Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

BUSINESSMEN ARE EATING BABIES

3 (7%)

I'm a socialist

5 (11.6%)

Businesses need heavier regulation, and social programs should be expanded

12 (27.9%)

Businesses need heavier regulation, but current social programs are too expensive

1 (2.3%)

Regulation is stifling growth, but we should expand social programs

1 (2.3%)

Regulation is stifling growth, and current social programs are too expensive.

4 (9.3%)

Regulation is stifling growth, but current social programs are working well.

0 (0%)

Current regulation is fine, but we should expand social programs.

0 (0%)

Current regulation is fine, but current social programs are too expensive.

2 (4.7%)

Businesses need heavier regulation, but current social programs are working well.

0 (0%)

Both current regulation and social programs are working fine.

2 (4.7%)

I'm a libertarian.

4 (9.3%)

I'm heavily conservative.

1 (2.3%)

LIBERALS ARE EATING BABIES

1 (2.3%)

I'm a communist

3 (7%)

I'm a fascist

4 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 43

[Leafsnail]

You don't understand how Social Security works. You don't pay money into a savings account. It's a tax, which the government has declared it will send to people who have removed themselves (or been removed) from the workforce.  Does the government owe you something for taxes paid? That's kind of a libertarian position, you know.  Libertarians believe that people should own their property, and should get something in return for not having it. Welcome to the club!

It's interesting - according to this position, you'd object to taking out any kind of insurance, since you might end up paying for those less fortunate than yourself.

It's especially odd in this case since you're probably gonna reach retirement age at some point...

[FearfulJesuit]

I like this poll idea, but think the linear spectrum is way to limiting in options - it's a multi-polar world and one theory being wrong doesn't make the "opposite" theory true. (taking data from CIA world fact book, unless noted).

e.g take the socialism = big spending government idea

total govt spending: USA =~ 40% of GDP, Colombia =~ 30% GDP, Venezuela =~ 20% of GDP
military spending: USA - 4.06% of GDP, Colombia =~ 3.4% of GDP, Venezuela =~ 1.2% of GDP

France and Britain's governments spend 50% GDP and I don't think labelling them as communist countries is a worthwhile dialogue.

The big money payouts under the capitalist framework is to subsidize basic life in the face of rampant price rises deregulated big business. The health system is the primary culprit in the USA.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Total US federal liabilities for Prescription Medicines and Medicare currently are about $100 trillion which is $20 trillion greater than the combined assets of every US citizen and corporation combined. Be aware this is not the total costs, only the "unfunded" liabilities, e.g. not taking into account what's been paid out or budgeted for, so the real payouts/costs are higher.

This is a cost to all taxpayers, yet most people can't get into a hospital without purchasing additional health cover. I mean WTF! I'm Australian, we pay less tax than you guys, and get to go the hospital.. Hell, Venezuelans pay even less overall tax (both as % and total) than we do and get to go to hospital. (our government spends about 35% of GDP, way higher than Venezuela's 20%)

I think there's a limit on poll options? In any case, the more moderate of you can now choose between three social program options and three regulation options. I also added options for communism and fascism. I doubt anybody here is either of those, but you never know...

[mainiac]

Total US federal liabilities for Prescription Medicines and Medicare currently are about $100 trillion which is $20 trillion greater than the combined assets of every US citizen and corporation combined. Be aware this is not the total costs, only the "unfunded" liabilities, e.g. not taking into account what's been paid out or budgeted for, so the real payouts/costs are higher.

That's over a 70 year timeline.  Over a 70 year timeline, my total unfunded liabilities are 11 million dollars, as are the total unfunded liabilities of any other 23 year old college age American still working entry level positions.  Scary, huh?  Not really, I have a lifetime to pay them back and after 70 years of inflation, 11 million dollars is gonna be a lot less scary.

A great deal of hysteria in this country is people not listening to what the non partisan accountants have to say and instead listening to what hyper partisan crazy shoutey people say.

[Virex]

I'm a heterosexual white male in his late twenties who lives in America.

Someone must have forgotten to tell me where my free money is...?

What's the difference between a doctor of mathematics and a large pizza?

Things get awkward if you try to do an integer division on the first one, or with the second one?

[RedKing]

Wow....there's so much fail in this thread.


If Social Security is welfare, then so is a 401(k) plan. The concept is the same--you work, you put a portion of your pay into it pre-tax, then when you get old enough, you get that money back in monthly installments.

[Nikov]

Wow....there's so much fail in this thread.


If Social Security is welfare, then so is a 401(k) plan. The concept is the same--you work, you put a portion of your pay into it pre-tax, then when you get old enough, you get that money back in monthly installments.

If I sit here staring at this post any longer I am going to have to duct tape my head.

1. Your SS contributions are not paying for yourself. They are paying for the current benificiaries. Excess goes into the Trust Fund, but unless you retire before 2042, you're not going to see it.
2. SS is mandatory, 401(k)s are voluntary. If you could opt out and be paid 12% more, do you think you could invest that 12% of your income better than a 5% interest rate treasury bond?
3. SS taxes stifle job creation by raising the cost of hiring by taxing pay to employees and reduce the short-term incentive to work by taxing wages. 401(k)s are voluntary and used as a way to entice new hires with generous plans.

So no, Social Security is not the same as a 401(k). And because it is all your own money and voluntary, it isn't government welfare either. There, that's better.

[RedKing]

1. Semantics. When I sink my money into a 401(k), and someone else cashes their out the next day, it's all coming from one bigass pool of money. Yes, you receive a statement showing "your" chunk of the fund, but unless you're very, very wealthy and have your own private mutual fund, then yours is going in the same pot as everyone else in that fund.

2. The mandatory/voluntary bit is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not SS = welfare. And the reason for it being mandatory is that many people, if left to their own devices would blow that 12% on an HDTV instead of investing it. And then when they hit old age we'd be paying for them regardless, unless you're content to see hundreds of thousands of starving seniors out on the streets. (Granted, you might be.) Is that a patronizing, arrogant liberal attitude of "you don't know how to take care of yourself, so we'll make sure you do"? Absolutely. So is making people obey the speed limit and get driver's licenses.

3. Lots of things stifle job creation by that argument. In a perfect world (from your viewpoint), we'd have full employment at 18th century wages with zero taxes. Don't ask how the government would function, or how anyone would actually have enough money to purchase goods and services and drive demand, that's not important.

[Phmcw]

Wow....there's so much fail in this thread.


If Social Security is welfare, then so is a 401(k) plan. The concept is the same--you work, you put a portion of your pay into it pre-tax, then when you get old enough, you get that money back in monthly installments.

If I sit here staring at this post any longer I am going to have to duct tape my head.

1. Your SS contributions are not paying for yourself. They are paying for the current benificiaries. Excess goes into the Trust Fund, but unless you retire before 2042, you're not going to see it.
2. SS is mandatory, 401(k)s are voluntary. If you could opt out and be paid 12% more, do you think you could invest that 12% of your income better than a 5% interest rate treasury bond?
3. SS taxes stifle job creation by raising the cost of hiring by taxing pay to employees and reduce the short-term incentive to work by taxing wages. 401(k)s are voluntary and used as a way to entice new hires with generous plans.

So no, Social Security is not the same as a 401(k). And because it is all your own money and voluntary, it isn't government welfare either. There, that's better.

And who are you going to cry to if your money disappear? It will eventually happen to some poeple, right? Maybe not you, but you're bound to have some organism failing. Will you let these guys starve?
Yes it's not government base welfare, that's it's weakness. Of course as a side for your old days, why not.

short-term incentive to work by taxing wages

I call bullshit on this. As I said numerous times, I can prove it. Either by example (watch France) or by a VERY simple reasoning.
If you can have say 900$ a month without working, won't you try to earn 1800$? If a job that would pay 1800$ only pay 1700$ taxes deduced, will you choose to earn only 900$ by stopping work?
The invective to work come from the desire to earn money, if taxes reduce your income, you won't want to work less.
You could even want to work more, to spend your money on what you want while having your health-care and retirement granted, and won't be able to choose the easy solution and spend everything without saving.

[_DivideByZero_]

Could you explain me why the government have to borrow to pay back money that he had?

Because it spends it right away! When you pay the SS tax, your money goes right to the US treasury. There it counts as revenue and can be spent in any way that normal money can be spent. Then, when the time comes to give you your money back, the government already gave it to people sitting in their homes living off unemployment benefits, so where does the money come from?

Yes, that why you must tax income, else there would be a fuckton of poeple that'd live of someone else's work.

Please do explain.

Maybe pay them a little more? That way teacher wouldn't be a dead end job for poeple without career perspective.

I agree that teachers really don't get paid much, I mean they go on strikes all the time up here in Washington. But that is no excuse for pathetic work. Remember, our children are our future, and while our teachers may deserve higher wages, our children (okay, me ) deserve good education as well. In all of my non-gifted classes we are all treated like we are idiots who can't find our way out of a cardboard box.

And you know what? Exploiting someone without paying him BELGIAN  minimum wage (1,415.24 euros) is not acceptable, because you use him,  but don' allow him to live decently.

Right now you can live off unemployment benefits, and switching to a job will actually net you less income. Perhaps unemployment benefits could be lessened, and people who start working again can be supported?

Libertarian crap in the US is just a way to attack the US society so that insanely wealthy people can gain yet more power, and nothing else. It have no basis in mathematics or social sciences altogether. If you had some, you'd know it.

Chill dude... this is a political discussion on a forum where people routinely butcher virtual kittens. There's no reason to vilify people.

[scriver]

Right now you can live off unemployment benefits, and switching to a job will actually net you less income. Perhaps unemployment benefits could be lessened, and people who start working again can be supported?

A claim like this have to backed up to be taken seriously, I'm afraid.

[_DivideByZero_]

There are people I know well who haven't worked in years, and they can still afford computers, ipods, phones, TV's, etc.

[Leafsnail]

That's not actually relevant to the point at hand (he's asking for evidence that switching to a job will get you less income).  And... well, maybe they saved up by living off crap food, or get gifts from their family.

If there really are jobs like that, though... shouldn't the companies offering them just raise the pay for those jobs so they're actually worth doing?

[_DivideByZero_]

My parents know them pretty well. One of them never had a job, and the other injured his back a while back but has long since recovered. After a few years (He fully recovered a while ago), they still haven't gotten him to work again, but all the while he is being paid his full salary.

Actually, now that you mention it, I'm not exactly sure if the company has to pay, or if the government does. My first guess would be the government though, since they're in charge of unemployment benefits, but I could be/probably am wrong.

Generally, to begin a new job will result in, like Phmcw, lousy wages, if I understand correctly from him and other things I've looked up. If I'm wrong, feel free to say so.

[Phmcw]

There are people I know well who haven't worked in years, and they can still afford computers, ipods, phones, TV's, etc.

Add some controls.

Could you explain me why the government have to borrow to pay back money that he had?

Because it spends it right away! When you pay the SS tax, your money goes right to the US treasury. There it counts as revenue and can be spent in any way that normal money can be spent. Then, when the time comes to give you your money back, the government already gave it to people sitting in their homes living off unemployment benefits, so where does the money come from?

They have the revenue from the worker of that time to pay it off. And that's your job to see tha the government spend it to make the nation run. If you give it to a bank they will give it to someone else as well. And sometime loose it.

Yes, that why you must tax income, else there would be a fuckton of poeple that'd live of someone else's work.

Please do explain.

Easy, they would just live of your work. Do you know how much earn some Ceo? A frigging lots of minimum wages.

Maybe pay them a little more? That way teacher wouldn't be a dead end job for poeple without career perspective.

I agree that teachers really don't get paid much, I mean they go on strikes all the time up here in Washington. But that is no excuse for pathetic work. Remember, our children are our future, and while our teachers may deserve higher wages, our children (okay, me ) deserve good education as well. In all of my non-gifted classes we are all treated like we are idiots who can't find our way out of a cardboard box.

You pay lousy wage, you get lousy workers. You deserve a better education, yes, so it must be more funded.

And you know what? Exploiting someone without paying him BELGIAN  minimum wage (1,415.24 euros) is not acceptable, because you use him,  but don't allow him to live decently.

Right now you can live off unemployment benefits, and switching to a job will actually net you less income. Perhaps unemployment benefits could be lessened, and people who start working again can be supported?[/quote]
 
Re read my post. The 1415 euro are our minimum wage. That's way more than our unemployment. If minimum wage are less than unemployment, raise minimum wages. I think you have some margin.

Libertarian crap in the US is just a way to attack the US society so that insanely wealthy people can gain yet more power, and nothing else. It have no basis in mathematics or social sciences altogether. If you had some, you'd know it.

Chill dude... this is a political discussion on a forum where people routinely butcher virtual kittens. There's no reason to vilify people.

[/quote]

Sorry.

[Nadaka]

Right now you can live off unemployment benefits, and switching to a job will actually net you less income. Perhaps unemployment benefits could be lessened, and people who start working again can be supported?

A claim like this have to backed up to be taken seriously, I'm afraid.

My sister is on unemployment and she gets about $200 a month. The only way her getting a job would result in less income is if it was minimum wage, 1 day a week.

 She has been selling blood plasma for money as well. Plus she is living with my mother and stepfather, both of them get social security due to being disabled. Guess what? They are not making it. They are failing. She puts out dozens of applications every week and never finds work. My mother routinely goes without needed medical treatment so she can pay rent and buy food instead. They don't have enough income to survive, and they have to much income to get more assistance.

The only way to survive on welfare is if you have an undocumented and illegal income such as selling drugs or "found" copper.