Everyone needs to break out their check books

[Hotrod]

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=22498576&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fprintedition%2 Fnews%2F20070529%2F1a_lede29.art.htm&partnerID=1660


The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

"We're on an unsustainable path and doing a great disservice to future generations," says Chris Chocola, a former Republican member of Congress from Indiana and corporate chief executive who is pushing for more accurate federal accounting.

Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.
Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.

This hidden debt is the amount taxpayers would have to pay immediately to cover government's financial obligations. Like a mortgage, it will cost more to repay the debt over time. Every U.S. household would have to pay about $31,000 a year to do so in 75 years.

The Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, which sets federal accounting standards, is considering requiring the government to adopt accounting rules similar to those for corporations. The change would move Social Security and Medicare onto the government's income statement and balance sheet, instead of keeping them separate.

The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them.
Chad Stone, chief economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says it can be misleading to focus on the government's unfunded liabilities because Medicare's financial problems overwhelm the analysis.

"There is a shortfall in Medicare and Medicaid that is potentially explosive, but that is related to overall trends in health care spending," he says.

[Crushaholic]

Hopefully, the next president will be more fiscally conservative and Congress will do the same. However, I have serious doubts...

[Hotrod]

Well if we want to do our part we have 2 options

1. One payment in full for $516,348

or

2. 75 easy yearly installments of $31,000

Ha!

[yavoon]

Well if we want to do our part we have 2 options

1. One payment in full for $516,348

or

2. 75 easy yearly installments of $31,000

Ha!

cancel the programs that promise the unpromisable. unfortunately they wont be cut in a timely and economically prudent manner. we'll first tax every person we can find w/ a dime of extra money using every communist reasoning in the book, then when EVEN THAT fails we'll cut it after we've hobbled ourselves.

[Crushaholic]

...or $51 for the next 600 years. That might work....

NAH That's STILL too much...$1 for the next 30,000 years? I can do that:thumbs:

[BroncoBuff]

I guess it's a bad time to start the OM pledge drive after all ... ;D

[W*GS]

Expect to see the pro-entitlement folks spin this one silly...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Expect to see the pro-entitlement folks spin this one silly...
Expect to see Republicans reign in the biggest spender in the history of the country like they have the past 6 years .......................... or not.

[W*GS]

Obviously, BB, you didn't read the article. It's entitlements (Social Security and the various forms of socialized medicine) that are driving this fiscal insanity. Seeing as how no politician will even touch those, and how they're considered "mandatory", Bush hasn't done a damned thing about them - just like every President before him...

[bendog]

Bushii has succeeded in defunding social security and medicare. What a guy.

[Hotrod]

Bushii has succeeded in defunding social security and medicare. What a guy.

They were both in deep **** before he took over.

Maybe we should start giving SSI to illegals, and medical benifits........err wait.

[alkemical]

Yes it's always the proels fault.

[Hotrod]

Anyone want to take a guess at whats gonna happen whent he war is over? Thats usually not good for the economy.

[Hotrod]

Yes it's always the proels fault.

Im a redneck but........."proels" ???

[W*GS]

Bushii has succeeded in defunding social security and medicare. What a guy.

How?

[alkemical]

Im a redneck but........."proels" ???

I spelled it wrong:

Proles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat)

[TailgateNut]

cancel the programs that promise the unpromisable. .


About time you realize the war should end. That'll save a bundle.

[bendog]

How?

well, I know communication is futile on this subject, because you prefer them to be defunded and will not objectively look to solutions. But, bushii's aim was to defund medicare via the pharmacy benefit. He suceeded. Social security is unsustainable, even though benefits have been cut, and the program is "funded" on paper.

The two workable solutions are: raising taxes for social security, prolly via the cap on the fica taxes; and going to nationalized healthcare in which a % of gnp is just budgeted for healthcare in a manner similar to all other post-industrialized first world economies. But, bushii refuses to even discuss either.

[W*GS]

well, I know communication is futile on this subject, because you prefer them to be defunded and will not objectively look to solutions.

It's precisely because entitlement programs are unfunded to the tune of ~$60 trillion that they ought to be defunded, in any objective sense. One need not even get into the moral argument against them.

But, bushii's aim was to defund medicare via the pharmacy benefit. He suceeded.

How does Bush's prescription drug program "defund" Medicare? It makes it an even greater behemoth than it already is.

Social security is unsustainable, even though benefits have been cut, and the program is "funded" on paper.

Bush's attempts to reform SS were DOA. Why?

The two workable solutions are: raising taxes for social security, prolly via the cap on the fica taxes;

Why? Why won't you even consider elimination (gradual, of course) of SS? What good, practical reasons are there for keeping it, and, making it consume even more of workers' income? Do you really want to penalize future generations that badly?

and going to nationalized healthcare in which a % of gnp is just budgeted for healthcare in a manner similar to all other post-industrialized first world economies.

Note that medical costs in other nations are putting them at even greater risk of financial insolvency than even the US.

Granted, that we already pay far more than other nations (as %GDP) for our health care, but socializing it will not make the problem go away. There are many reasons why health care costs are what they are, and at the base of that is the belief of some that health care is a "right", to be provided "free" of charge, to anyone who wants however much of it.

Let's be blunt - does it make sense to expend finite health care resources on the terminally ill? Does it make sense to keep a 90+ year-old alive for a few more months, at the cost of thousands of dollars per day? Does it make sense to give a lifetime drinker a liver transplant?

It's fine and dandy to want "free" health care for all, but there's a lot of reality you're ignoring when you do.

[Crushaholic]

well, I know communication is futile on this subject, because you prefer them to be defunded and will not objectively look to solutions. But, bushii's aim was to defund medicare via the pharmacy benefit. He suceeded. Social security is unsustainable, even though benefits have been cut, and the program is "funded" on paper.

The two workable solutions are: raising taxes for social security, prolly via the cap on the fica taxes; and going to nationalized healthcare in which a % of gnp is just budgeted for healthcare in a manner similar to all other post-industrialized first world economies. But, bushii refuses to even discuss either.

...or privatizing Social Security, which isn't a real great idea, either. Younger people just better get it through their head that Social Security won't be around when we retire (I'm 36). We're merely paying for the older generation (which isn't a bad thing).

[dark_hawk]

...or privatizing Social Security, which isn't a real great idea, either. Younger people just better get it through their head that Social Security won't be around when we retire (I'm 36). We're merely paying for the older generation (which isn't a bad thing).

still think that sucks like none other though. having to save for your own retirement while paying for someone elses

[yavoon]

About time you realize the war should end. That'll save a bundle.

seek professional help. I hope u don't wakeup and eat ur cheerios and think about how bush's war is hurting ur enjoyment of ur slightly honied grain cereal.

[yavoon]

still think that sucks like none other though. having to save for your own retirement while paying for someone elses

most ppl w/ skill overpay massively into social security anyway. and social security benefits huge amts of things that have nothing to do w/ retirement. its just a giant pork project the gov't has been sucking at the teat of for half a century.

my guess is the democrats will get a communist bug up their ass and remove the cap on social security and just do away w/ all this pretense of "saving for retirment" and just turn it into a tax.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=22498576&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fprintedition%2 Fnews%2F20070529%2F1a_lede29.art.htm&partnerID=1660
The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.


Hey - that's exactly the same kind of accounting fraud that happened with the Treasury on Red Ink Ron and Poppy's watch.

The Enroning of America: Brought to you by God's Own Party.

[gunns]

Although SSI is it's own separate fund, stop giving it to legal immigrants. One thing I will hand to the SSA, they make sure they are legal. It's the AFDC/Med/FS we are giving to the illegals. Stop giving SSI to drug addicts/alcoholics that have corresponding conditions, such as depression. If politicians can illegally dip into our social security then we can dip into SSI to make up some of the difference. Stop giving financial aid to those that haven't worked at all in the past 1 year. If they couldn't work for 1 year they'd be eligible for SSI or SSDI. And for God's sake quit accepting the excuses these people come up with to overcome the time limits for the programs. Depression??? Please, we are all depressed.

START making those that earn over 90,000 a year pay medicare and social security taxes. And make it a crime to touch social security money's that have been paid by us with a mandatory jail sentence. Guess that would kind of hard though as those voting to do it would be voting to do that to themselves.

[W*GS]

LABF, Medicare/Medicaid and SS are fraudulent schemes visited upon us by your very own Democratic Party. Period.

[gunns]

LABF, Medicare/Medicaid and SS are fraudulent schemes visited upon us by your very own Democratic Party. Period.

Something wrong WIGS? Your posts have taken a decidedly downward spiral lately. Seems someone the other day thought you were drunk on some of your posts and I had been thinking the same thing reading them. You say you don't drink...... a family condition or drugs maybe?

[W*GS]

Something wrong WIGS? Your posts have taken a decidedly downward spiral lately. Seems someone the other day thought you were drunk on some of your posts and I had been thinking the same thing reading them. You say you don't drink...... a family condition or drugs maybe?

Puhleeze.

No "family condition" or drugs... Just a clear-eyed view of one of the messes this country is in.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Something wrong WIGS? Your posts have taken a decidedly downward spiral lately.

He must be bitter over having to come here every single day and eat crow as a result of his past defense of this joke of an administration.

:D

[W*GS]

He must be bitter over having to come here every single day and eat crow as a result of his past defense of this joke of an administration.

:bs: of the year, folks.

[alkemical]

...or privatizing Social Security, which isn't a real great idea, either. Younger people just better get it through their head that Social Security won't be around when we retire (I'm 36). We're merely paying for the older generation (which isn't a bad thing).

Yep i'm 28 - when i started working full time professionally (bout 10yrs ago) - i pretty much decided that i had to worry about it. No SSI for moi

[Spider]

whats wrong with Social Security is , to many IOU's in it ...... Politicians were able to take money and leave an IOU , SS was one of the few programs that worked ,but too much money has been taken out and not replaced ...... that was the entire thing behind Al Gores locked box promise .........alot of people in my generation and you younger people were ripped off ..Then we give SSI to illegals that havent contributed 1 thin dime ....... and we wonder why SS is such a mess ........... I pretty much had my retirement taken care of until the triplets showed up ;D , I am not living Paycheck from Paycheck , but I am damn close now .........

[W*GS]

SS was never a trust fund of any kind - it was, and is, a direct transfer program. Most SS recipients get far more than they ever put in. That's a Ponzi scheme - illegal for everyone else but the State.

[Rohirrim]

Wigs is right. It was so cool before SS, when the government didn't bother assisting those in old age who had "lost the race." Of course, they did have to pay to send out the trucks to pick up granny's dead body under some bridge. Hey! Don't want to stink up the joint. I just can't wait until we're all living in Wig's utopia. How will we deal with society's losers then? Soylent Green?

[defenseman]

Hopefully, the next president will be more fiscally conservative and Congress will do the same. However, I have serious doubts...

Romney would be fiscally conservative. I'm guessing the rest of the field, repub/dem included will not get it done. I would bank of romney getting us out of our fiscal hot water...dman

[Spider]

SS was never a trust fund of any kind - it was, and is, a direct transfer program. Most SS recipients get far more than they ever put in. That's a Ponzi scheme - illegal for everyone else but the State.

you really should shut the **** up about entitlements , you have a government funded job .....and a job that could be done in sweeden or france , or anywhere just as good as it can be done here ..........

[Spider]

Wigs is right. It was so cool before SS, when the government didn't bother assisting those in old age who had "lost the race." Of course, they did have to pay to send out the trucks to pick up granny's dead body under some bridge. Hey! Don't want to stink up the joint. I just can't wait until we're all living in Wig's utopia. How will we deal with society's losers then? Soylent Green?

W*GS will bítch and moan , then when he gets to old he will be in line like everyone else for SS .........If W*GS shared his thoughts and ran for a spot on the PTA board , he wouldnt get elected .........

[W*GS]

Wigs is right. It was so cool before SS, when the government didn't bother assisting those in old age who had "lost the race." Of course, they did have to pay to send out the trucks to pick up granny's dead body under some bridge. Hey! Don't want to stink up the joint. I just can't wait until we're all living in Wig's utopia. How will we deal with society's losers then? Soylent Green?

Why do you worship the State so much that you can't think of any alternative to a massive income transfer scheme (run by the State) to allegedly keep the old folks from the street?

Didn't you see the original article in this thread?

I'll make the same bet to you that I've made, many times, to other defenders of SS. Pay me, in cash, today, what's been taken from me (and my employers) for SS, and, when I'm due to receive SS benefits, I'll sign them over to you. Care to take me up? If not, why not?

You don't get that those bogus statements that SS send out every year are in no way some sort of accounting of the funds in your account. What they truly are is a list of the debt your children and grandchildren will inherit. I, for one, don't want to burden future generations. Why do you?

[W*GS]

you really should shut the **** up about entitlements , you have a government funded job .....and a job that could be done in sweeden or france , or anywhere just as good as it can be done here ..........

Wrong.

[REB]

Securing Your Retirement



Politicians in Washington are stealing your future.

Every year, they take 12.4% of your income to prop up their failed Social Security system - a system that is heading toward bankruptcy.

If you are an American earning the median income of $31,695 per year, and were given the option of investing that same amount of money in a stock mutual fund, you would retire a millionaire - without winning the lottery or a TV game show.

That million dollars would provide you with a retirement income of over $100,000 per year - about five times what you could expect from Social Security.

Even a very conservative investment strategy would yield three times the benefits promised by Social Security.

Libertarians believe you should be able to opt out of Social Security and invest your money in your own personal retirement account. An account that you own and control - one that politicians can't get their hands on.

Republicans and Democrats say it can't be done - that your Social Security taxes are needed to pay benefits to today's retirees. Instead of letting you invest in your own future, they want you to have faith that someone else will pay your benefits when it comes time for you to retire.

Although most won't admit it publicly, their "solutions" to the Social Security crises all come down to some combination of tax increases and benefit cuts.

Libertarians know that there's a better way.

Countries like Chile, Mexico, Britain, and Australia have successfully made the transition from their failed Social Security systems to healthy systems based on individual retirement accounts. In Chile, over 90% of workers have opted out of the government-run system. It's time America did as well.

The federal government owns assets worth trillions of dollars - assets that it simply doesn't need to perform its Constitutional functions. By selling those assets over time, we can keep the promises that were made to today's retirees, and to those nearing retirement, while freeing the rest of America from a failed Social Security system.

Libertarians will introduce and support legislation to give you that choice, and put you in control of your own retirement future.

[Spider]

Wrong.

your job can be done anywhere ............

[W*GS]

your job can be done anywhere ............

Think again.

[bendog]

...or privatizing Social Security, which isn't a real great idea, either. Younger people just better get it through their head that Social Security won't be around when we retire (I'm 36). We're merely paying for the older generation (which isn't a bad thing).

Actually, you're prolly in better shape than you think. The millenium generation (my kid's) is actually bigger than us boomers, so you should have plenty of workers to pay for yours.

The WJC/Gore model was basically pay off as much general debt as possible while us boomers were working. The "lock box" was just bs from previous admins, going back to Reagan. The reality is that any country can issue debt. The question is just "how much" will other countries/people buy. The reality of the lock box was to pay down the debt we've issued to allow us to issue new debt to pay the boomers. Then to pay that off as you guys retire with the millenium generation workers. Back when there was a surplus, before bushii, there was the potential to slice off a small chunk and "privatize" that, but Greenspan put that notion to death.

But, the congress cut boomer benefits last summer, and from what I've seen, IF the taxes are not capped for those making 80K or up, or lessening the cap, soc security isn't really that critical.

Medicare is really dismill, though. There are savings out there in administration of private insurance. And medicaid is inherently inefficient. But, when you have people who just don't take their kids to GPs, emergency rooms will see a lot of kids with strep-throat. The entire health care system needs to be overhauled. It's only possible if one party holds both houses and the potus.

[W*GS]

Actually, you're prolly in better shape than you think. The millenium generation (my kid's) is actually bigger than us boomers, so you should have plenty of workers to pay for yours.

I'll make the same bet to you that I've made, many times, to other defenders of SS. Pay me, in cash, today, what's been taken from me (and my employers) for SS, and, when I'm due to receive SS benefits, I'll sign them over to you. Care to take me up? If not, why not?

[Spider]

Think again.

Bullshít .........

[bendog]

I'll make the same bet to you that I've made, many times, to other defenders of SS. Pay me, in cash, today, what's been taken from me (and my employers) for SS, and, when I'm due to receive SS benefits, I'll sign them over to you. Care to take me up? If not, why not?

1. It's not a retirement plan, so your drivel is mere deflection. Your issue is that you just don't think the govt should be in the income / retirement / insurance game. So, anything anyone ever proposed on the postive of these issues will be "bad" with you.

2. But just not to let it slide, your social security taxes go to providing befits to you for disability, for your kids' disabilities, for your wife and kids death benefits, as well as the retirement benefits. So before you run your tired old **** on me, WAGS, come up with annuties that fund all that for what you and your employer pay in taxes.

[yavoon]

1. It's not a retirement plan, so your drivel is mere deflection. Your issue is that you just don't think the govt should be in the income / retirement / insurance game. So, anything anyone ever proposed on the postive of these issues will be "bad" with you.

2. But just not to let it slide, your social security taxes go to providing befits to you for disability, for your kids' disabilities, for your wife and kids death benefits, as well as the retirement benefits. So before you run your tired old **** on me, WAGS, come up with annuties that fund all that for what you and your employer pay in taxes.

its SUPPOSE to be a retirement plan. thats why its capped. its suppose to be "daddy gov't will save for ur retirement because average american wont." and u will "get the money back when u retire."

now over 50 years of graft and election buying have skewed it all to hell, and now the plan is so upside down in liabilities that ppl want to remove the cap(which is too high to begin w/).

[W*GS]

1. It's not a retirement plan, so your drivel is mere deflection.

I didn't say "retirement" at all.

Just pay me now, upfront, what SS has taken from me over the years, and when I'm eligible for SS benefits, I'll sign them over to you. According to you, you ought to be handsomely rewarded.

Your issue is that you just don't think the govt should be in the income / retirement / insurance game. So, anything anyone ever proposed on the postive of these issues will be "bad" with you.

The "game" the State is playing is taking from Peter to give to Paul. Nothing more.

2. But just not to let it slide, your social security taxes go to providing befits to you for disability, for your kids' disabilities, for your wife and kids death benefits, as well as the retirement benefits. So before you run your tired old **** on me, WAGS, come up with annuties that fund all that for what you and your employer pay in taxes.

On top of what SS costs me (12.4% of my gross pay), I have my own retirement funds, my own life and other forms of insurance, and so on. If I had that 12.4% back, I'd be even better off. I'm already doing the responsible thing by planning for the future. Why are you so intent on making that as difficult as possible?

[bendog]

Wags, you simply cannot accept the fact that a solid maj continues to believe that income security is a proper function of the federal govt. I realize you feel you owe nothing to your fellow citizens, but your options are limited.

[W*GS]

Wags, you simply cannot accept the fact that a solid maj continues to believe that income security is a proper function of the federal govt.

At one time, a solid majority believed that returning escaped slaves to their owners was a proper function of the federal government.

Doesn't make it right.

I realize you feel you owe nothing to your fellow citizens, but your options are limited.

I do not owe other Americans "income security" (which must come at the cost of my own, and that of future generations, remember), and they do not owe me any "income security". I ask not what my country can do for me, nor what I can do for my country - and I certainly don't demand.

Care to take my bet? Why not?

[Bronco Bob]

At one time, a solid majority believed that returning escaped slaves to their owners was a proper function of the federal government.

Doesn't make it right.




And currently the majority of Americans believe it is the proper function of
the Federal government to insure the food we eat is safe. Is that the
wrong thing to do too?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I just can't wait until we're all living in Wig's utopia. How will we deal with society's losers then? Soylent Green?

As long as it's someone else's job to figure it out and do the heavy lifting, W*GS probably couldn't give a tinker's f*@k less.

[W*GS]

And currently the majority of Americans believe it is the proper function of the Federal government to insure the food we eat is safe. Is that the wrong thing to do too?

Seeing as how contaminated food regularly occurs, I'd say the State isn't doing a real good job.

The point is that just because "the majority of Americans" believe the State should do X means X is a Good Thing is entirely wrong. It's a logical fallacy.

[W*GS]

LABF, having me on iggy may help you keep your ideological views unchallenged and safe, but when you shoot off your mouth without having read my comments, you just look stupid.

Sorta like someone making comments on overhearing half of a phone conversation. It's not clever, it's dumb.

[alkemical]

Seeing as how contaminated food regularly occurs, I'd say the State isn't doing a real good job.

The point is that just because "the majority of Americans" believe the State should do X means X is a Good Thing is entirely wrong. It's a logical fallacy.

Should a "minority" be given that power then?

[bendog]

Wags, the point is those who wish to defund social programs cannot win at the polls to obtain the power to do so. So, they do so by covert means, ie they lie their asses off during elections, and then give people like Grover Norquist the power to make policy. Though Bushii's, and Norquist's, motives are different from yours. Yours are philosophical, and their's are simply naked greed.

However, it is notable that all of the postindustrial first tier economies provide both national health insurance and income security.

[W*GS]

Should a "minority" be given that power then?

The rightness of a power given the State doesn't depend on how many people choose to give it.

[W*GS]

Wags, the point is those who wish to defund social programs cannot win at the polls to obtain the power to do so. So, they do so by covert means, ie they lie their asses off during elections, and then give people like Grover Norquist the power to make policy. Though Bushii's, and Norquist's, motives are different from yours. Yours are philosophical, and their's are simply naked greed.

At least you understand that my motives have an honorable foundation.

What motivates those who wish to tax us and our children to the tune of an additional $60 trillion to pay for their cherished entitlements? Isn't that merely a form of greed - i.e., the desire to increase the dependency of recipients upon the State, and to continue to make citizens bend to the will of those in power? Or are bureaucrats and politicians not subject to those base impulses?

However, it is notable that all of the postindustrial first tier economies provide both national health insurance and income security.

So? In doing so, they are at huge risk for financial insolvency. Why can't we learn from their mistake?

[Spider]

At least you understand that my motives have an honorable foundation.



Hilarious! Honorable ? WTF is honorable then letting the Disabled who cant work starve ?
or the Generation before us when living paycheck to paycheck was the norm, or some husband/Father dies in a car crash , his family is left in the cold ?
you are about as honorable as a child molester , greedy little bastard

[alkemical]

The rightness of a power given the State doesn't depend on how many people choose to give it.

Then how does one grant what action is deemed honourable?

[W*GS]

Hilarious! Honorable ? WTF is honorable then letting the Disabled who cant work starve ?

Obviously you can't think of any other way than a State-run bureaucratic apparatus to deal with such things. What's your problem?

or the Generation before us when living paycheck to paycheck was the norm, or some husband/Father dies in a car crash , his family is left in the cold ?
you are about as honorable as a child molester , greedy little bastard

Why not get together with your friends (using the money all of you spend at the bar - should go quite far!) and help out such a family? Or is it a matter of you simply can't be bothered to help others?

And since when is objecting to my money being taken from me and given to those who, by and large, are wealthier than I am, "greedy"?

You're the heartless cruel prick, Spider.

[Hotrod]

Then how does one grant what action is deemed honourable?

In a truely just world they would simply ask me ;D

As far as who decides it seems the minority already make most of the decissions.

[W*GS]

Then how does one grant what action is deemed honourable?

The Constitution is a good place to start.

[Spider]

Obviously you can't think of any other way than a State-run bureaucratic apparatus to deal with such things. What's your problem?



Why not get together with your friends (using the money all of you spend at the bar - should go quite far!) and help out such a family? Or is it a matter of you simply can't be bothered to help others?

And since when is objecting to my money being taken from me and given to those who, by and large, are wealthier than I am, "greedy"?

You're the heartless cruel prick, Spider.
if you cant afford to pay a small % in taxes I can just see you opening up your wallet to help someone .............alot of people cant fend for themselfs , who is going to over see , who gets what ? what about personal Bias ?
W*GS use your head for something besides a hat rack

[W*GS]

if you cant afford to pay a small % in taxes

12.4% is "small"? Right off the top, too.

I can just see you opening up your wallet to help someone .............

As if straight-up cash is the only way to help someone...

alot of people cant fend for themselfs , who is going to over see , who gets what ? what about personal Bias ?

You get to decide who needs help, and in what kind of help. You might even want to ask your friends to assist you. What's so difficult about that?

And your "personal Bias[sic]" says volumes about the contempt you have for your fellow citizens.

Scratch a left-winger, find a misanthrope.

[Spider]

12.4% is "small"? Right off the top, too. I dont even notice it .......and i am raising 6 kids ........



As if straight-up cash is the only way to help someone...
didnt say that .. pay attention



You get to decide who needs help, and in what kind of help. You might even want to ask your friends to assist you. What's so difficult about that?
thats the point , you may not like someone that needs help , tell them get lost

And your "personal Bias[sic]" says volumes about the contempt you have for your fellow citizens.

Scratch a left-winger, find a misanthrope.
we all have personal Bias 1 form or another ........ where you are not thinking , or havent thought your plan through is , Discipline...... People dont have discipline to give like that on a daily or weekly basis ........ No W*GS you are a greedy little prick that thinks i got mine **** everyone else

[alkemical]

The Constitution is a good place to start.

It seems being a republic then we are back to square one - of the majority getting a large say in what goes on, or a well funded minority that can influence law changes accordingly.

[bendog]

Well, Wags, in a society a maj can do whatever it wants, unless the sup ct finds it hasn't the power to do so. In the case of soc sec, you lost. Of course, the option of defunding by lies and perverting the will of the maj is still open, if you so choose

[W*GS]

I dont even notice it .......and i am raising 6 kids ........

I do notice it - and I notice that those who pay SS are younger and poorer than those who receive SS. Does that make sense to you? Toss in the fact that those who receive SS get far more than they put into SS and recalibrate.

didnt say that .. pay attention

"I can just see you opening up your wallet to help someone ............." sure means "hand out the cash" to most people. Unless your chosen beneficiary happens to take credit cards...

thats the point , you may not like someone that needs help , tell them get lost

They can then find help from someone else. Perhaps you can donate to anyone and everyone, no questions asked.

What makes it so difficult for you to comprehend?

we all have personal Bias 1 form or another ........ where you are not thinking , or havent thought your plan through is , Discipline...... People dont have discipline to give like that on a daily or weekly basis ........

Yep, a misanthrope, just like I said.

In other words, unless the State forces you to "give", you ain't gonna give. Riiiiiiight.

And, pray tell, if you can't trust your neighbors because they're so loathsome, bigoted, and undisciplined, how do the bureaucrats who handle hundreds of billions of our tax dollars manage to escape these terrible traits?

Spider trusts the State but not his neighbors. There's a very sad state of affairs.

No W*GS you are a greedy little prick that thinks i got mine **** everyone else

W*GS 1, Spider, 0.

[Rohirrim]

Wigs, we better hurry up if we're going to put your plan into action. Pretty soon, there won't be any ice bergs left to push the old folks out on.

[W*GS]

Wigs, we better hurry up if we're going to put your plan into action. Pretty soon, there won't be any ice bergs left to push the old folks out on.

It's a sad day when compassion is defined as a State-run bureaucratic mess, the wreckage of which spans generations.

Why do you accept such a definition?

[Spider]

W*GS 1, Spider, 0.

LOL so full of shít and acting noble ....... we all know your stupid ass plan = Greedy little bastard , and whats unreal is you think your plan is fool proof ......

[W*GS]

Well, Wags, in a society a maj can do whatever it wants, unless the sup ct finds it hasn't the power to do so. In the case of soc sec, you lost. Of course, the option of defunding by lies and perverting the will of the maj is still open, if you so choose

Since entitlements were funded by lies, those who support them have lots of 'splaining to do.

As for perverting the will of the majority, tough ****. We don't live in a majoritarian society. Why do you think we do?

[Spider]

Wigs, we better hurry up if we're going to put your plan into action. Pretty soon, there won't be any ice bergs left to push the old folks out on.

Ice Bergs = Government charity ......;D

[W*GS]

LOL so full of shít and acting noble ....... we all know your stupid ass plan = Greedy little bastard , and whats unreal is you think your plan is fool proof ......

We already know your plan is completely ****ed, and will continue to be for decades to come.

And you think dumping your money into some huge pot that some faceless couldn't-give-a-**** bureaucrat decides to whom it goes is the definition of "compassion".

If anyone is full of ****, Spider, it's you.

[Spider]

We already know your plan is completely ****ed, and will continue to be for decades to come.

And you think dumping your money into some huge pot that some faceless couldn't-give-a-**** bureaucrat decides to whom it goes is the definition of "compassion".

If anyone is full of ****, Spider, it's you.

yeah sure thing , your plan sucks , hell look you are bítching and crying about 12% , you could wind up giving more then that in charity ........ W*GS you are a greedy little idiot , you dont think things out , you think the real world works the same way as it does in W*GS land , and that just isnt the case ...........

[W*GS]

yeah sure thing , your plan sucks , hell look you are bítching and crying about 12% , you could wind up giving more then that in charity ........

I could choose to do so, or I could not. What's so wrong with each of us choosing?

W*GS you are a greedy little idiot , you dont think things out , you think the real world works the same way as it does in W*GS land , and that just isnt the case ...........

In your world, your children (and eventual grandchildren) are going to have to cough up an additional $60 trillion. Why, in your world, do your kids get ****ed like that? Is that OK by you? Why?

It's so strange to me that the only way you can think of to get people to help each other out is by using the State to force them to do so. Why?

[Spider]

I could choose to do so, or I could not. What's so wrong with each of us choosing? more would choose not to and you would be 1 more ..........



In your world, your children (and eventual grandchildren) are going to have to cough up an additional $60 trillion. Why, in your world, do your kids get ****ed like that? Is that OK by you? Why?

It's so strange to me that the only way you can think of to get people to help each other out is by using the State to force them to do so. Why?

Our Kids are going to pay for your Buddys handy work in Iraq also ........they are going to pay just like we paid for our forefathers , but spreading out the cost to everyone makes it easier to handle .. not to mention sewers , pure water , eclectic , Natural gas , Roads , Libraries , hate to break it to you W*GS but these things you enjoy everyday dont go on trees , they cost money .......... Like I said the Real world is alot different the W*GS land

[Rohirrim]

It's a sad day when compassion is defined as a State-run bureaucratic mess, the wreckage of which spans generations.

Why do you accept such a definition?

You have no sense of humor.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You have no sense of humor.

Now that's not fair, Ro.

Odds are W*GS has all of Leno's Bill and Monica sketches on tape.

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wigs, we better hurry up if we're going to put your plan into action. Pretty soon, there won't be any ice bergs left to push the old folks out on.

:D

Now there's a plan to make him feel all "honorable" and sh*t.

[Rohirrim]

I've never heard a Libertarian go into details. It's always the big scheme, the big picture, the Cinemascope dream world. What do you do if a drug addicted homeless girl with a mental illness and no family has a baby in a ditch somewhere? Who responds? Don't forget, in the Libertarian's world there is no government. Ooops. The girl has no family. The local community? What if they decide, in their best Libertarian fashion, that it's none of their business?

You know what Libertarianism reminds me of? That old movie, "The Time Machine." Remember the Eloi? That's the Libertarians. Some woman falls in the river and is carried away screaming, and everybody just lies on the bank, ignoring her. When the Warlocks come to eat them, they just line up like sheep, incapable of taking collective action against their enemies. Remember Rod Taylor screaming, "What is wrong with you people?"

[REB]

I've never heard a Libertarian go into details. It's always the big scheme, the big picture, the Cinemascope dream world. What do you do if a drug addicted homeless girl with a mental illness and no family has a baby in a ditch somewhere? Who responds? Don't forget, in the Libertarian's world there is no government. Ooops. The girl has no family. The local community? What if they decide, in their best Libertarian fashion, that it's none of their business?

You know what Libertarianism reminds me of? That old movie, "The Time Machine." Remember the Eloi? That's the Libertarians. Some woman falls in the river and is carried away screaming, and everybody just lies on the bank, ignoring her. When the Warlocks come to eat them, they just line up like sheep, incapable of taking collective action against their enemies. Remember Rod Taylor screaming, "What is wrong with you people?"


You are very wrong about Libertarians man. Very wrong.

[alkemical]

I've never heard a Libertarian go into details. It's always the big scheme, the big picture, the Cinemascope dream world. What do you do if a drug addicted homeless girl with a mental illness and no family has a baby in a ditch somewhere? Who responds? Don't forget, in the Libertarian's world there is no government. Ooops. The girl has no family. The local community? What if they decide, in their best Libertarian fashion, that it's none of their business?

You know what Libertarianism reminds me of? That old movie, "The Time Machine." Remember the Eloi? That's the Libertarians. Some woman falls in the river and is carried away screaming, and everybody just lies on the bank, ignoring her. When the Warlocks come to eat them, they just line up like sheep, incapable of taking collective action against their enemies. Remember Rod Taylor screaming, "What is wrong with you people?"



Huh? I think you are a bit wrong on this one.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You are very wrong about Libertarians man. Very wrong.

I notice you don't bother to explain how his assessment is wrong in your estimation.

I thought he hit the nail right on the head.

[W*GS]

I've never heard a Libertarian go into details.

Why do you feel it necessary that the State tell you what to eat, watch, drink, sleep on, read, listen to, and so on? Are you that uncomfortable with the liberty of the "details" being up to you? Consider the US Constitution - it's brevity is amazing. Do you think the authors should have come out with the US Code in its logorrhea from the get-go?

It's always the big scheme, the big picture, the Cinemascope dream world.

It's far more valid to level your criticism against the Statists - their dream world of perfectible people, and especially bureaucrats being always honorable and right, and there being no unintended consequences in every State program - that's an unattainable Utopia.

What do you do if a drug addicted homeless girl with a mental illness and no family has a baby in a ditch somewhere?

You and like-minded people start a society that looks for and takes care of these desperate folks. Heck, I'll pitch in.

As an aside, we can all derive "lifeboat scenarios" which break any ideology. I find them none too interesting, because they are such departures from the norm.

Who responds? Don't forget, in the Libertarian's world there is no government.

Wrong - Libertarians aren't anarchists.

You know what Libertarianism reminds me of? That old movie, "The Time Machine." Remember the Eloi? That's the Libertarians.

Uh-hunh. Statists are the Morlocks, if I can be equally stupid.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I notice you don't bother to explain how his assessment is wrong in your estimation.

I thought he hit the nail right on the head.Exactly! Libertarians claim a utopia (no government) is the best way for society to function only they NEVER can explain how such an orderless society could even begin to exist.




http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/7055/tmqu6.jpg

[REB]

Me thinks you guys confuse Libertarians with Anarchists. As a libertarian I simply want the federal govt. to abide by the constitutional limits placed on it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Me thinks you guys confuse Libertarians with Anarchists. As a libertarian I simply want the federal govt. to abide by the constitutional limits placed on it.Right, a rocket launcher in every home, no seat belt laws, smoking in every public place, no pedestrian walkways, no pollution laws, etc..., etc... :wave:

[REB]

Those issues can be decided by state govt. which a few of those already are.

Do you like the fact that the fed govt is trying to tell you you can't play online poker? What business is it of theirs?

[gunns]

I'm just wondering in all of these "plans" where we don't pay into a fund such as social security, what people who become totally disabled and unable to work will do?

[W*GS]

I'm just wondering in all of these "plans" where we don't pay into a fund such as social security, what people who become totally disabled and unable to work will do?

Rely on the genuine compassion of their family, friends, and others.

[Play2win]

The Industrial Revolution changed everything. The Industrial Revolution changed the realistic ability to have an actual Libertarian Government. Before the revolution, it was possible, after the Industrial Revolution, and the years following it, it was not realistic or even possible to sustain a libertarian form of government.

[W*GS]

The Industrial Revolution changed everything. The Industrial Revolution changed the realistic ability to have an actual Libertarian Government. Before the revolution, it was possible, after the Industrial Revolution, and the years following it, it was not realistic or even possible to sustain a libertarian form of government.

Why?

Too many people in too small areas for freedom?

[Spider]

Rely on the genuine compassion of their family, friends, and others.

in other words become a beggar ............. we dont have enough beggars on the street now hey W*GS

[W*GS]

If such a person was your relative, friend, or someone you cared about, what would you do, Spider?

[Spider]

If such a person was your relative, friend, or someone you cared about, what would you do, Spider?
I would never suggest they turn into Beggars
Pay my taxes , cause I know I cant afford their medical bills , feeding 6 kids and a wife , I cant afford to house , clothe , feed , and support , said person , do you have any Idea`what diapers cost ? then times it by 3 , the cost of food , clothes for my kids ? .........
Like i say there is the real world , then W*GS land , and the 2 shall never meet

[gunns]

Rely on the genuine compassion of their family, friends, and others.

I've shown genuine compassion for friends and family. I've let them live with me till they got on their feet, fed them. Short term that's fine, but long term, no, I couldn't do that. And I could not even think of paying for their medical bills, short or long term. A disability is not always short term.

[W*GS]

Libertarians claim a utopia (no government) is the best way for society to function only they NEVER can explain how such an orderless society could even begin to exist.

First off, only Statists and collectivists promise Utopia. Libertarians do not.

Secondly, libertarians (big "L" or small "l") are not anarchists. That you associate the two is indicative of either (a) ignorance or (b) a cheap smear. Which is it?

Lastly, there can be order without the State being as intrusive and powerful as it is now. You come off as a conservative (you know, "Law and Order!") when you make that kind of statement.

In reference to some other comments you made, is society doomed to extinction without laws mandating the wearing of seat belts? How much liberty are you willing to trade for how much safety?

What differentiates libertarians from the collectivists and Statists that are the other "two" parties is that libertarians tilt very strongly towards liberty, and the others tilt too strongly towards "security" and "safety". Never mind that a State powerful enough to guarantee those last two is the greatest threat to all of them.

Prisoners have lost nearly all their liberty, and yet are unsafe. Why?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Damn!

The O'W*GS Factor is getting owned on this thread.

His Ayn Randian wet dream has been thoroughly exposed as fantasy here.

:D

[Atlas]

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate Bush??

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate Bush??

:~ohyah!: ^5

You and 75% of Americans.

[W*GS]

LABF, don't even bother commenting. Since you've got me on iggy, you don't see most of what I've written. When you do write something, it's invariably incorrect.

You're embarrassing yourself, much like someone who craps their pants in a crowded elevator...

[W*GS]

I notice you don't bother to explain how his assessment is wrong in your estimation.

See

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1604102&postcount=86

I thought he hit the nail right on the head.

Of course you'd "think" that...

[alkemical]

So if he has you on ignore, then why respond to him?

[Atlas]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...

There I quoted you so LABF will see what you typed. Hilarious!

[Rohirrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
I've never heard a Libertarian go into details.

Wigs:
Why do you feel it necessary that the State tell you what to eat, watch, drink, sleep on, read, listen to, and so on? Are you that uncomfortable with the liberty of the "details" being up to you? Consider the US Constitution - it's brevity is amazing. Do you think the authors should have come out with the US Code in its logorrhea from the get-go?
Once again, no details.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
It's always the big scheme, the big picture, the Cinemascope dream world.

Wigs:
It's far more valid to level your criticism against the Statists - their dream world of perfectible people, and especially bureaucrats being always honorable and right, and there being no unintended consequences in every State program - that's an unattainable Utopia.
Deflection. In the first place, I have no idea what you mean by "statist." I've never heard anyone accusing the Founders of utopianism. It's laughable. They were so pragmatic they designed a government based on man's avariciousness as a given.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
What do you do if a drug addicted homeless girl with a mental illness and no family has a baby in a ditch somewhere?

Wigs:
You and like-minded people start a society that looks for and takes care of these desperate folks. Heck, I'll pitch in.

As an aside, we can all derive "lifeboat scenarios" which break any ideology. I find them none too interesting, because they are such departures from the norm.
You already do pitch in. It's called taxes. It helps pay for social services which take that woman to a safe place and provide her with medical care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
Who responds? Don't forget, in the Libertarian's world there is no government.

Wigs:
Wrong - Libertarians aren't anarchists.
What are they? Every time I see the Libertarian platform, I get to the end of the list where it says, no schools, no police, no army, etc. etc. etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
You know what Libertarianism reminds me of? That old movie, "The Time Machine." Remember the Eloi? That's the Libertarians.

Wigs:
Uh-hunh. Statists are the Morlocks, if I can be equally stupid.
The Morlocks weren't statists, whatever that means. They were an autonomous collective.
__________________

[Spider]

;d .........

[REB]

I don't know what libertarian sites you've been looking at Ro because it's simply not true. There are radical libertarians/anarchists out there (just like with any other group) and sites that cater to them but in libertarianism the main function of the govt. is to protect the citizen's life, liberty and property. Most believe in a strong defense in case of attack. And I don't get the "no cops" part either. Here's part of their idea on crime from lp.org

"The Libertarian Party's anti-crime plan would do what the Democrats and Republicans have not done:

Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution.
Hold all criminals responsible for their actions.
Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending.
Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets.
Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns.
Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education.
This Libertarian program would help make America's streets safe again."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There I quoted you so LABF will see what you typed. Hilarious!

:giggle:

It's nice to see that you can still gets W*GS to dance just by mentioning Dubya's poll numbers.

[W*GS]

(Why the tedious extra stuff? We both know what was said, and no-one else gives a damn.)

Once again, no details.

The "details" are left to each one of us. Perhaps it's the responsibility of living your own life as you see fit that stresses you so much. I take it that the Mother figure in Pink Floyd's "The Wall" didn't bother you - she did keep baby safe and warm and clean... She took care of all the "details"...

Deflection.

And you're deflecting from my trenchant reposte with "deflection".

In the first place, I have no idea what you mean by "statist."

As an example, someone who's not comfortable with the State dictating all the "details"...

I've never heard anyone accusing the Founders of utopianism. It's laughable. They were so pragmatic they designed a government based on man's avariciousness as a given.

The Founders weren't Utopians at all - but would you agree that the government they designed is but a tiny fraction of the size and power of the State we have now? You shoot your own argument apart, given that you recognize that we are imperfect - to hand over immense power to imperfect people is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. There are 100 million corpses over the last century or so who stand in silent witness to that. And no, I'm not talking about deaths from war - I'm talking about people who died at the hands of their "own" governments...

Paine had it right: "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one".

You already do pitch in. It's called taxes. It helps pay for social services which take that woman to a safe place and provide her with medical care.

The State is about the least efficient provider of services of this sort. Chew on that...

What are they? Every time I see the Libertarian platform, I get to the end of the list where it says, no schools, no police, no army, etc. etc. etc.

Show me.

Considering that the State-run schools are an abysmal mess (gotta hand it to that stronghold of Democrat ideology!), the police aren't legally required to protect you, and that our military is barely used to protect us (need I tell you that?), then your comments aren't really relevant as a knock on libertarianism.

[clarkster]

Although SSI is it's own separate fund, stop giving it to legal immigrants. One thing I will hand to the SSA, they make sure they are legal. It's the AFDC/Med/FS we are giving to the illegals. Stop giving SSI to drug addicts/alcoholics that have corresponding conditions, such as depression. If politicians can illegally dip into our social security then we can dip into SSI to make up some of the difference. Stop giving financial aid to those that haven't worked at all in the past 1 year. If they couldn't work for 1 year they'd be eligible for SSI or SSDI. And for God's sake quit accepting the excuses these people come up with to overcome the time limits for the programs. Depression??? Please, we are all depressed.

START making those that earn over 90,000 a year pay medicare and social security taxes. And make it a crime to touch social security money's that have been paid by us with a mandatory jail sentence. Guess that would kind of hard though as those voting to do it would be voting to do that to themselves.

i dont know of the accuracy of it, but i was told once that most politicians DO NOT PAY INTO SS, as they have a pension plan. I find this to be (if true) very disturbing. i have a pension plan and still pay into SS.
and one better, if these corksuckers HAD to rely on SS like the rest of the country, i bet it would get fixed like right now. instead they draw a million dollar a year pension(just throwing a number out there, but i wouldnt be suprised). if it was me, EVERYONE would pay into it, regardless.

[clarkster]

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate Bush??

hey i tell you, hate him all you want, but dont blame SS and medicare on Bush. this is a group effort cluster****.