax dollars that they have paid to their government that they are now entitled to receive in order to help them out during their hard times.

If it's their own money, then what's the point of sending it to the government? Why not just let them keep their money and spend it on what they need?

Of course, the answer to that question is that many people who rely on welfare take out much more than they pay in, which is why those entitlement programs are trending towards insolvency, which Democrats have no plans to do anything about. They will just do what they do in places like Detroit or Illinois: Kick the can down the road until there is a debt crisis.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:13 AM
Let me tell you something. I see Dr. Who doing just what you suggest long before you ever would. The difference between you and she lies on the fact that she has a heart and would be willing to help a person in need. Your heart appears cold and devoid of feelings for the poor, elderly and disadvantaged based on what you have advocated. Therein lies the difference.

There is nothing charitable about taking someone else's money without their consent and giving it to a poor person. That's called theft and the benevolent pretext does nothing to change that.

But let's ignore the moral dimension of stealing someone's money and giving it to poor people so that you can go around acting like you're compassionate. The practical effect of these welfare programs has been ambiguous at best. The urban black community who have been most heavily reliant on welfare programs are also the most disadvantaged communities in the country. Clearly, then, your welfare statism has not worked as well as you seem to think. If anything, it's creating a cycle of poverty and dependency that destroys families and communities. But at least you have good intentions, right?

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:15 AM
You don't think that the elderly have pride and won't feel like they are suddenly worthless charity cases? Many would rather starve than take charity.

Maybe in the abstract, but once the hunger pangs start to hit them, they will accept charity no matter how much it hurts their pride.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:16 AM
You don't think that the elderly have pride and won't feel like they are suddenly worthless charity cases? Many would rather starve than take charity.

By the way, can you give me some actual examples of people starving in America because voluntary society could not or would not feed them? The assumption underlying so much of this welfare statism seems to be that without these programs, Americans would be starving in the streets. But I haven't seen any examples where that actually happened. It seems like nothing more than a myth.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:18 AM
Which involves doing what with social security? Leaving it in place? Not messing with it? Letting it continue?

No. Ending it. Dropping it. Dare I say abolishing it?

So quote Johnson saying that's what he believes. It shouldn't be that hard to find such a quote if that's what he really thinks should happen.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:21 AM
Many simply will not take charity of any kind. Even my own mother fights me if I, or my siblings, try to pay for things. She gets really upset and she was left in pretty good financial shape by my father, but she is still living on less than she did when he was alive.

Okay? So that's their decision then. They aren't children. I'm not morally obligated to give my rightful earnings to the state because some elderly people are too prideful to take charity.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:22 AM
Because that was what was promised to working Americans decades ago...

Politicians make empty promises all the time. It's about time you realized that.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:25 AM
That's true enough as personal pride in some is tough for others to deal with. But when push comes to shove we can't just let them starve, regardless. We should be there to help. We are, after all, human beings with a heart and a conscience. Even animals take care of their own in loving ways. Many would sure put us to shame so how could we do less?

So who was starving in America before the federal government got involved in welfare?

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:28 AM
She is happy to accept money that my father paid into. It came out of his paycheck. It wasn't free. It's not welfare. However rather than working on ensuring that SS is solvent and viable, many would rather just throw the baby out with the bathwater. SS would not exist if savings and personal investment was a guaranteed barrier to elder poverty. A government that can spend trillions on objectively dubious wars, that don't show any direct benefit to citizens, can at the very least ensure that the elderly don't have to visit soup kitchens to survive in their last years.

Just because the government wastes tons of money on stupid wars doesn't mean they should be taking money from people in order to subsidize someone else's welfare.


Even primitive tribal groups never threw their elderly to the wolves.

How is that possible when they lived in stateless societies with no taxes?

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:31 AM
constitutional fetishists are always amusing

Democrats fetishize the constitution just as much as anyone else.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:32 AM
Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system.

Do you know what "out" means Chris? It means gone. kaput. finito.

So when are you going to provide a quote from Johnson stating that's his 2016 position? You do realize that a candidate is not obligated to accept their party's platform word for word, right?

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:39 AM
I agree, but it's really easier for them to accept that government check than the embarrassment of charity. It gives them dignity and growing old is hard enough on human dignity.

Being dependent on government welfare gives them dignity? I would have thought it was the opposite.


We grow old and frail in body, but often our minds are neither old nor frail. We don't forget who we were and that is a challenge. Those who never depended on others for anything have it the worst if they end up destitute in their final years. The very idea of leaving them dependent on charity shows a complete lack of understanding of who these people were. Many would sooner commit suicide than feel like they are now charity cases.

Again, that's their choice. These are adults, after all. Just because they're old doesn't mean they suddenly stop being responsible for themselves. And if they are too prideful to accept voluntary charity, then that's on them.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:44 AM
The fact that it has been mismanaged it not a reason to eliminate it. If necessary, outsource it as an investment program through multiple vehicles and ensure that the dividends are untouchable by any other government program. It's not rocket science.

You're operating under the dubious assumption that the US political system is amenable to being managed properly. But perhaps it cannot be managed properly because it is simply too large and unwieldy. Something people tend to overlook in politics is the importance of scale. The central government in America is probably the largest scale operation in human history. The amount of wealth and power concentrated in one locus precludes the possibility of it being managed effectively and ethically. It is a hopelessly inefficient and corrupt system, and there is probably nothing that will change it. Like all such systems before it, it will suffer a long and slow decline until it destabilizes and implodes. Indeed, we seem to be approaching the last stages of this process.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:47 AM
Never mind. I can plainly see that only those who have a good, compassionate heart would understand what I'm talking about.

If I took your wallet without your consent and then gave the money in it to a homeless person, I doubt you would view my behavior as "good" or "compassionate".

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:48 AM
Shame on you for not doing your part to help your fellow man in his time of greatest need but that is your personal choice and that of those who think as you do that you will all have to explain to God at your appointed time. I would sure hate to be in your shoes when you do knowing that you could have done a lot better!

Now you're citing God? Self-important much?

But as long as you're going to bring up religion, can you please show me where Jesus said charity should be compulsory? Or that it should be done by the state as opposed to voluntary communities?

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:50 AM
I am proclaiming what GOD expects for us to do, that Democrats follow. What's your excuse?

So you're using the government to force your religion on other people?

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:52 AM
They should have the money that they paid into the system. What's wrong with that?

If that's all they're getting, then there is no need to take it from them in the first place. The process of taking it and then returning it to them at a later point in time simply creates added administrative costs.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:57 AM
Why? The welfare of the people is covered in the Constitution.

The general welfare clause is an end, not a means.


Worked properly the Federal government is in the best position to make investments to benefit the people.

How so?


That they have not is not a fault of the idea itself but of the administrations who have failed to treat those SS payments with the respect that they are due. They were turned into an ersatz welfare scheme that did not create a benefit that related to the contributions, meaning that those who contributed the most collected far less than they should and those who contributed the least collected far more than they were due. It has been political abuse of the system that has made SS unviable.

The system is designed to be abused. It is a centralist paradigm that operates on a scale far beyond anything in history. There is simply no way it can be managed properly. It will always be abused by the people who are closest to power.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 04:03 AM
Actually that is not good enough, they should have 10 to 20 times the money they invested into the system because that is what the private sector gets when they invest. The government confiscates 6.5% of their income and then gives then less than 1% return on their money? NO that is not compassion that is theft.

One of the big reasons why people have had such trouble with retirement is because of the central bank's inflationary monetary policy which eats away at people's savings. There is little incentive to save money when the interest on those savings is a pittance. And this incentivizes people to put their money in more risky ventures like stocks. But the very real, very big problem of inflationary central banking is hardly ever mentioned, even though it's one of the main causes of poverty and destitution in the western world. The inflation target for central banks is typically somewhere around 2-3% per year on average. Compounded over time, that adds up. And unless your wages are increasing at the same rate as inflation (which they almost never do), then your purchasing power is being eaten away. But the international bankers who own basically all the world's governments and major corporations have managed to virtually eliminate this massive, hidden tax on the working classes from the public dialog. Almost nobody talks about it, and that is intentional on their part.

Crepitus
03-16-2016, 04:07 AM
So quote Johnson saying that's what he believes. It shouldn't be that hard to find such a quote if that's what he really thinks should happen.

You amd Chris would argue definitions until you choked wouldn't you.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 04:10 AM
If you are 65, you may not have 15 years to ride it out. That 15 years may be all you have left living in poverty.

Something these conversations almost never address are the underlying causes of poverty. Welfare and entitlements are merely attempts to address the symptoms, not the causes. Libertarians are typically of the mind that we need to concentrate more on addressing the causes of poverty instead of its symptoms. And part of the libertarian narrative is the major role that statism has played in perpetuating poverty, not just in America, but throughout history.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 04:11 AM
You amd Chris would argue definitions until you choked wouldn't you.

I'm not arguing definitions. I'm asking you to provide a quote of Johnson where he proposes eliminating social security.

FindersKeepers
03-16-2016, 04:12 AM
Even primitive tribal groups never threw their elderly to the wolves.

Don't be so quick to claim that. They did. It's called "senicide" and it was practiced in many primitive societies.

Here's just one:

http://www.theinitialjourney.com/features/eskimos-old-age/

FindersKeepers
03-16-2016, 04:15 AM
And unless your wages are increasing at the same rate as inflation (which they almost never do), then your purchasing power is being eaten away. .

This is also one of the downfalls of Social Security. When government raises the minimum wage, wages above it increase as well, triggering inflation and further depreciating the buying power of those existing on Social Security.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 04:18 AM
This is also one of the downfalls of Social Security. When government raises the minimum wage, wages above it increase as well, triggering inflation and further depreciating the buying power of those existing on Social Security.

One of the biggest unspoken causes of poverty throughout the western world is central banking and its inflationary monetary policy. This represents perhaps the largest continuous transfer of wealth from the working classes to the international banking cartel. Yet almost nobody except libertarians and some conservatives want to talk about it. And there is a reason for that. The international banking cartel doesn't want to talk about it, and they've been very, very successful at excluding that topic from the general political dialog.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 04:36 AM
Based on what I've read about Johnson, he wants to reform SS, not abolish it. That would include raising the retirement age to reflect changes in life expectancy; means testing; and providing a privatized option for younger people. In other words, Johnson simply wants to adapt SS to the modern world. And something HAS to be done, because doing nothing, like Democrats want to do, simply isn't a rational option if we want to fix the financial situation of the federal government.

Quicksilver
03-16-2016, 04:46 AM
Based on what I've read about Johnson, he wants to reform SS, not abolish it. That would include raising the retirement age to reflect changes in life expectancy; means testing; and providing a privatized option for younger people. In other words, Johnson simply wants to adapt SS to the modern world. And something HAS to be done, because doing nothing, like Democrats want to do, simply isn't a rational option if we want to fix the financial situation of the federal government.

The only thing that needs to be done to save Social Security is to raise the FICA cap from %118,000 to $250,000 or even $500,000 in annual income. All this Privatization crap is just an effort by the GOP to shift some of our money to Wall Street so their friends can skim a little off the top in fees. If you raise the FICA cap.. SS will be solvent to infinity..

Mac-7
03-16-2016, 04:52 AM
The only thing that needs to be done to save Social Security is to raise the FICA cap from 8,000 to $250,000 or even $500,000 in annual income. All this Privatization crap is just an effort by the GOP to shift some of our money to Wall Street so their friends can skim a little off the top in fees. If you raise the FICA cap.. SS will be solvent to infinity..

You mean raise the fica ceiling and then give the money to low income deadbeats at retirement instead of the people who paid it.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 04:57 AM
The only thing that needs to be done to save Social Security is to raise the FICA cap from 8,000 to $250,000 or even $500,000 in annual income. All this Privatization crap is just an effort by the GOP to shift some of our money to Wall Street so their friends can skim a little off the top in fees. If you raise the FICA cap.. SS will be solvent to infinity..

Maybe that is correct, but my point wasn't necessarily to say that Johnson had the best plan, only that he doesn't want to abolish SS as some are claiming.

As for the GOP's intentions regarding privatizing SS, that has nothing to do with Johnson, who is a libertarian. And libertarians don't propose things because they think it will benefit their nonexistent allies on Wall Street. Their proposals are made with the intent to maximize individual liberty and general prosperity.

Cletus
03-16-2016, 06:20 AM
That is just ridiculous.


Please show us the relevant article of the Constitution that authorizes the government to engage in social welfare programs.

Quicksilver
03-16-2016, 06:31 AM
Please show us the relevant article of the Constitution that authorizes the government to engage in social welfare programs.

Oh you mean the General Welfare clause

The notion of the common good has both religious and secular roots going back to Catholic social teaching, the Protestant social gospel, Judaism, Islam, and in the American Constitution itself, which says that government should promote “the general welfare.” It is our fundamental political inclination: don’t go right, don’t go left; go deeper. But we’ve lost touch with that moral compass in Washington D.C., where it has been replaced by both ideology and money.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/04/whatever-happened-to-the-common-good/


The United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause). The U.S. Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-4)
The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation) given it by Associate Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Unit ed_States) Joseph Story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Story) in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-Butler-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-6) Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-Butler-5)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-7) but a qualification on the taxing power[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-Butler-5)[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-8)[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-9) which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-Butler-5)[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-11) The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-Butler-5) as Alexander Hamilton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton) had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_Manufactures). Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-12)
These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-13)

Cletus
03-16-2016, 06:43 AM
The General Welfare Clause has nothing to do with social welfare programs. It deals only with those powers specifically enumerated.

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

You really should read Federalist 41.

Quicksilver
03-16-2016, 07:24 AM
It can be interpreted that way.... But I see that it depends what ideology you subscribe to..

Crepitus
03-16-2016, 09:06 AM
I'm not arguing definitions. I'm asking you to provide a quote of Johnson where he proposes eliminating social security.

Yes you are. The libertarian platform. Says "phase out social security". Same thing as eliminate or abolish.

I don't have time to search your nobody candidate's quotes to see if he's following the party platform.

Chris
03-16-2016, 09:11 AM
Amazing. If I said I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal and you said I said I'm fiscally conservative you'd be telling at best a half truth. It's intellectually dishonest.

Mac-7
03-16-2016, 09:22 AM
The General Welfare Clause has nothing to do with social welfare programs. It deals only with those powers specifically enumerated.



Sez you.

but 5 unelected liberals on the supreme court can say it means cradle to grave welfare and that becomes the new law of the land

Chris
03-16-2016, 09:30 AM
Sez you.

but 5 unelected liberals on the supreme court can say it means cradle to grave welfare and that becomes the new law of the land

I'd be curious if you could find such cases, mac.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause summarizes:


The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3][4]

The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.

That curious, Story argues general interest to the government.

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 10:08 AM
That's also the way Satan thought. Try to explain that one to GOD.
Clearly you are an expert on god. Which one, by the way?

As an expert can you show me some reasonable number of texts where your god directs that governments steal from some citizens to pay off other citizens? It should be easy Trueblue.

I will check back in from time to time to check on your progress.

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 10:09 AM
Governments? No. Disciples? Yup.
What?

Whose disciples command the government to steal the wealth of some to use it to buy the votes of others?

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 10:13 AM
Why? The welfare of the people is covered in the Constitution.
This is a misunderstanding. There are NO Constitutional provisions to allow the government to seize the wealth of some to distribute that wealth to others. You were reading the Communist Manifesto.

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 10:15 AM
It was Navy. Fairly high rank.
What a negative thing to say about the Navy. No wonder we no longer win our wars.

Chris
03-16-2016, 10:15 AM
Why? The welfare of the people is covered in the Constitution. Worked properly the Federal government is in the best position to make investments to benefit the people. That they have not is not a fault of the idea itself but of the administrations who have failed to treat those SS payments with the respect that they are due. They were turned into an ersatz welfare scheme that did not create a benefit that related to the contributions, meaning that those who contributed the most collected far less than they should and those who contributed the least collected far more than they were due. It has been political abuse of the system that has made SS unviable.


The general welfare of all the people not some special interests. An example would be a common defense.

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 10:17 AM
I understand the cynicism however, it was never intended to be a tax. If it's to be a contribution to an investment program, those contributions must be isolated from the public funds, and there should be no political manipulations that change the original premise. They are for retirement, not for disability and they should not multiply into more payout than could be realized by the investment. Government needs to create a separate silo for SS that is not available to political social programs. It is not an insurance program, which is somewhat what it has become. That's wrong and that's why it's in trouble. The only warantee that should exist is that the goverment guarantee the investment, no matter what.
Your statement above is completely incorrect. The federal government has no Constitutional power to compel people to "invest". Of course it was intended to be a tax.

You are in a dream state. It is time to wake up. All governments, in their best states are a necessary evil. Ours has become intolerable.

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 10:22 AM
General welfare meaning the ultimate good of the people. Not "welfare" in the sense of providing income to the indigents of society.
It means no such thing. Providing for the General Welfare means to execute the other, non-defense portions of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 10:24 AM
Well, that really depends on your definition of general welfare. If your definition leaves the elderly on their own when they are incapable of working, disregarding their prior contribution to the "general welfare" of society through their labors and taxes paid, perhaps if you find yourself elderly and in the position of being incapable of keeping a roof over your head and able to buy food, for whatever reason, you will also have the courage to ensure that you don't present a burden to society.
YOU may take it to mean whatever YOU wish it to. And YOU may use YOUR money to provide for whatever general welfare YOU choose to pay for yourself.

Constitutionally, you haven't a leg to stand on. We have had this discussion, haven't we?

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 10:26 AM
People pay a specific portion of their income into SS, they don't direct a specific portion of their income to welfare. Don't conflate them. If you think it's unconstitutional, retain counsel and take it to SCOTUS.
This is the mark of someone who has become tyrannical. The federal government has usurped powers not given. The Supreme Court is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 10:36 AM
Oh you mean the General Welfare clause

The notion of the common good has both religious and secular roots going back to Catholic social teaching, the Protestant social gospel, Judaism, Islam, and in the American Constitution itself, which says that government should promote “the general welfare.” It is our fundamental political inclination: don’t go right, don’t go left; go deeper. But we’ve lost touch with that moral compass in Washington D.C., where it has been replaced by both ideology and money.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/04/whatever-happened-to-the-common-good/


The United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause). The U.S. Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-4)
The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation) given it by Associate Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Unit ed_States) Joseph Story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Story) in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-Butler-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-6) Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-Butler-5)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-7) but a qualification on the taxing power[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-Butler-5)[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-8)[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-9) which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-Butler-5)[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-11) The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-Butler-5) as Alexander Hamilton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton) had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_Manufactures). Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-12)
These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause#cite_note-13)
I cannot recall, are you the same fool who ran away from our last discussion?

I know that you believe the phrase "promote the general welfare" means the congress can do whatever it chooses to do. It has become so. But anything not allowed in Article 1 section 8 is an unconstitutional usurpation of powers never granted.

If the Article V convention of states movement fails then our last recourse is a rebellion.

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 10:38 AM
It can be interpreted that way.... But I see that it depends what ideology you subscribe to..
I suppose if one holds the authoritarian statist, tyrannical ideology then the Federal government has unlimited powers to do whatever it wants to.

Only a bloody rebellion can fix that. I suppose that is the direction we are heading.

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 10:41 AM
I'd be curious if you could find such cases, mac.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause summarizes:



That curious, Story argues general interest to the government.
In 1833 the Constitution had not yet been overthrown. The government may spend on those things it believes contribute to fulfilling its obligation under Article 1 Section 8.

When I ready Story I have to remind myself of the time he lived.

Perhaps a rebellion is the only workable solution.

Mac-7
03-16-2016, 11:01 AM
I suppose if one holds the authoritarian statist, tyrannical ideology then the Federal government has unlimited powers to do whatever it wants to.

Only a bloody rebellion can fix that. I suppose that is the direction we are heading.

With the liberal education system and open borders the percentage of potentisl rebels declines.

I think we have already become a majority deadbeat socialist nation.

suds00
03-16-2016, 11:15 AM
the libertarian platform does not include building a wall,mass deportations,breaking trade agreements,suing the press for reporting the news,removing all gun control laws.,etc.nowhere have I seen anything about gary Johnson ditching social security or medicare.trump won't or can't do what he says that he is going to do and Hillary can't be trusted not to do anything that's not best for the country in terms of security,the economy,international relations,etc.

Cletus
03-16-2016, 11:52 AM
It can be interpreted that way.... But I see that it depends what ideology you subscribe to..

The only interpretation that is valid is the interpretation of the guys who wrote it.

What is it with you people who think the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean?

MisterVeritis
03-16-2016, 11:54 AM
The only interpretation that is valid is the interpretation of the guys who wrote it.
...as changed by amendments.

Cletus
03-16-2016, 11:55 AM
Sez you.

but 5 unelected liberals on the supreme court can say it means cradle to grave welfare and that becomes the new law of the land

Says the guy who wrote it.

Cletus
03-16-2016, 11:56 AM
...as changed by amendments.

True

Private Pickle
03-16-2016, 01:45 PM
What?

Whose disciples command the government to steal the wealth of some to use it to buy the votes of others?

Wut? You asked if God told governments to take wealth and give it as "social programs". I said no, to the governments but he certainly said it to his disciples.

Where you are getting votes from is beyond me. My guess is that you are moving the goalposts because your argument is invalid.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 03:10 PM
Yes you are. The libertarian platform. Says "phase out social security". Same thing as eliminate or abolish.

I don't have time to search your nobody candidate's quotes to see if he's following the party platform.

How is asking for a quote from Johnson arguing over the definition of something?

You don't have time? You're posting on this forum pretty regularly, so it seems like you do have the time. A more likely explanation is that you cannot find such a quote because it doesn't actually exist.

del
03-16-2016, 03:24 PM
Oh?

And is carry on proper here? One must outrank another for that command.

unless the army fucked up and bumped you, i'm senior by decades.

carry on.

del
03-16-2016, 03:25 PM
Democrats fetishize the constitution just as much as anyone else.

i must have missed the part where i specified republicans.

Peter1469
03-16-2016, 03:41 PM
unless the army fucked up and bumped you, i'm senior by decades.

carry on.

I would think not. Anyway, Navy. If we aren't at sea, you don't matter.

Dr. Who
03-16-2016, 05:21 PM
By the way, can you give me some actual examples of people starving in America because voluntary society could not or would not feed them? The assumption underlying so much of this welfare statism seems to be that without these programs, Americans would be starving in the streets. But I haven't seen any examples where that actually happened. It seems like nothing more than a myth.
It is difficult to get statistics on people who literally starved to death during the Great Depressin - there were certainly infant deaths attributable to starvation, but among adults who became severely malnutritioned from prolonged lack of adequate food, they easily contracted disease, or the lack of food caused the body to begin consuming muscle tissue, so their deaths were not officially recorded as death by starvation, but death by influenza, TB, pneumonia or heart attack, although they looked like concentration camp victims. If you look at the census for those years there was a pretty significant drop in population growth, which had been averaging about 1.8M per year. Some of that decline was due to Mexican Repatriation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation). Immigration (http://www.emmigration.info/us-immigration-trends-1900-1940.htm), which accounted for approximately 500K people per year abruptly declined. That still leaves several hundred thousand per year of unaccounted decline. Since population growth is the difference between births and deaths, plus immigration, one can only surmise that there was an increase in the number of both miscarriages, and deaths during that period of time.
14372


1.85https://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt

Dr. Who
03-16-2016, 05:30 PM
Just because the government wastes tons of money on stupid wars doesn't mean they should be taking money from people in order to subsidize someone else's welfare.



How is that possible when they lived in stateless societies with no taxes?
Because tribal groups were essentially socialistic societies. The product of the hunt as well as that of gathering and farming was shared between all members of the tribe. No one in tribal groups ate while the rest went hungry.

Chris
03-16-2016, 05:41 PM
Because tribal groups were essentially socialistic societies. The product of the hunt as well as that of gathering and farming was shared between all members of the tribe. No one in tribal groups ate while the rest went hungry.

Tribes were not socialist.

Dr. Who
03-16-2016, 05:41 PM
Don't be so quick to claim that. They did. It's called "senicide" and it was practiced in many primitive societies.

Here's just one:

http://www.theinitialjourney.com/features/eskimos-old-age/
Yes, this was a factor in Inuit society, but hardly on a regular basis. The extreme north is an inordinately hostile climate and the good of the many outweighs the good of the one, particularly when feeding the non-productive could lead to the demise of many.

del
03-16-2016, 05:42 PM
I would think not. Anyway, Navy. If we aren't at sea, you don't matter.

and if we're not in court, you don't

nic34
03-16-2016, 05:44 PM
Most people are blind to the fact that the highest increases in Revenue to the USA came after the Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Tax Cuts.

It happens every time.

Yea, we need to get them deadbeats making less than $15k paying more like 40%.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 05:49 PM
It is difficult to get statistics on people who literally starved to death during the Great Depressin - there were certainly infant deaths attributable to starvation, but among adults who became severely malnutritioned from prolonged lack of adequate food, they easily contracted disease, or the lack of food caused the body to begin consuming muscle tissue, so their deaths were not officially recorded as death by starvation, but death by influenza, TB, pneumonia or heart attack, although they looked like concentration camp victims. If you look at the census for those years there was a pretty significant drop in population growth, which had been averaging about 1.8M per year. Some of that decline was due to Mexican Repatriation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation). Immigration (http://www.emmigration.info/us-immigration-trends-1900-1940.htm), which accounted for approximately 500K people per year abruptly declined. That still leaves several hundred thousand per year of unaccounted decline. Since population growth is the difference between births and deaths, plus immigration, one can only surmise that there was an increase in the number of both miscarriages, and deaths during that period of time.
14372


1.85https://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt

So the only time in American history where people were likely to have starved was the most extreme depression we've ever experienced. And even then it's difficult to demonstrate that people were actually starving. Furthermore, there is a good argument to be made that the great depression was caused by governmental manipulation of the economy. So, as far as I can tell, there is little evidence that charity within the context of a free market economy will leave people starving on the streets.

donttread
03-16-2016, 05:51 PM
unless voting for gary Johnson is going to put trump in the white house that's my pick.i can't bring myself to vote for Hillary.8 months to go!

Mine too or possibly Jill Stein. The "lesser of two evils" has led us right to where we currently are.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 05:53 PM
Because tribal groups were essentially socialistic societies. The product of the hunt as well as that of gathering and farming was shared between all members of the tribe. No one in tribal groups ate while the rest went hungry.

I would generally agree with that. But what you're overlooking is that, although they were socialistic, they were still essentially stateless. And their society was based on an organic community that scaled well. The kind of socialism we're talking about is not even remotely comparable because there is no organic, cohesive community, and the scale of operation is far greater. What these tribes prove is that socialism can only operate sustainably and effectively on small, intimate scales where the people know and care about one another. That simply isn't possible when you're talking about hundreds of millions of total strangers spread out across a giant land mass.

Ethereal
03-16-2016, 05:54 PM
Yea, we need to get them deadbeats making less than $15k paying more like 40%.

I'd like to see them pay no taxes.

Dr. Who
03-16-2016, 05:57 PM
Tribes were not socialist.
Yes they were among themselves and certainly where it involved eating, clothing and shelter. They hunted and foraged as a group and all food was shared with the whole tribe.

donttread
03-16-2016, 05:57 PM
TRANSLATION: I much prefer for the Republicans to take away the gains made in this country and to severely CUT BACK services for Americans that are desperately needed and to continue with their obstruction and non-action.


What gains would those be True. Bailing out megacorps that have contributed to your campaign ? Employment gains in the 10 bucks an hour, 25 hours a week job market? Happily accepting his "Peace Prize before making war and droning villages? or maybe the continued assault of individual rights while driving states rights to the brink of extinction? Setting spending and borrowing records?
Which of those the "gains made by this country that you were referring to?

Peter1469
03-16-2016, 05:58 PM
Because tribal groups were essentially socialistic societies. The product of the hunt as well as that of gathering and farming was shared between all members of the tribe. No one in tribal groups ate while the rest went hungry.

Those were small homogeneous societies who had communal bonds. The US is not that.

Chris
03-16-2016, 06:01 PM
Yes they were among themselves and certainly where it involved eating, clothing and shelter. They hunted and foraged as a group and all food was shared with the whole tribe.

No they weren't. First off, man by nature is a social animal. Not socialist. Don't confuse the two. Second, primitive man's social order was constructed around the family in religion, in property, in trade. It was not a social order that even had an inkling of the Christian, liberal individualism out of which millenia later such notions as socialism arose.

Peter1469
03-16-2016, 06:09 PM
Yea, we need to get them deadbeats making less than $15k paying more like 40%.

Who has proposed that?

Chris
03-16-2016, 06:12 PM
Who has proposed that?

Nic. :D

Mister D
03-16-2016, 06:16 PM
I would generally agree with that. But what you're overlooking is that, although they were socialistic, they were still essentially stateless. And their society was based on an organic community that scaled well. The kind of socialism we're talking about is not even remotely comparable because there is no organic, cohesive community, and the scale of operation is far greater. What these tribes prove is that socialism can only operate sustainably and effectively on small, intimate scales where the people know and care about one another. That simply isn't possible when you're talking about hundreds of millions of total strangers spread out across a giant land mass.

I'm inclined to agree. "Socialism" in this context is an anachronism. You didn't need "social safety nets" in the past and I'm not referring only to "primitive" tribal societies or to pre-historical social contexts. This is true as late as the Medieval world and remains true today all over the globe. Men were immersed in a web of social bonds that made destitution unlikely. We try to recreate those bonds via concepts like socialism but are utterly unable to recreate the reciprocity inherent in them. The modern welfare state is anonymous and impersonal. The wards of the state owe society nothing and society despises them for it.

Dr. Who
03-16-2016, 06:18 PM
So the only time in American history where people were likely to have starved was the most extreme depression we've ever experienced. And even then it's difficult to demonstrate that people were actually starving. Furthermore, there is a good argument to be made that the great depression was caused by governmental manipulation of the economy. So, as far as I can tell, there is little evidence that charity within the context of a free market economy will leave people starving on the streets.
Charity was unable to take care of all of the people starving during the Great Depression. But for the social systems in place now, during the most recent recession (which was virtually a depression), people would have gone without food. The system in place back in 1929 was rather close to the libertarian ideal, notwithstanding the corruption in government. Your issue is with the capitalistic forces both within and without government that have been manipulating market forces since before America became a nation.