this may be the only thing that I've ever agreed with Rick Perry about

[retro]

Keep saying Ponzi Scheme, Ponzi Scheme, Ponzi Scheme- all of your easily influenced minions will believe you.

Regarding income taxes, you need to re-view your own posts fella. :smiley24:

Like AA said, it isn't a true Ponzi scheme because we're required to pay into it, which a Ponzi scheme is voluntary. Please, in detail, explain to me how Social Security different significantly from a Ponzi scheme? I'd really love to hear that.

What about my own posts? Income tax doesn't have anything to do with what was said. But while we're on the subject, I believe that the current income tax system is flawed beyond repair and we need to move to a FairTax system. Everyone pays the same percentages, and it eliminates things like tax shelters, and all of the loopholes that exist in the current system. It says a lot about our taxation system when the US Tax Code is nearly 17,000 pages long!

 

[retro]

Are you insinuating that it's the rich that create the jobs? Really?

What would you consider rich? $250k/yr? $500kyr? $1mil/yr? If it's any of those, then I can without hesitation tell you that I've been employed by the "rich" before. Doctors. They create jobs, yes they're created because people need health care, but they are jobs created none the less. My current job exists because of "rich" dairymen. When dairies had bad years, my industry took a nose dive. When the dairy industry came back, we hired more employees and we got raises. Most dairymen are considered to be "rich", at least by the definitions of the word according to the left. So that's two different industries that I've worked in where the "rich" create jobs.

 

[Francis]

So because we don't see the world in liberal colored glasses, we're stupid? Is that it? Okay Tim, you're stupid because you think that the liberal mindset is one that actually cares about the "poor". Try this one on for size... government revenue went up in the 80s when Reagan enacted his tax cuts. Personal income levels went up, and so did government revenues. If supply side economics has been proven false time and time again, than this "stimulus" that the President bullied through Congress and forced on the American people proves that Keynesian economics is a false theory as well.

So you'd like to double dip on people's personal wealth? If a one-time 15% tax on your personal income would help a struggling family get out of debt, would you be amenable to it? I mean, after all, you're all about the common working man, right?

Funny I was reading something I thought might interest you.. It relates to this topics.. No I am not about to join your debate on this topic but this caught my eye..

Enjoy..
http://www.bigissueground.com/politics/blair-trickledownreagan.shtml

 

[Accountable]

The same old complaint about robbing SS is silly. That has nothing to do with it being headed for disaster. All it did was to speed it up a bit. It may not fit the technical definition of a ponzi scheme but in the end it sure quacks like one. Because it is not sustainable. The ratio of retirees to workers has shifted and there simply are not enough workers putting money in to continue to keep it solvent

Doesn't matter anyway because it's unconstitutional as a federal law.

If they do their jobs, pain is in our future except for the rich of course. Republicans will make sure they always live the good life. My doubts are about being brave enough to actually fix it without playing favorites.

Holy fuck! You are blind blind blind. I'll keep responding to you because I'm hopeful others read my posts, because you sure as hell don't, at least on the partisan issue.

You keep blaming the republicans exclusively and conveniently ignore the fact that it was a dem-controlled congress that voted for the $2 trillion in gifts to the rich and the bailouts of the rich. All these subsidies for new energy - who do you think that money is going to? Try GM and GE. Insurance mandates? Blue Cross, Humana, Aetna. Not exactly your stereotypical mom & pop operations.

 

[Minor Axis]

Holy fuck! You are blind blind blind. I'll keep responding to you because I'm hopeful others read my posts, because you sure as hell don't, at least on the partisan issue.

Number one, calm down. Number two I'm not asking for any "reply" favors. Only reply if you think it is worthwhile otherwise ignore me. There is an agitation in your reply that I don't feel compelled to massage. This is JUST a forum discussion.

You keep blaming the republicans exclusively and conveniently ignore the fact that it was a dem-controlled congress that voted for the $2 trillion in gifts to the rich and the bailouts of the rich. All these subsidies for new energy - who do you think that money is going to? Try GM and GE. Insurance mandates? Blue Cross, Humana, Aetna. Not exactly your stereotypical mom & pop operations.

Listen, if you care too. We are in a game of pick the lesser of evils. A lot of you guys are Libertarians, but when push comes to shove, you'll pick Republicans over Democrats. Democrats are FAR from perfect, but I feel that the there is a better shot with them than anyone else. It's the hand we have been dealt. Democrats in many ways are inept. Republicans are outright hostile to working class/middle class citizens. They don't even disguise it. Sure I could always retreat to my cave and give up. In the meantime I will attack the biggest threat. And I am happy to criticize Democrats. It looks like the President has or will throw in the towel on the tax break for those making over whatever large amount it is. Fine, the Dems don't ever disappoint do they? :smiley24:

I assume you are referring to corporate bailouts. I would not automatically qualify corporate loans as loans to the rich. My impression is that when Bush first threw money at banks, it was basically without conditions. I could be wrong about that. The Obama Administration has attached conditions and governance. Are you saying that was wrong to do? I have all ready stated that I don't know if they saved the economy or did nothing. Regarding bailouts, don't ever expect to get an honest answer from the Dems or the Repbulicans in charge. It is way too partisan. That being said, I'd paint the Republicans as being 10X more partisan than their Democrat opponents. That is based on what they say and how they act, not my liberal leanings. The gist of my argument is that if we are going to give large corporations/banks huge bailouts, then individuals should get some kind of equivalent consideration. For example should the bank who got a bailout be foreclosing on individuals?

Please only respond if you think you can do that without a expletives and !!!!!!!!! Otherwise maybe another forum break is in order.

 

[retro]

Please, in detail, explain to me how Social Security different significantly from a Ponzi scheme? I'd really love to hear that.

Wondering if anyone is actually willing to try this.

 

[Tim]

Wondering if anyone is actually willing to try this.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/12/is_social_secur.html

But there is one enormous difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme: Technological change. Over the past century, new technologies have enabled the output of the country to grow much faster than its population. To be more precise, the U.S. population has more than tripled since the early 1900s, while the U.S. economic output has gone up by more than 20 times.
This long track record of technology-powered growth has enabled the enormous rise in living standards in the U.S. and other developed countries. In fact, this increase in productivity—output per worker—is the key fact which gives us our way of life today.



Assuming that technological progress continues over the next 70 years, and output productivity growth continues over the next 70 years, the finances of Social Security are relatively easy to fix. A fairly minor cut in benefits, combined with a relatively small increase in taxes, will bring the system back into balance again.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/12/is_social_secur.html

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/12/is_social_secur.html

Based on your definition, all insurance would fall under the ponzi scheme heading, right?

 

[Accountable]

Number one, calm down. Number two I'm not asking for any "reply" favors. Only reply if you think it is worthwhile otherwise ignore me. There is an agitation in your reply that I don't feel compelled to massage. This is JUST a forum discussion.

About vitally important issues. Minor, I like you, otherwise I wouldn't bother. It just drives me up the wall when you ignore the evidence right in front of you, some of which you've actually acknowledged, and continue to claim republicans are somehow 100% to blame for all of America's ills and democrats are in no way complicit.

Listen, if you care too. We are in a game of pick the lesser of evils.

YOU are in a game of pick the lesser, and it's a self-fulfilling prophesy that doesn't have to be.

A lot of you guys are Libertarians, but when push comes to shove, you'll pick Republicans over Democrats. Democrats are FAR from perfect, but I feel that the there is a better shot with them than anyone else. It's the hand we have been dealt.

What a statement of hopelessness and helplessness. It doesn't fit you.

Democrats in many ways are inept. Republicans are outright hostile to working class/middle class citizens. They don't even disguise it. Sure I could always retreat to my cave and give up.

You have given up. You're just trying to find the abuser that beats you less.

I assume you are referring to corporate bailouts. I would not automatically qualify corporate loans as loans to the rich.

Well, I suppose you have to make exceptions for the pauper corporate CEO's.

My impression is that when Bush first threw money at banks, it was basically without conditions. I could be wrong about that. The Obama Administration has attached conditions and governance. Are you saying that was wrong to do?

YES!!

I have all ready stated that I don't know if they saved the economy or did nothing. Regarding bailouts, don't ever expect to get an honest answer from the Dems or the Repbulicans in charge. It is way too partisan. That being said, I'd paint the Republicans as being 10X more partisan than their Democrat opponents. That is based on what they say and how they act, not my liberal leanings.

uhuh

The gist of my argument is that if we are going to give large corporations/banks huge bailouts, then individuals should get some kind of equivalent consideration. For example should the bank who got a bailout be foreclosing on individuals?

So it's not enough that we waste tax dollars bailing out only some undeserving recipients, we should bail out everybody?

Please only respond if you think you can do that without a expletives and !!!!!!!!! Otherwise maybe another forum break is in order.

:smiley31:

 

[Codrus]

Based on your definition, all insurance would fall under the ponzi scheme heading, right?

tim,..it does seem to fall into that category, in my opinion,....i mean think about it,..what else do you pay into year after year and never get anything out of,...or have to pay more if something does happen?

seems like the insurance companies can cancel and drop anyone on a whim but you you have to go through through a 20 point inspection just to be considered...it shouldn't work that way.

too much money,..too many lobbyists

 

[retro]

Based on your definition, all insurance would fall under the ponzi scheme heading, right?

I get a tangible result back from paying for medical insurance. In addition, the benefits that I receive are not dependent upon what someone else is putting in, at least not in the way that social security does. For a system like Social Security to function, you have to have people paying into the system at least as much as is being taken out, if that balance is lost, then the entire system is completely insolvent.

I also very highly disagree with the assertion that the only thing that needs to be done for SS is to drop payouts and raise taxes. Give me a break. Just let me take that money elsewhere... I don't want to be paying into a system that chances are I'll never see a penny from, that's theft.

 

[Accountable]

I really don't know what fucking world you guys live in. The rich have never crated jobs in this country. It's the buying public that create demand for goods that create the need for the jobs. The vast majority of jobs in the US are created by the middle class and small businesses.

Good point.
This middle class and small business: do they earn more or less than $250,000?

 

[Minor Axis]

Wondering if anyone is actually willing to try this.

I all ready have on several occasions and it's a waste of effort to ears that have made up their minds. I asked the same question when I was 18. If the program can't be adjusted to a workable state, then it should be abandoned.

 

[Minor Axis]

About vitally important issues. Minor, I like you, otherwise I wouldn't bother. It just drives me up the wall when you ignore the evidence right in front of you, some of which you've actually acknowledged, and continue to claim republicans are somehow 100% to blame for all of America's ills and democrats are in no way complicit.

One person's evidence is another person's propaganda. I witness this daily on my television and in this forum. - just an observation.

Many of my posts seem that way, but I don't blame them 100%, how about 70%? Eight years of a Republican Administration mostly backed by a Republican Congress, pushed us to an extreme. They had it in their hands, the chance to make things right, the self proclaimed fiscally responsible and they just FUCKED IT UP. Mostly what I can't abide by the Republican Party is their claim of fiscal responsibility with tons of evidence to the contrary and thinly veiled hostility against the working class. Have the Democrats messed up? Yes they have but based on the the stated and more importantly implied goals of both parties, if I have to pick one or the other, today it is Democrats.

YOU are in a game of pick the lesser, and it's a self-fulfilling prophesy that doesn't have to be.

I'll always consider a workable solution. If you are selling the Libertarian Party, now you can go on the stump and convince millions more. Keep in mind that it is made up of people, just like all the other parties and susceptible to the same shortcomings.

What a statement of hopelessness and helplessness. It doesn't fit you. You have given up. You're just trying to find the abuser that beats you less.

It is a statement of pragmatism. I don't feel hopeless or helpless. When I see a better choice, I'll go for it. With Libertarian's peculiar views on individual freedom and their retro view on the Constitution, I'm not convinced they are the answer and if they ever achieved a majority, I am concerned about what kind of economic havoc they could reek.

The real problem here is our Democracy. To place a party in power with a radical view, while their final goal might be a good solution, it is most likely that as soon as the populace starts feeling pain, they all would be voted out on their asses. This does give me a sense of hopelessness. I have yet to see a party with the integrity to get the job done. Heck at this point, I don't even know what the job should be.

Well, I suppose you have to make exceptions for the pauper corporate CEO's.

Even I can acknowledge that large corporations are made up of more than CEOs and that they have a significant impact on the economy.

So it's not enough that we waste tax dollars bailing out only some undeserving recipients, we should bail out everybody?

The philosophy if it has merit should be standardized.

:smiley31:

OO (hugs without the kisses).

 

[Accountable]

The real problem here is our Democracy. To place a party in power with a radical view, while their final goal might be a good solution, it is most likely that as soon as the populace starts feeling pain, they all would be voted out on their asses. This does give me a sense of hopelessness. I have yet to see a party with the integrity to get the job done. Heck at this point, I don't even know what the job should be.

You say the real problem is our Democracy, which I take to mean the heart of America (correct me if I'm wrong), but you vote based on the economy. We have abandoned our American principles - our democratic principles - in favor of a strong economy.

Any change is going to cause pain and will likely be rejected early on, but will be more acceptable the more it is brought up. Those from Wilson to Obama who would tear down our "Land of the Free" slogan know this and have brought back old rejected ideas yet again. A couple changes have taken hold each time the majority were rejected. A couple changes will take hold this time before the public realizes that the cost far exceeds the benefit. They will come back again as soon as the memory of the pain fades again.

The philosophy if it has merit should be standardized.

The philosophy has no merit and should be rejected across the board.

 

[Minor Axis]

You say the real problem is our Democracy, which I take to mean the heart of America (correct me if I'm wrong), but you vote based on the economy. We have abandoned our American principles - our democratic principles - in favor of a strong economy.

I'm saying that when our elected politician's take steps to fix the problem, if enough people feel pain, the odds are good that someone else will be elected for the next cycle. This is a huge problem with Democracy.

Any change is going to cause pain and will likely be rejected early on, but will be more acceptable the more it is brought up.

And how do you imagine that will be implemented in any kind of an efficient manner?

Those from Wilson to Obama who would tear down our "Land of the Free" slogan know this and have brought back old rejected ideas yet again. A couple changes have taken hold each time the majority were rejected. A couple changes will take hold this time before the public realizes that the cost far exceeds the benefit. They will come back again as soon as the memory of the pain fades again.

Freedom is relative. Old rejected ideas? If you look before Wilson into the 1800's it was the world of the tycoons. Huge amounts of power focused in a small number of hands. That is the idea that was rejected and yes, greedy bastards are trying to bring it back today.

The philosophy has no merit and should be rejected across the board.

I'm not arguing against you, but asking should large corporations that employ tens of thousands be allowed to fail based on errors in leadership? Tear it down and start from scratch or provide a loan and look for payback? I'm not saying yes or no, just throwing it out for discussion. In a purely accountable system, the answer would be yes. The effects of the Great Depression lasted 10 years. This last time around the government could have said, "screw you" and then watched the economy unravel. It's hard for me to say which approach is better long term.

 

[Accountable]

I'm saying that when our elected politician's take steps to fix the problem, if enough people feel pain, the odds are good that someone else will be elected for the next cycle. This is a huge problem with Democracy.

Fix the problem? We don't even agree on what the problem is that needs to be fixed.

Freedom is relative. Old rejected ideas?

Freedom is not relative. More freedom, more responsibility; less freedom, less responsibility. People today are willing to give up more and more freedom so that they have minimum responsibility.

If you look before Wilson into the 1800's it was the world of the tycoons. Huge amounts of power focused in a small number of hands. That is the idea that was rejected and yes, greedy bastards are trying to bring it back today.

The rejected ideas I refer to are Wilson's own, repeated by FDR, and now Obama. Each time they made a little more headway. Next time they will make a little more.

I'm not arguing against you, but asking should large corporations that employ tens of thousands be allowed to fail based on errors in leadership?

Yes. Had that happened I believe we would be well on our way to recovery, with the crappy corporations scrapped and parts salvaged by the smaller more efficient competition.

The effects of the Great Depression lasted 10 years. This last time around the government could have said, "screw you" and then watched the economy unravel. It's hard for me to say which approach is better long term.

The effects of the Great Depression were drawn out by disruptive government programs. Poorer nations were bouncing back in less than half the time it took us because they couldn't afford to screw things up for so long.

 

[Minor Axis]

Fix the problem? We don't even agree on what the problem is that needs to be fixed.

We don't? The government should have a sustainable budget and debt should be eventually eliminated. At this point the sensible thing is to agree to disagree.

 

[Accountable]

We don't? The government should have a sustainable budget and debt should be eventually eliminated.

That's not a problem, that's a goal. The problem as I see it is that gov't has overextended itself fiscally and legally and continues to spend and increase services & entitlements without letup.

 

[Codrus]

That's not a problem, that's a goal. The problem as I see it is that gov't has overextended itself fiscally and legally and continues to spend and increase services & entitlements without letup.

good luck with the audit

 

[Minor Axis]

That's not a problem, that's a goal.

No, it's a problem that we are not doing that.