PDA

View Full Version : tPF Sides??



AZ Jim
05-18-2016, 05:19 PM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction. There is in general no greater group of chickenhawks than one finds in the area of military service, yet they are the puff chests that will spend fortunes to build the military into a huge business here in America. Democrats recognize that we are not all equally equipped to be self sufficient so we help those who are not. We serve, we support out country. GOP is a selfish corner of society that is inhabited by the "mine first" and "let them eat cake" mentality. As a Democrat, I believe in heavy penalties for those who defraud us on the welfare and disability fronts. GOPers believe we are all frauds and the result is those in need pay for that incorrect belief. I have worked since I was 16, did a jolt in the service of our country, voted ever single election, never had anything greater than traffic tickets. I paid my dues. I am almost 80 with medical problems and limited income to pay for medicines. I try to help those who might be the most help in my and my wife's ability to at least live the rest of our lives with some dignity.

What is your reason for your party selection??

Private Pickle
05-18-2016, 05:34 PM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction. There is in general no greater group of chickenhawks than one finds in the area of military service, yet they are the puff chests that will spend fortunes to build the military into a huge business here in America. Democrats recognize that we are not all equally equipped to be self sufficient so we help those who are not. We serve, we support out country. GOP is a selfish corner of society that is inhabited by the "mine first" and "let them eat cake" mentality. As a Democrat, I believe in heavy penalties for those who defraud us on the welfare and disability fronts. GOPers believe we are all frauds and the result is those in need pay for that incorrect belief. I have worked since I was 16, did a jolt in the service of our country, voted ever single election, never had anything greater than traffic tickets. I paid my dues. I am almost 80 with medical problems and limited income to pay for medicines. I try to help those who might be the most help in my and my wife's ability to at least live the rest of our lives with some dignity.

What is your reason for your party selection??

I don't belong to a party... The Democrats are just as hawkish as displayed by Obama and like to intervene just as much as Republicans... Libya, Egypt, Syria are all products of a Democrat foreign policy. Hillary's foreign policy. You think that will suddenly stop once she is elected President??

SS and medicaid are not benefits...they are entitlements and those entitlements are paid by less than half the population. This isn't progressiveness this is promoting entitlement and the redistribution of wealth. That isn't a Democrat staple...it's a Socialist one...

Education is how you combat this idea that if you sit on your ass the government will take care of you... Of course our education system is a travesty when compared to the rest of the world and why? Because it's a system based on entitlement and promoting mediocrity vs. one of self-sufficiency and responsibility.

You seem to pat yourself on the back because all you did was get a couple of speeding tickets. You aren't special because you didn't break the law... You don't deserve anything as a result of your citizenship because that very citizenship has provided you everything you need to be self-sufficient. That is what this country is all about...not about people who have paying an unfair share so people that don't have can have....

Green Arrow
05-18-2016, 05:35 PM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction. There is in general no greater group of chickenhawks than one finds in the area of military service, yet they are the puff chests that will spend fortunes to build the military into a huge business here in America. Democrats recognize that we are not all equally equipped to be self sufficient so we help those who are not. We serve, we support out country. GOP is a selfish corner of society that is inhabited by the "mine first" and "let them eat cake" mentality. As a Democrat, I believe in heavy penalties for those who defraud us on the welfare and disability fronts. GOPers believe we are all frauds and the result is those in need pay for that incorrect belief. I have worked since I was 16, did a jolt in the service of our country, voted ever single election, never had anything greater than traffic tickets. I paid my dues. I am almost 80 with medical problems and limited income to pay for medicines. I try to help those who might be the most help in my and my wife's ability to at least live the rest of our lives with some dignity.

What is your reason for your party selection??

I am an independent because I heed the wise counsel of George Washington to be wary of the "spirit of party." I am an independent because I like having the freedom to vote with my conscience and not having to "hold my nose" and vote for something or someone I loathe. I'm an independent because my marching orders come from my own mind and my God, not from a partisan cult.

Cletus
05-18-2016, 06:10 PM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction.

They should be destroyed.

“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 (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/63859.James_Madison)

Tahuyaman
05-18-2016, 06:15 PM
The social security trust fund was raided by a Democratic president to pay for an unneeded war. Now it's going broke. Trying to find ways to fix it is not killing it, doing nothing is killing it.

MEDICAID is broke and rife with corruption. It's already broken. All proposed fixes are rejected by the liberals who broke it.

decedent
05-18-2016, 06:21 PM
Before the welfare state, people were begging in the streets... literally.

They say each time capitalism fails, another social program is created by sympathetic lib'ruls.

Peter1469
05-18-2016, 06:24 PM
Privatized SS would make people much better off than SS. We can even have an insurance plan to bail out people when the market does worse that SS would have (extremely rare).

Plus you would have an ownership in it.

BUT, the government would have no control- that is why the Dems are against it.

Common
05-18-2016, 06:26 PM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction. There is in general no greater group of chickenhawks than one finds in the area of military service, yet they are the puff chests that will spend fortunes to build the military into a huge business here in America. Democrats recognize that we are not all equally equipped to be self sufficient so we help those who are not. We serve, we support out country. GOP is a selfish corner of society that is inhabited by the "mine first" and "let them eat cake" mentality. As a Democrat, I believe in heavy penalties for those who defraud us on the welfare and disability fronts. GOPers believe we are all frauds and the result is those in need pay for that incorrect belief. I have worked since I was 16, did a jolt in the service of our country, voted ever single election, never had anything greater than traffic tickets. I paid my dues. I am almost 80 with medical problems and limited income to pay for medicines. I try to help those who might be the most help in my and my wife's ability to at least live the rest of our lives with some dignity.

What is your reason for your party selection??

I was a registered republican for 4 decades. Got pissed at the gop for attacking everything for the working man, Social Security, Medicare, and more. I went independent for I believe the last 9 yrs and I still am.

I still pick and choose the issues im for and against and they go both sides of the aisle.

I wont vote for hillary under any circumstances. Her and Willy have gotten away with more dirty deals than any other living politicians. I also the believe the far left needs to be stopped. They have gone bat shit crazy with their agenda.

I am voting for Donald Trump

AZ Jim
05-18-2016, 06:28 PM
I remember the Bush run on SS. His "privatization" plan gave wall street a fortune to play with, just shortly thereafter the stock market took a dangerous dive. What would have happened to the little guys SS? Yeah, right....

Peter1469
05-18-2016, 06:34 PM
I remember the Bush run on SS. His "privatization" plan gave wall street a fortune to play with, just shortly thereafter the stock market took a dangerous dive. What would have happened to the little guys SS? Yeah, right....

See post 7.

Common
05-18-2016, 06:38 PM
The social security trust fund was raided by a Democratic president to pay for an unneeded war. Now it's going broke. Trying to find ways to fix it is not killing it, doing nothing is killing it.

MEDICAID is broke and rife with corruption. It's already broken. All proposed fixes are rejected by the liberals who broke it.

Youre wrong
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Chris
05-18-2016, 06:40 PM
They're all corrupt.

gamewell45
05-18-2016, 06:44 PM
Never have been a member of any political party; this way I'm not beholden to them whatsoever and therefore can vote for whom I think will do the best job without being a hypocrite.

Mac-7
05-18-2016, 06:44 PM
Before the welfare state, people were begging in the streets... literally.



Since that is your standard for success then bleeding heart liberalism is a massive and expensive FAILURE because people are still begging in the streets.

Tahuyaman
05-18-2016, 08:06 PM
Youre wrong
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html


Sorry. I'm right.

Even the honest liberals admit that SS is going broke. They know fairly drastic reforms must be made. There used to be something like 10 to 15 people contributing for every person receiving benefits. Not any more.

The people with mindset who broke it are people of the mindset which is defending it today. Of course the corrupt element running it is going to defend it.

Tahuyaman
05-18-2016, 08:08 PM
Before the welfare state, people were begging in the streets... literally.

They say each time capitalism fails, another social program is created by sympathetic lib'ruls.

go to San Fracisco, Seattle or Portland, Oregon. You'll see a staggering number of people begging in the streets. All liberal enclaves.

Tahuyaman
05-18-2016, 08:12 PM
SS would have remained solvent had not President Lyndon Jognson (D) raided the trust fund to pay for Vietnam. As it stands now, it technically is broke. It's nothing but IOU's. Just promises to pay.

del
05-18-2016, 08:58 PM
SS would have remained solvent had not President Lyndon Jognson (D) raided the trust fund to pay for Vietnam. As it stands now, it technically is broke. It's nothing but IOU's. Just promises to pay.

you should have read common's link

then you wouldn't look so stupid

Dr. Who
05-18-2016, 09:20 PM
go to San Fracisco, Seattle or Portland, Oregon. You'll see a staggering number of people begging in the streets. All liberal enclaves.
Most of the people begging on the streets are either suffering from mental health issues or drug abuse issues or both. Some years ago they were turned out onto the streets because the public budget for mental health was slashed and the laws around putting people in psychiatric hospitals were changed. Now we have homeless people living and dying on sidewalks, in alleys and under overpasses and we just walk around them or ignore them. The people who are not otherwise at the mercy of psychiatric or chemical issues, but who haven't the education, do what they have to to survive as they have always done. It may not be legal. The Mental Health Systems Act was eliminated under Reagan.

Professor Peabody
05-18-2016, 10:23 PM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction. There is in general no greater group of chickenhawks than one finds in the area of military service, yet they are the puff chests that will spend fortunes to build the military into a huge business here in America. Democrats recognize that we are not all equally equipped to be self sufficient so we help those who are not. We serve, we support out country. GOP is a selfish corner of society that is inhabited by the "mine first" and "let them eat cake" mentality. As a Democrat, I believe in heavy penalties for those who defraud us on the welfare and disability fronts. GOPers believe we are all frauds and the result is those in need pay for that incorrect belief. I have worked since I was 16, did a jolt in the service of our country, voted ever single election, never had anything greater than traffic tickets. I paid my dues. I am almost 80 with medical problems and limited income to pay for medicines. I try to help those who might be the most help in my and my wife's ability to at least live the rest of our lives with some dignity.

What is your reason for your party selection??


In 2011, the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan scorekeeper of fiscal legislation, estimated that the reductions in Medicare spending in the Affordable Care Act we about $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. A more recent estimate from 2013 anticipated about $716 billion in Medicare savings from 2013-2022.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/14/national-republican-congressional-committee/nrcc-says-obamacare-cuts-money-medicare-and-senior/

Obama and the Democrats cut billions out of Medicare.

Tahuyaman
05-18-2016, 11:13 PM
you should have read common's link

then you wouldn't look so stupid

I just stated the facts. Some people find facts quite difficult to face.

Tahuyaman
05-18-2016, 11:18 PM
go to San Fracisco, Seattle or Portland, Oregon. You'll see a staggering number of people begging in the streets. All liberal enclaves.


Most of the people begging on the streets are either suffering from mental health issues or drug abuse issues or both. Some years ago they were turned out onto the streets because the public budget for mental health was slashed and the laws around putting people in psychiatric hospitals were changed. Now we have homeless people living and dying on sidewalks, in alleys and under overpasses and we just walk around them or ignore them. The people who are not otherwise at the mercy of psychiatric or chemical issues, but who haven't the education, do what they have to to survive as they have always done. It may not be legal. The Mental Health Systems Act was eliminated under Reagan.

No matter their circumstances, they are still there. In the mean time 20 trillion dollars has been squandered on various programs to help them. You now complain about a lack of funding? Ok.

what do you want? Another 20 Trillion?

Government spending is a shell game.

decedent
05-19-2016, 01:14 AM
go to San Fracisco, Seattle or Portland, Oregon. You'll see a staggering number of people begging in the streets. All liberal enclaves.

Seattle had the largest Hooverville.

Hoovervilles were homeless encampments that littered the US before the welfare state model.

Mac-7
05-19-2016, 02:08 AM
Seattle had the largest Hooverville.

Hoovervilles were homeless encampments that littered the US before the welfare state model.

Now we have Americans too lazy to work so they draw welfare.

the public charity entitlements are eating a growong share of the budget while the open borders crowd cries for immigrants to do the jobs that Americans refuse to do.

That is no improvement over Hoovervilles.

Refugee
05-19-2016, 06:04 AM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction. There is in general no greater group of chickenhawks than one finds in the area of military service, yet they are the puff chests that will spend fortunes to build the military into a huge business here in America. Democrats recognize that we are not all equally equipped to be self sufficient so we help those who are not. We serve, we support out country. GOP is a selfish corner of society that is inhabited by the "mine first" and "let them eat cake" mentality. As a Democrat, I believe in heavy penalties for those who defraud us on the welfare and disability fronts. GOPers believe we are all frauds and the result is those in need pay for that incorrect belief. I have worked since I was 16, did a jolt in the service of our country, voted ever single election, never had anything greater than traffic tickets. I paid my dues. I am almost 80 with medical problems and limited income to pay for medicines. I try to help those who might be the most help in my and my wife's ability to at least live the rest of our lives with some dignity.

What is your reason for your party selection??

OK, let’s answer, but being a Brit, I’ll disassociate myself from the ‘party association’.

First, the Democrats did not suddenly introduce social security; I believe it’s been around for quite a while. Regarding Medicare (I presume you mean the ACA). What the Democrats have done is massively increase the number of people on both Medicare and social security. This means that someone, somewhere, is having to pay for it and as no government has any money, aside from what it collects from the people, this means your next door neighbour is financing it. When your next door neighbours and millions like them eventually get tired of financing others and take their money elsewhere, you’ll end up like Europe.

Not you, but for the modern day generation social justice warriors demanding equality:
‘If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.’
Thomas Sowell.

You see, it’s OK saying, I’ve done my bit, but unfortunately and this applies to the west in general, there are hundreds of millions who have done nothing, but expect the same slice of cake from those who have. It’s called socialism and it eventually collapses everywhere it’s been tried. If you served in the military years ago, you probably fought against the very Marxists and radicals you’re now voting in, promising the same ideas of a socialist utopia. Chavez in Venezuela is just an example of the most recent in a long list of equality promises and state help failures.

Socialism and radical Marxist presidents didn’t make America great and it’s no coincidence the US is now in decline. How long can a workforce of 122m and declining, keep a population of 319m and rising, of which 44m+ are on food stamps and rising, 28% obese and rising, in equality medical care and welfare? (2015/2016 figures). Officially the US has low unemployment at 5% and the economy is booming. Really? :laugh:

Helping others and being helped in return is admirable; giving that power to the state is dangerous.
Having said that, the 2016 US election campaign has probably produced the worst bunch of socialist, radical and RINOs candidates in its history. If there’s anyone I currently rate, it’s Ron Paul. As a final point, you’re no longer voting Democrat, you’re voting radical, Marxist and progressive; the Jane Fonda’s and Bill Ayres of yesteryear.

Tahuyaman
05-19-2016, 08:08 AM
Seattle had the largest Hooverville.

Hoovervilles were homeless encampments that littered the US before the welfare state model.

now they have tent cities and homeless camps.

MisterVeritis
05-19-2016, 08:32 AM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction. There is in general no greater group of chickenhawks than one finds in the area of military service, yet they are the puff chests that will spend fortunes to build the military into a huge business here in America. Democrats recognize that we are not all equally equipped to be self sufficient so we help those who are not. We serve, we support out country. GOP is a selfish corner of society that is inhabited by the "mine first" and "let them eat cake" mentality. As a Democrat, I believe in heavy penalties for those who defraud us on the welfare and disability fronts. GOPers believe we are all frauds and the result is those in need pay for that incorrect belief. I have worked since I was 16, did a jolt in the service of our country, voted ever single election, never had anything greater than traffic tickets. I paid my dues. I am almost 80 with medical problems and limited income to pay for medicines. I try to help those who might be the most help in my and my wife's ability to at least live the rest of our lives with some dignity.

What is your reason for your party selection??

You list tells me that you failed to understand the Constitution. Maybe that is why you are a Democrat.

Social Security - unconstitutional
Medicare - unconstitutional
Medicaid - unconstitutional
The nearly one hundred federal welfare programs - unconstitutional
Voting in every election - you enabled tyranny by voting for democrats

It is time to restore the Constitution to its rightful role as a limitation on the federal government.

Dr. Who
05-19-2016, 05:11 PM
No matter their circumstances, they are still there. In the mean time 20 trillion dollars has been squandered on various programs to help them. You now complain about a lack of funding? Ok.

what do you want? Another 20 Trillion?

Government spending is a shell game.
Spending money on trying to corral and keep the mentally ill and drug abusers from dying from hunger and exposure is ultimately more expensive than actually treating these people. However, charities are assisting the latter so it seems cheaper. The problem is that it's a band-aid solution. It doesn't treat the underlying problem, so it's a constant draw on resources, whether they be public or private. These people don't actually get treatment until they do something violent and end up in the penal system. Then they get institutional help.

decedent
05-19-2016, 05:11 PM
Now we have Americans too lazy to work so they draw welfare.

the public charity entitlements are eating a growong share of the budget while the open borders crowd cries for immigrants to do the jobs that Americans refuse to do.

That is no improvement over Hoovervilles.

On the contrary, the unemployment rate is around 5%, which is far less than when than before welfare state was created.

AZ Jim
05-19-2016, 05:36 PM
OK, let’s answer, but being a Brit, I’ll disassociate myself from the ‘party association’.

First, the Democrats did not suddenly introduce social security; I believe it’s been around for quite a while. Regarding Medicare (I presume you mean the ACA). What the Democrats have done is massively increase the number of people on both Medicare and social security. This means that someone, somewhere, is having to pay for it and as no government has any money, aside from what it collects from the people, this means your next door neighbour is financing it. When your next door neighbours and millions like them eventually get tired of financing others and take their money elsewhere, you’ll end up like Europe.

Not you, but for the modern day generation social justice warriors demanding equality:
‘If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.’
Thomas Sowell.

You see, it’s OK saying, I’ve done my bit, but unfortunately and this applies to the west in general, there are hundreds of millions who have done nothing, but expect the same slice of cake from those who have. It’s called socialism and it eventually collapses everywhere it’s been tried. If you served in the military years ago, you probably fought against the very Marxists and radicals you’re now voting in, promising the same ideas of a socialist utopia. Chavez in Venezuela is just an example of the most recent in a long list of equality promises and state help failures.

Socialism and radical Marxist presidents didn’t make America great and it’s no coincidence the US is now in decline. How long can a workforce of 122m and declining, keep a population of 319m and rising, of which 44m+ are on food stamps and rising, 28% obese and rising, in equality medical care and welfare? (2015/2016 figures). Officially the US has low unemployment at 5% and the economy is booming. Really? :laugh:

Helping others and being helped in return is admirable; giving that power to the state is dangerous.
Having said that, the 2016 US election campaign has probably produced the worst bunch of socialist, radical and RINOs candidates in its history. If there’s anyone I currently rate, it’s Ron Paul. As a final point, you’re no longer voting Democrat, you’re voting radical, Marxist and progressive; the Jane Fonda’s and Bill Ayres of yesteryear.
You obviously know little of what is being discussed. I will let you off the hook with this, being Brit, it isn't something you should be totally understanding of. Thanks for your interest however. PS Medicare has NOTHING to do with Medicare, medicaid, and social security began in 1936, the same year I came into the world. I paid into it all my life.

Tahuyaman
05-19-2016, 05:39 PM
Spending money on trying to corral and keep the mentally ill and drug abusers from dying from hunger and exposure is ultimately more expensive than actually treating these people. However, charities are assisting the latter so it seems cheaper. The problem is that it's a band-aid solution. It doesn't treat the underlying problem, so it's a constant draw on resources, whether they be public or private. These people don't actually get treatment until they do something violent and end up in the penal system. Then they get institutional help.


So far $20,000,000,000,000.00 and climbing has been spent since the 1960's. How much more is it going to take?

MisterVeritis
05-19-2016, 05:40 PM
You obviously know little of what is being discussed. I will let you off the hook with this, being Brit, it isn't something you should be totally understanding of. Thanks for your interest however. PS Medicare has NOTHING to do with Medicare, medicaid, and social security began in 1936, the same year I came into the world. I paid into it all my life.
Not one of those programs is allowed under our Constitution. FDR was the son of a bitch who really got the socialism thing rolling.

AZ Jim
05-19-2016, 05:44 PM
Not one of those programs is allowed under our Constitution. FDR was the son of a bitch who really got the socialism thing rolling.FDR Was a American Hero elected to office 4 times by Americans. Maybe you are in the wrong country?

Peter1469
05-19-2016, 05:52 PM
Notice: @ MisterVeritis Thread banned by AZ Jim. Do not respond to the thread banned member in this thread.

Refugee
05-19-2016, 06:20 PM
You obviously know little of what is being discussed. I will let you off the hook with this, being Brit, it isn't something you should be totally understanding of. Thanks for your interest however. PS Medicare has NOTHING to do with Medicare, medicaid, and social security began in 1936, the same year I came into the world. I paid into it all my life.

Well, I am a Brit so thank you for letting me off :smiley: Maybe I got it wrong, your initial post I interpreted as Republicans being responsible for the mess the medical system is in and wondered why you’re complaining about Republicans? You’ve had a pretend Democrat for nearly a decade and you’re medical system is still shot. Now the next generation will pay into it all their lives as well and they’ll still be blaming others for its failure. I was referring to the ACA, not the conception of Medicaid and Medicare. Were you also one of those that echoed change you can believe in? Bit of a let-down, wasn’t it. You’ll never achieve the equality that you dream of, believe me, having lived in the kind of societies that tried it, the perfect world doesn’t exist.

AZ Jim
05-19-2016, 06:32 PM
Well, I am a Brit so thank you for letting me off :smiley: Maybe I got it wrong, your initial post I interpreted as Republicans being responsible for the mess the medical system is in and wondered why you’re complaining about Republicans? You’ve had a pretend Democrat for nearly a decade and you’re medical system is still shot. Now the next generation will pay into it all their lives as well and they’ll still be blaming others for its failure. I was referring to the ACA, not the conception of Medicaid and Medicare. Were you also one of those that echoed change you can believe in? Bit of a let-down, wasn’t it. You’ll never achieve the equality that you dream of, believe me, having lived in the kind of societies that tried it, the perfect world doesn’t exist.
Having spent about 80 years here, I think I have a fairly good understanding of where we are, where I think we should be and what is too much to hope for.

Dr. Who
05-19-2016, 07:25 PM
So far $20,000,000,000,000.00 and climbing has been spent since the 1960's. How much more is it going to take?
Money is being misspent on the penny wise, pound foolish model. It's pretty much like just constantly adding oil to a car when it's burning oil and not addressing the problem with the seals or valve guides, as the case may be. At some point, there will be engine failure if the underlying problem is not addressed. People with mental health and/or drug issues (often the latter stems from the former) are often ignored when they are young when these problems could be addressed and dealt with far more inexpensively.

Refugee
05-19-2016, 08:47 PM
Having spent about 80 years here, I think I have a fairly good understanding of where we are, where I think we should be and what is too much to hope for.

You’ve got right to the heart of the matter with this Jim. Where you are is socially and economically collapsing. Where you should be is a dream that has failed everywhere it’s been tried and a hope is just that, a wish that things will change, but they never do, do they.

Look at the amount of poverty, it’s rocketing, not declining and the most in poverty are the huge numbers that are government dependent.
Look at the protests and riots, where is the change you can believe in?
Look at the financially collapsing cities, just about all Democrat run.

Here are a few questions. They’re difficult and that’s because they require an absence of belief and having to face facts. You can ban me too if you like, it’s your thread, but think logically and you’ll eventually come to the conclusion that the beliefs and hopes you have were sold to you by a bunch of elitist millionaires and from the Paris communes of the late 18th century, to Lenin’s revolution and onto Pol Pot’s agrarian year zero revolution and recently Chavez’s attempt in Venezuela, they remain that, a dream and furthermore, they reduced those countries to poverty and destitution.

You’re right, I’ve never been to America, but I have been to many countries that tried to provide a utopia and I’ll guarantee a similar ending in America if you follow the same path.

1. Why do only capitalist economies have entitlement welfare?
2. If the capitalist economic system is destroyed, what will fund equality welfare?
3. If welfare reduces poverty, why are so many poor on it?
4. In which country has equality and social justice for all ever existed?
5. Why do so many immigrants flee from socialist countries to capitalist ones?

Mini Me
05-19-2016, 11:04 PM
Privatized SS would make people much better off than SS. We can even have an insurance plan to bail out people when the market does worse that SS would have (extremely rare).

Plus you would have an ownership in it.

You mean give it over to Wall Street crooks? WE saw what happened in 2008 when the markets collapsed!

BUT, the government would have no control- that is why the Dems are against it.

donttread
05-20-2016, 08:43 AM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction. There is in general no greater group of chickenhawks than one finds in the area of military service, yet they are the puff chests that will spend fortunes to build the military into a huge business here in America. Democrats recognize that we are not all equally equipped to be self sufficient so we help those who are not. We serve, we support out country. GOP is a selfish corner of society that is inhabited by the "mine first" and "let them eat cake" mentality. As a Democrat, I believe in heavy penalties for those who defraud us on the welfare and disability fronts. GOPers believe we are all frauds and the result is those in need pay for that incorrect belief. I have worked since I was 16, did a jolt in the service of our country, voted ever single election, never had anything greater than traffic tickets. I paid my dues. I am almost 80 with medical problems and limited income to pay for medicines. I try to help those who might be the most help in my and my wife's ability to at least live the rest of our lives with some dignity.

What is your reason for your party selection??

Their are only two sides "Mainstream politicians vs the rest of us

birddog
05-20-2016, 11:09 AM
Having spent about 80 years here, I think I have a fairly good understanding of where we are, where I think we should be and what is too much to hope for.

I'm almost 70, and I feel the same about my views. I do respect your right to be wrong however.:grin:

Cigar
05-20-2016, 11:13 AM
I'm a Democrat because I care and share with all people, yes even "those" people :grin:

Mac-7
05-20-2016, 11:26 AM
I'm a Democrat because I care and share with all people, yes even "those" people :grin:

I have yet to meet a poor democrat on the internet who wants the government handout for themselves.

they all say they are rich and just want help strangers who were not so lucky.

Cigar
05-20-2016, 11:37 AM
The Best Part about being a Democrat, is the 8 years of whining and b!tching that came with a Black Community Organizer Kicking The GOP Ass, Twice, Back-2-Back.

Priceless ... well worth the wait and a Life Time of Memories. :grin:

TrueBlue
05-20-2016, 12:35 PM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction. There is in general no greater group of chickenhawks than one finds in the area of military service, yet they are the puff chests that will spend fortunes to build the military into a huge business here in America. Democrats recognize that we are not all equally equipped to be self sufficient so we help those who are not. We serve, we support out country. GOP is a selfish corner of society that is inhabited by the "mine first" and "let them eat cake" mentality. As a Democrat, I believe in heavy penalties for those who defraud us on the welfare and disability fronts. GOPers believe we are all frauds and the result is those in need pay for that incorrect belief. I have worked since I was 16, did a jolt in the service of our country, voted ever single election, never had anything greater than traffic tickets. I paid my dues. I am almost 80 with medical problems and limited income to pay for medicines. I try to help those who might be the most help in my and my wife's ability to at least live the rest of our lives with some dignity.

What is your reason for your party selection??
Thank you, Jim, for your great words that should hopefully open eyes to this dire situation. Republicans could care less for the Middle Class and especially for the poor and whenever they take the White House they exemplify that fact through huge CUTS that they do in services that are very much needed in this country for those folks. When they're not at the White House they get together and try to do the same in Congress. That is why it is so important to VOTE DEMOCRATIC! Democrats really do care about Americans in a way that the GOP never could or would. In a time of a person's greatest need when they are out of work, many times with it not being their own fault, and they have a family to feed while they go out and look for more work, it is the Democrats that you can always count on to be always there to lend a good hand during your struggles.

And yet those who propose to not support Hillary Clinton for president are being misled by the fact that all that glitters is not gold e.g., Trump. Now there's a very rich Multi-BILLIONAIRE who doesn't know about the struggles of common Americans so how can you expect for him to continue in the same vein as the Democrats to help you in the time of your most need? That's just it. He won't.

So, if you truly care about your own well-being as well as your family's you need to support Hillary Clinton who is the only one in the race who can maintain the services that have helped so many millions of Americans continue to stay afloat during their hard times. Republicans won't! It's that simple. They prove that to us time and time and again each time they take office not only in Washington but in the states. They don't deserve another chance to continue to beat us farther and farther into the ground especially when we're already down!

AZ Jim
05-20-2016, 12:40 PM
I'm almost 70, and I feel the same about my views. I do respect your right to be wrong however.:grin:And I respect your right to exercise your lack of knowledge. So I guess, young man, we're 50/50 all around.

Mac-7
05-20-2016, 02:24 PM
The Best Part about being a Democrat, is the 8 years of whining and b!tching that came with a Black Community Organizer Kicking The GOP Ass, Twice, Back-2-Back.

Priceless ... well worth the wait and a Life Time of Memories. :grin:

I thought the best part of being a democrat was the government handouts

Common
05-20-2016, 02:26 PM
I'm a Democrat because I care and share with all people, yes even "those" people :grin:

Youre a democrat because your black and you only care about that, you rhetorically defend everything else democrat because you have too

OGIS
05-20-2016, 04:06 PM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction. There is in general no greater group of chickenhawks than one finds in the area of military service, yet they are the puff chests that will spend fortunes to build the military into a huge business here in America. Democrats recognize that we are not all equally equipped to be self sufficient so we help those who are not. We serve, we support out country. GOP is a selfish corner of society that is inhabited by the "mine first" and "let them eat cake" mentality. As a Democrat, I believe in heavy penalties for those who defraud us on the welfare and disability fronts. GOPers believe we are all frauds and the result is those in need pay for that incorrect belief. I have worked since I was 16, did a jolt in the service of our country, voted ever single election, never had anything greater than traffic tickets. I paid my dues. I am almost 80 with medical problems and limited income to pay for medicines. I try to help those who might be the most help in my and my wife's ability to at least live the rest of our lives with some dignity.

What is your reason for your party selection??

You're usefulness to the Job Creators is over, son. And you should have thought of this time back when you were working, and used those bootstraps to sock away a few million to cover expenses. It's your own fault for being a carefree little grasshopper instead of a hard working industrious ant, like us Job Creators. You just need to go off and die in a corner somewhere and stop being a gimmidat. Seriously, won't someone think of the Billionaires? Stop being so selfish.

Oh, wait, sorry, I was channeling the Koch brothers there for a moment.

My wife and I are registered Democrats for one reason and one reason only: to vote against Billary in the primary in June. Other than that we are pretty much what I like to call "pragmatic, nationalistic libertarians." Before that we were Republicans.

I was pretty much the privileged child with business owner father, and my life experience was, for decades after that, pretty much that of the stereotypical Urban Upper-Middle-Class White Guy. It took a few jolts to awaken me to a lot of the crap that I had been sheltered from during the first 20 years of my life. That's why I left the Republican Party.

My wife, a refugee from the Jehovah's Witness mind control cult, was initially apolitical, but became a Republican when she married me. She decided against that when the Republican Party lost it's mind and got the fundie religious disease.

After the primary in CA we will go back to the LP. If Bernie does not get the Dem nomination we will be voting for Trump. Or at least I will; my wife isn't sure that voting for an a55hole is a good idea. I've HAD IT with the system and think that an a55hole might be just the thing it needs.

Mark III
05-20-2016, 04:14 PM
I've HAD IT with the system and think that an a55hole might be just the thing it needs.

Ridiculous. Maybe he is exactly what we don't need. Since he has no sincere beliefs, who knows?

Trump's most superficially rational proposal --- winning the trade wars through tariffs ----- is unworkable and would never pass through Congress.


What is it you like about Trump ? That his era as president would most resemble the milieu from the satire Idiocracy ?

OGIS
05-20-2016, 04:25 PM
Before the welfare state, people were begging in the streets... literally.

They still are. Less so, I believe, but still there. A good number of them are mentally ill.


They say each time capitalism fails, another social program is created by sympathetic lib'ruls.

What I find interesting is the insistence by free market conservatives that total free markets are by definition the solution to all social ills. They are not. Market economies totally free of regulation (i.e.: Somalia) degenerate rapidly into crime-infested fiefdoms ruled by warlords. Anarchism (as with communism) does not and can not work for anything larger than small tribal structures. And Gilligan's Island is a farking sitcom.

So SOME regulation is necessary. At the very least, laws against murder and theft. Oh, but now we get into gray areas. Two simple examples:

What is murder? Is a doctor who demands payment up front and lets a patient die guilty of murder?

What is theft? Is not mailing a mail-order item already paid for because the company declared bankruptcy theft?

It gets complicated. And the more complex and interdependent the society the more complex the laws and the regulation.

Hey, Mr. Steak Loving Conservative: do you really want a totally un-regulated, totally un-inspected, totally not held to minimum cleanliness standards meat packing industry? Just one example.

Mark III
05-20-2016, 04:28 PM
My main thing in politics is to oppose exploitation, particularly of the "working man" and woman. Everyone on earth pulls their pants on the same way, nobody's shit doesn't stink, and the boss man is not right because he's the boss man. CEO's are paid 350 times as much as workers for the company, which plainly means that the big man makes in one day what it takes the worker all year to make.

Capitalism needs to be regulated by honest government. That has been easier said than done.

The reason we need government more than anything is that for whatever reason human beings are fallen creatures. Left unfettered, they WILL exploit their brothers and sisters. When God returns maybe this will change by His hand, but at the moment it is up to us people to work at it.

Progressive Democrat, conservative on some social issues.

OGIS
05-20-2016, 04:30 PM
POST 7:
Privatized SS would make people much better off than SS. We can even have an insurance plan to bail out people when the market does worse that SS would have (extremely rare).

Plus you would have an ownership in it.

BUT, the government would have no control- that is why the Dems are against it.


I remember the Bush run on SS. His "privatization" plan gave wall street a fortune to play with, just shortly thereafter the stock market took a dangerous dive. What would have happened to the little guys SS? Yeah, right....


See post 7.

LOL, and what if the insurance company goes bankrupt? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Mister D
05-20-2016, 04:32 PM
Not trolling you OGIS so calm down...OK ready? Somalia does not have a market economy. It has what can probably best be described as a traditional economy. Nay...Wikipedia describes it as "informal" That's an even better term. Secondly, you are conflating anarchy as a state of affairs with anarchy as an political ideology. I'll leave it to our resident anarchists to explain the difference to you. Chris Ethereal kilgram

OGIS
05-20-2016, 04:33 PM
you should have read common's link

then you wouldn't look so stupid

That would actually be tough to do.

On both counts.

OGIS
05-20-2016, 04:40 PM
Most of the people begging on the streets are either suffering from mental health issues or drug abuse issues or both. Some years ago they were turned out onto the streets because the public budget for mental health was slashed and the laws around putting people in psychiatric hospitals were changed. Now we have homeless people living and dying on sidewalks, in alleys and under overpasses and we just walk around them or ignore them. The people who are not otherwise at the mercy of psychiatric or chemical issues, but who haven't the education, do what they have to to survive as they have always done. It may not be legal. The Mental Health Systems Act was eliminated under Reagan.


No matter their circumstances, they are still there. In the mean time 20 trillion dollars has been squandered on various programs to help them. You now complain about a lack of funding? Ok.

what do you want? Another 20 Trillion?

Government spending is a shell game.

:smiley_ROFLMAO:, this is both the most transparent and best textbook case of "OH L@@K! OVER THERE!" I have ever seen. Classic!

OGIS
05-20-2016, 04:42 PM
Seattle had the largest Hooverville.

Hoovervilles were homeless encampments that littered the US before the welfare state model.

Seriously, you're expecting conservatives to actually read history?

OGIS
05-20-2016, 04:55 PM
So far $20,000,000,000,000.00 and climbing has been spent since the 1960's. How much more is it going to take?

I, for one, am tremendously impressed with all those zeros. Wow! Looks like a bajillion!

Dude, it's not as impressive, but just say "trillion" OK? It looks less obvious that you are trying to impress.

Dr. Who
05-20-2016, 05:00 PM
So far $20,000,000,000,000.00 and climbing has been spent since the 1960's. How much more is it going to take?
Had appropriate funds been spent on addressing mental health, especially in young people, the total would probably not be 20T today.

OGIS
05-20-2016, 05:01 PM
Not one of those programs is allowed under our Constitution. FDR was the son of a $#@! who really got the socialism thing rolling.

Yes, the Great Satan. Didn't he study under Crowley, and was baby-sat (with predictable, unspeakable results) until age 9 by none other than Helena Blavastsky? At least that's what I heard.

Refugee
05-20-2016, 05:02 PM
Everyone is looking for perfection, the utopia syndrome and not finding it decides it’s the fault of everyone else. Capitalism exploits; not enough people sharing, financial inequalities . . . Is this a 20th century European renaissance occurring in the US?

How about, the Founding Fathers provided us with a safeguard against the horrors of anarchism, communism and National Socialism, which fortunately allowed us not to have to experience all this ourselves.

Mac-7
05-20-2016, 05:06 PM
Had appropriate funds been spent on addressing mental health, especially in young people, the total would probably not be 20T today.

Is mental health a federal issue?

the government employees in washington are no smarter than those working in the states

as far as I can see the law you are talking about was a make-work project to do things the states can do for themselves

as for saving money cutting welfare and forcing more Americans to accept jobs is a better way to keep them off the streets.

AZ Jim
05-20-2016, 05:22 PM
You obviously know little of what is being discussed. I will let you off the hook with this, being Brit, it isn't something you should be totally understanding of. Thanks for your interest however. PS Medicare has NOTHING to do with Medicare, medicaid, and social security began in 1936, the same year I came into the world. I paid into it all my life.Too late to edit but my PS Should have read "Medicare has NOTHING to do with Medicaid" etc....

Dr. Who
05-20-2016, 05:23 PM
Is mental health a federal issue?

the government employees in washington are no smarter than those working in the states

as far as I can see the law you are talking about was a make-work project to do things the states can do for themselves

as for saving money cutting welfare and forcing more Americans to accept jobs is a better way to keep them off the streets.
People suffering from mental health issues are often the people either on the streets or on welfare. They are also more likely to become substance abusers - self-medicating and it often starts when they are quite young. Were these issues addressed on a timely basis, they might instead grow up to become productive citizens. Some mental health issues are caused by external factors - these can be treated with therapy. Others are caused by chemical imbalances, such as schizophrenia and bi-polar syndrome. These can be treated through a combination of medication and therapy. There are millions of people who are functional because they received early treatments. People with untreated mental health issues often cannot hold a job - their behavior makes them unemployable.

Peter1469
05-20-2016, 05:29 PM
A response to post #39

The stock market blows SS out of the water / Link (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3974839-one-investment-retirees)




1928-2015 Annualized Return
Growth of $1


US Stock Market
+9.7%
$3,445


US Value Stock Index
+12.2%
$24,332


65/35 Value Stocks & Bonds
+10.5%
$6,627

Peter1469
05-20-2016, 05:34 PM
SS is going to go bust. So what is your point?



POST 7:





LOL, and what if the insurance company goes bankrupt? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯




1928-2015 Annualized Return

Growth of $1



US Stock Market

+9.7%

$3,445



US Value Stock Index

+12.2%

$24,332



65/35 Value Stocks & Bonds

+10.5%

$6,627

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 05:45 PM
Not trolling you OGIS so calm down...OK ready? Somalia does not have a market economy. It has what can probably best be described as a traditional economy. Nay...Wikipedia describes it as "informal" That's an even better term. Secondly, you are conflating anarchy as a state of affairs with anarchy as an political ideology. I'll leave it to our resident anarchists to explain the difference to you. @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867)

Somalia has had a central government for decades.

It's located in Mogadishu, which just happens to be the epicenter of violence and chaos in Somalia.

The parts of Somalia that can be accurately described as anarchic (Somaliland) are actually quite peaceful and stable, relatively speaking.

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 05:50 PM
Ok, lets talk why I am a democrat and what I believe is important to me. Since the inception of social security and medicare the republicans have tried every trick in the book to eliminate or greatly degenerate those benefits. They chew at it's edges, and try to make inroads to their destruction. There is in general no greater group of chickenhawks than one finds in the area of military service, yet they are the puff chests that will spend fortunes to build the military into a huge business here in America. Democrats recognize that we are not all equally equipped to be self sufficient so we help those who are not. We serve, we support out country. GOP is a selfish corner of society that is inhabited by the "mine first" and "let them eat cake" mentality. As a Democrat, I believe in heavy penalties for those who defraud us on the welfare and disability fronts. GOPers believe we are all frauds and the result is those in need pay for that incorrect belief. I have worked since I was 16, did a jolt in the service of our country, voted ever single election, never had anything greater than traffic tickets. I paid my dues. I am almost 80 with medical problems and limited income to pay for medicines. I try to help those who might be the most help in my and my wife's ability to at least live the rest of our lives with some dignity.

What is your reason for your party selection??

Democrats have supported every major war this country has been in, including the most disastrous one of all, Vietnam.

And Hillary Clinton, the current front-runner for the Democrat nomination, voted for the invasions and occupation of Iraq, which is the second most disastrous of all.

But that wasn't enough for her. She also had to push Obama into waging war on Libya without Congressional approval, throwing that country into chaos and turmoil.

And don't get me started on what Clinton and Kerry have done to Syria. One of the worst crimes against humanity in history. Truly barbaric.

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 05:51 PM
I am an independent because I heed the wise counsel of George Washington to be wary of the "spirit of party." I am an independent because I like having the freedom to vote with my conscience and not having to "hold my nose" and vote for something or someone I loathe. I'm an independent because my marching orders come from my own mind and my God, not from a partisan cult.

Bravo!

Washington smiles upon thee.

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 05:57 PM
Before the welfare state, people were begging in the streets... literally.

People are still begging in the streets.

When I lived in Chicago for two years (a Democrat enclave, no less), I saw homeless beggars on a regular basis.

And the racially segregated ghettos where urban poor live are also pretty awful. Crime-ridden, failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, broken family structures, mass incarceration, all under the watchful eye of benevolent Democrats.

Simply put, Democrat "ideology" (if it can even be referred to as such) has been a demonstrable, miserable failure.


They say each time capitalism fails, another social program is created by sympathetic lib'ruls.

There is nothing particularly sympathetic about promoting dependency and spending other people's money.

AZ Jim
05-20-2016, 05:59 PM
I vote party platform, not individuals. I am a Democrat because I believe in the philosophy of that party. I see republicans as anti-little guy and pro the wealthy and powerful.

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 05:59 PM
I remember the Bush run on SS. His "privatization" plan gave wall street a fortune to play with, just shortly thereafter the stock market took a dangerous dive. What would have happened to the little guys SS? Yeah, right....

Retirement strategies are supposed to be based on long-run performance, not short-run variations.

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 06:01 PM
I vote party platform, not individuals. I am a Democrat because I believe in the philosophy of that party. I see republicans as anti-little guy and pro the wealthy and powerful.

You've been duped.

The Democrat establishment is bought and paid for, just like the Republican establishment.

The Democrats supported the Wall Street bailouts, the wars, mass spying (but you love that), and a whole host of authoritarian, elitist programs.

The problem is that you take their rhetoric at face value, never considering the possibility that they're simply lying in order to promote an ulterior motive.

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 06:07 PM
Seattle had the largest Hooverville.

Hoovervilles were homeless encampments that littered the US before the welfare state model.

But after the so-called "progressive" era of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Wilson.

I guess their centralized model wasn't so swell after all.

OGIS
05-20-2016, 06:08 PM
I've HAD IT with the system and think that an a55hole might be just the thing it needs.

Ridiculous. Maybe he is exactly what we don't need. Since he has no sincere beliefs, who knows?

Trump's most superficially rational proposal --- winning the trade wars through tariffs ----- is unworkable and would never pass through Congress.


What is it you like about Trump ? That his era as president would most resemble the milieu from the satire Idiocracy ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmZOZjHjT5E

But seriously, Trump may actually work out OK. We have had deeply flawed presidents before this. My analysis (which with $2.95 plus tax will get you a cup of coffee at Claim Jumper): Trump is already rich and has power. And Trump is smart, and at least as sane as most of the other candidates (exception: Sanders). So what does Trump want? He wants to be Great. To be known to history as Great.

Now I'll admit that this is a dice roll. Trump's outside-the-box thinking and, yes, showmanship may lead us to a peaceful and bountiful American renewal. Or maybe not; Men Who Would Be Great are often responsible for what the Chinese call "interesting times." But the realistic alternative (Hillary) is a continued slow degradation to corporate feudalism. As I said elsewhere, I'd rather go out with a bang.

Nihilistic? Probably. I really don't GAF.

PS: I still can't find that quote! Something about "flawed men and destiny" or something. I read it somewhere and didn't note it down at the time. Think it was pre-WW2. Might have been a fake quote.

AZ Jim
05-20-2016, 06:09 PM
You've been duped.

The Democrat establishment is bought and paid for, just like the Republican establishment.

The Democrats supported the Wall Street bailouts, the wars, mass spying (but you love that), and a whole host of authoritarian, elitist programs.

The problem is that you take their rhetoric at face value, never considering the possibility that they're simply lying in order to promote an ulterior motive.You are incurably wrong but beyond being educated.

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 06:10 PM
On the contrary, the unemployment rate is around 5%, which is far less than when than before welfare state was created.

You have some data to support that contention?

How far does the data go back?

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 06:10 PM
You are incurably wrong but beyond being educated.

What an ironic statement coming from a party loyalist who has been brainwashed beyond all hope.

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 06:12 PM
FDR Was a American Hero elected to office 4 times by Americans. Maybe you are in the wrong country?

FDR was an elitist trust-fund baby who held multiple positions in Wall Street firms and who used WWII as an excuse to distract people from his failed economic policies during the Great Depression. Arguably one of the worst Presidents in American history.

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 06:13 PM
I'm a Democrat because I care and share with all people, yes even "those" people :grin:

It's not caring and sharing when it's someone else's money. You do realize that, right?

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 06:18 PM
What I find interesting is the insistence by free market conservatives that total free markets are by definition the solution to all social ills. They are not. Market economies totally free of regulation (i.e.: Somalia) degenerate rapidly into crime-infested fiefdoms ruled by warlords. Anarchism (as with communism) does not and can not work for anything larger than small tribal structures. And Gilligan's Island is a farking sitcom.

Free market-economies are not totally free of regulation.

They are based on the protection of an individual's right to life and liberty.

Free markets cannot function properly without such laws.

And that has been understood by proponents of free markets for hundreds of years, beginning with Adam Smith.

As for your reference to Somalia, you should probably be aware that Somalia has had a central government for decades if not centuries. And it just so happens to be located in Mogadishu, which is the epicenter of violence and chaos in Somalia. Coincidence, I'm sure.

OGIS
05-20-2016, 06:36 PM
Everyone is looking for perfection, the utopia syndrome and not finding it decides it’s the fault of everyone else. Capitalism exploits; not enough people sharing, financial inequalities . . . Is this a 20th century European renaissance occurring in the US?

How about, the Founding Fathers provided us with a safeguard against the horrors of anarchism, communism and National Socialism, which fortunately allowed us not to have to experience all this ourselves.


Er.... the Founding Fathers had never HEARD of anarchism, communism and National Socialism. Well, maybe anarchism... But you're throwing out buzzwords. George Orwell's O'Brien would be PROUD! Stop it.

OGIS
05-20-2016, 06:55 PM
Privatized SS would make people much better off than SS. We can even have an insurance plan to bail out people when the market does worse that SS would have (extremely rare).

Plus you would have an ownership in it.

BUT, the government would have no control- that is why the Dems are against it.


: LOL, and what if the insurance company goes bankrupt? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


SS is going to go bust. So what is your point?




1928-2015 Annualized Return
Growth of $1


US Stock Market

+9.7%
$3,445


US Value Stock Index

+12.2%
$24,332


65/35 Value Stocks & Bonds

+10.5%
$6,627




Cute. Leaving some refs of mine out to just slightly change the meaning. Seriously, you should have a senior position with the Ministry of Truth.

My point is that if you have insurance for your private social security account, and the stock market implodes and zeros out your retirement fund, then you file a claim with the insurer. Well, what if the insurer goes bankrupt? Seems like that might be just a tad likely with a general stock market collapse, don't you think? And we couldn't have the government insuring the accounts, because that would be SOCIALISM!

This suggestion of private, insured social security accounts is flawed. The danger is the same one as that posed by a "run" on a bank. Unless the bank was NOT fractionating their reserves and had a dollar on hand to cover each dollar of deposits suddenly withdrawn that bank is bankrupt. An insurance company would be in a similar position: having to pay out millions of claims from limited reserves.

To have reserves to cover such a run, the insurance companies involved would have to have aggregate net current assets (i.e.: assets instantly transferable into cash) equal to the total social security liability.

So again, answer the goddamned question instead of prancing like a pony around it: what if the insurance company goes bankrupt?

Do we just go ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ???

OGIS
05-20-2016, 07:06 PM
It's not caring and sharing when it's someone else's money. You do realize that, right?

It's ALWAYS somebody else's money. Even in a theoretical completely free enterprise economy. The Wesley Mouches and other assorted 2nd handers will still be around to game the system. A non-authoritarian system cannot defend against them (neither can an authoritarian one; they simply infiltrate the system). But - assuming the typical bell curve of human intelligence and gullibility - a free society is red meat for them.

Peter1469
05-20-2016, 07:08 PM
Cute. Leaving some refs of mine out to just slightly change the meaning. Seriously, you should have a senior position with the Ministry of Truth.

My point is that if you have insurance for your private social security account, and the stock market implodes and zeros out your retirement fund, then you file a claim with the insurer. Well, what if the insurer goes bankrupt? Seems like that might be just a tad likely with a general stock market collapse, don't you think? And we couldn't have the government insuring the accounts, because that would be SOCIALISM!

This suggestion of private, insured social security accounts is flawed. The danger is the same one as that posed by a "run" on a bank. Unless the bank was NOT fractionating their reserves and had a dollar on hand to cover each dollar of deposits suddenly withdrawn that bank is bankrupt. An insurance company would be in a similar position: having to pay out millions of claims from limited reserves.

To have reserves to cover such a run, the insurance companies involved would have to have aggregate net current assets (i.e.: assets instantly transferable into cash) equal to the total social security liability.

So again, answer the goddamned question instead of prancing like a pony around it: what if the insurance company goes bankrupt?

Do we just go ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ???

The market rarely crashes to the point where your investments would be worth less than your SS benefits. Who needs insurance anyway. The government could use "quantitative easing" but instead of giving the money to failed banks, give it to the people who lost in the market.

The point of the chart is that the vast majority of the time there will be no need for a bailout. The market will vastly outperform the measly returns of SS.

The hard left refused to allow it, because market returns are your private property.

I should be in charge of the Ministry of Truth.

OGIS
05-20-2016, 07:11 PM
Free market-economies are not totally free of regulation.

They are based on the protection of an individual's right to life and liberty.

Free markets cannot function properly without such laws.

And that has been understood by proponents of free markets for hundreds of years, beginning with Adam Smith.

As for your reference to Somalia, you should probably be aware that Somalia has had a central government for decades if not centuries. And it just so happens to be located in Mogadishu, which is the epicenter of violence and chaos in Somalia. Coincidence, I'm sure.

Again, changing the meaning of my post by leaving out key parts of it. Are you Peter's apprentice, or is he yours?

I mentioned laws against murder and theft. The niggling little parts are in the details. Increased social complexity necessarily leads to more and more restrictive laws. Aside from conspiracy theories, this is why societies always become more regulated as they age. It is a natural outcome.

The Somalia reference was not-carefully-considered sarcasm.

del
05-20-2016, 07:20 PM
The market rarely crashes to the point where your investments would be worth less than your SS benefits. Who needs insurance anyway. The government could use "quantitative easing" but instead of giving the money to failed banks, give it to the people who lost in the market.

The point of the chart is that the vast majority of the time there will be no need for a bailout. The market will vastly outperform the measly returns of SS.

The hard left refused to allow it, because market returns are your private property.

I should be in charge of the Ministry of Truth.

truer words were never spoken, winston

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 07:54 PM
It's ALWAYS somebody else's money.

How is it someone else's money if I earned the money and then gave it to a charity?


Even in a theoretical completely free enterprise economy. The Wesley Mouches and other assorted 2nd handers will still be around to game the system. A non-authoritarian system cannot defend against them (neither can an authoritarian one; they simply infiltrate the system). But - assuming the typical bell curve of human intelligence and gullibility - a free society is red meat for them.

I don't follow.

Ethereal
05-20-2016, 07:57 PM
Again, changing the meaning of my post by leaving out key parts of it. Are you Peter's apprentice, or is he yours?

I mentioned laws against murder and theft. The niggling little parts are in the details.

If you mentioned laws against murder and theft, then why would you characterize a free market as being "unregulated"?


Increased social complexity necessarily leads to more and more restrictive laws.

Why?


Aside from conspiracy theories, this is why societies always become more regulated as they age. It is a natural outcome.

It's only a "conspiracy theory" when you don't agree with it, apparently. Otherwise, you seem perfectly comfortable with peddling them.


The Somalia reference was not-carefully-considered sarcasm.

The Somalia reference is the example that statists like to use when demonizing liberty, even though Somalia is probably one of the best examples of how anarchy works better than statism.

Mister D
05-20-2016, 08:06 PM
Again, changing the meaning of my post by leaving out key parts of it. Are you Peter's apprentice, or is he yours?

I mentioned laws against murder and theft. The niggling little parts are in the details. Increased social complexity necessarily leads to more and more restrictive laws. Aside from conspiracy theories, this is why societies always become more regulated as they age. It is a natural outcome.

The Somalia reference was not-carefully-considered sarcasm.

The Somalia reference was not sarcasm ill-considered or otherwise. It was an attempt to equate market economy with anarchy in the sense of social and political chaos. As much as I disagree with liberal pretensions that's simply not what is advocated. That caricature is what you wanted to convey. Own up to it.

Refugee
05-20-2016, 08:18 PM
Er.... the Founding Fathers had never HEARD of anarchism, communism and National Socialism. Well, maybe anarchism... But you're throwing out buzzwords. George Orwell's O'Brien would be PROUD! Stop it.

They knew enough to envisage what lay ahead. That’s why they provided the constitution.
Many are now playing fantasies with the same ideologies that destroyed Europe in the 20th century and trying to pretend they’ve come up with some new ideas. There is no brave new equal world at the end of the rainbow. All these variants of socialism, anarchism and Marxism have all been tried before and like before, they will come back and bite hard when put into practice.

Don’t you find it ironic and a little sad really, that after 8 years of being suckered with ‘change you can believe in’ and many not even knowing that the US has a radical Marxist President, many still want more progressivism from the likes of Sanders and Clinton, because it didn’t work the first time around?
No wonder these people run rings around you. Here we go again :smiley:

14743

Mac-7
05-21-2016, 04:14 AM
They knew enough to envisage what lay ahead. That’s why they provided the constitution.
Many are now playing fantasies with the same ideologies that destroyed Europe in the 20th century and trying to pretend they’ve come up with some new ideas. There is no brave new equal world at the end of the rainbow. All these variants of socialism, anarchism and Marxism have all been tried before and like before, they will come back and bite hard when put into practice.

Don’t you find it ironic and a little sad really, that after 8 years of being suckered with ‘change you can believe in’ and many not even knowing that the US has a radical Marxist President, many still want more progressivism from the likes of Sanders and Clinton, because it didn’t work the first time around?
No wonder these people run rings around you. Here we go again :smiley:

14743


Well said.

Mac-7
05-21-2016, 04:17 AM
People suffering from mental health issues are often the people either on the streets or on welfare. They are also more likely to become substance abusers - self-medicating and it often starts when they are quite young. Were these issues addressed on a timely basis, they might instead grow up to become productive citizens. Some mental health issues are caused by external factors - these can be treated with therapy. Others are caused by chemical imbalances, such as schizophrenia and bi-polar syndrome. These can be treated through a combination of medication and therapy. There are millions of people who are functional because they received early treatments. People with untreated mental health issues often cannot hold a job - their behavior makes them unemployable.

Ok to all of that.

but what makes it a one-size-fits-all federal issue?

Dr. Who
05-21-2016, 12:50 PM
Ok to all of that.

but what makes it a one-size-fits-all federal issue?
Although most mental health programs and facilities are state managed, they are also one of the very first targets for cutbacks in state spending during any recession. The federal government could direct federal funding to states to ensure that people seeking and receiving mental health care treatment are not left without resources during recessionary times. It can also act in a leadership role to stress the importance of mental health care by providing public messages teaching people that mental health is just as relevant to well-being as physical health.

OGIS
05-21-2016, 01:14 PM
Although most mental health programs and facilities are state managed, they are also one of the very first targets for cutbacks in state spending during any recession. The federal government could direct federal funding to states to ensure that people seeking and receiving mental health care treatment are not left without resources during recessionary times. It can also act in a leadership role to stress the importance of mental health care by providing public messages teaching people that mental health is just as relevant to well-being as physical health.

Should the state government decide to cut these people loose from their cushy mental health welfare benefits, I suspect that conservative doctrine would say that these people should simply be relying on their own bootstraps. They should have thought of the consequences of mental illness before they became mentally ill, and taken appropriate preventative actions. It is not the obligation of hard working patriots to care for the lazy, and - by a strict interpretation of the US Constitution - the federal government should not be giving handouts to the mentally ill gimmidat crowd. Harsh, yes, but it is a harsh world. Choices have consequences. And "promote the general welfare" means something entirely different that what you think it does.

Peter1469
05-21-2016, 02:30 PM
Should the state government decide to cut these people loose from their cushy mental health welfare benefits, I suspect that conservative doctrine would say that these people should simply be relying on their own bootstraps. They should have thought of the consequences of mental illness before they became mentally ill, and taken appropriate preventative actions. It is not the obligation of hard working patriots to care for the lazy, and - by a strict interpretation of the US Constitution - the federal government should not be giving handouts to the mentally ill gimmidat crowd. Harsh, yes, but it is a harsh world. Choices have consequences. And "promote the general welfare" means something entirely different that what you think it does.

Federalism. It doesn't mean the federal government cares for you from cradle to grave.

States play a role. You know with everything not listed in Art. 1, sec. 8, US Cont. The enumerated powers.

Tahuyaman
05-21-2016, 03:14 PM
Federalism. It doesn't mean the federal government cares for you from cradle to grave.

States play a role. You know with everything not listed in Art. 1, sec. 8, US Cont. The enumerated powers.

That view is repulsive to some

OGIS
05-21-2016, 04:18 PM
Federalism. It doesn't mean the federal government cares for you from cradle to grave.

States play a role. You know with everything not listed in Art. 1, sec. 8, US Cont. The enumerated powers.

Totally agree. The federal government has no legitimate reason to promote the general welfare, since that is only in the Preamble, and the other mention is totally restrictive according to relevant interpretations.

But, hey, the federal government can play its part on the "insure domestic tranquility" front by furnishing the machine guns, bombs and bullets to the individual states to put down the food riots. So we're good.

Peter1469
05-21-2016, 04:34 PM
Totally agree. The federal government has no legitimate reason to promote the general welfare, since that is only in the Preamble, and the other mention is totally restrictive according to relevant interpretations.

But, hey, the federal government can play its part on the "insure domestic tranquility" front by furnishing the machine guns, bombs and bullets to the individual states to put down the food riots. So we're good.


Your reading of the Constitution is sub-elementary and incorrect. You sound like a living constitution / democrat (sorry to repeat myself) talking point.

The General Welfare clause contains the enumerated powers. The States never ceded all power to the federal government. No student of history would give that concept serious consideration.

After reading your post again, just lol.

OGIS
05-21-2016, 04:47 PM
Your reading of the Constitution is sub-elementary and incorrect. You sound like a living constitution / democrat (sorry to repeat myself) talking point.

The General Welfare clause contains the enumerated powers. The States never ceded all power to the federal government. No student of history would give that concept serious consideration.

After reading your post again, just lol.

You are confusing me. I am agreeing with you... but you keep repeating yourself like I am not.

Peter1469
05-21-2016, 04:53 PM
You are confusing me. I am agreeing with you... but you keep repeating yourself like I am not.

Your post didn't seem to agree, but rather ramble.

decedent
05-25-2016, 06:21 PM
There is nothing particularly sympathetic about promoting dependency and spending other people's money.

Which is the libertarian's answer to everything.

But I thought most libertarians were fine with charity. Charity is a reliance on other people's money. I'm confused.

You'll go on about being forced to give money, but aside from that, charity is still a form of dependency. Ayn Rand said to be selfish: don't give; just take. Survival of the fittest, I guess. But no society like this ever succeeded. It's almost as if being a part of a society means sharing, so selfish people need to be forced to share -- even if it's just a bit.

I wonder why the Norwegian model works so well with all of that sharing and giving. It's almost like those commies are onto something... as if they've regressed to pre-neoliberal time when we were expected to help each other, as we see in so many "primitive" societies.

Savages.

OGIS
05-25-2016, 07:54 PM
Which is the libertarian's answer to everything.

But I thought most libertarians were fine with charity. Charity is a reliance on other people's money. I'm confused.

You'll go on about being forced to give money, but aside from that, charity is still a form of dependency. Ayn Rand said to be selfish: don't give; just take. Survival of the fittest, I guess. But no society like this ever succeeded. It's almost as if being a part of a society means sharing, so selfish people need to be forced to share -- even if it's just a bit.

I wonder why the Norwegian model works so well with all of that sharing and giving. It's almost like those commies are onto something... as if they've regressed to pre-neoliberal time when we were expected to help each other, as we see in so many "primitive" societies.

Savages.

Rand's position was a bit more nuanced than that. She re-defined the English word "selfish" to align with the meaning of the original Greek root. Today, we have two "modes" of social behavior: "selfish" meaning taking; and "selfless" meaning giving. The Greeks had three modes. If you've ever read Aristotle you have run into this, and Rand recapitulated it in her non-fiction Objectivist articles. I don't remember the Greek words, but it was essentially:

(1) "selfless(1)" meaning distorting or demeaning your "self" or soul by exploiting others (taking sacrifice)

(2) "selfless(2)" meaning distorting or demeaning your "self" or soul by allowing others to exploit you (giving sacrifice)

These two, as Rand noted, are two sides of the same coin; you can't have one without the other.

(3) "selfish" meaning "elevating your "self" or soul by being independent of others.

Mister D
05-25-2016, 08:04 PM
Rand's position was a bit more nuanced than that. She re-defined the English word "selfish" to align with the meaning of the original Greek root. Today, we have two "modes" of social behavior: "selfish" meaning taking; and "selfless" meaning giving. The Greeks had three modes. If you've ever read Aristotle you have run into this, and Rand recapitulated it in her non-fiction Objectivist articles. I don't remember the Greek words, but it was essentially:

(1) "selfless(1)" meaning distorting or demeaning your "self" or soul by exploiting others (taking sacrifice)

(2) "selfless(2)" meaning distorting or demeaning your "self" or soul by allowing others to exploit you (giving sacrifice)

These two, as Rand noted, are two sides of the same coin; you can't have one without the other.

(3) "selfish" meaning "elevating your "self" or soul by being independent of others.

We're not independent of each other. Rand was obviously an idiot and a delusional one at that if her meltdown after being dumped for a younger woman is any indication...and it is. lol