Why do we treat poor people like children?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-03-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: Why do we treat poor people like children?
(05-03-2014 11:35 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 09:19 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Libertarians are divided into two camps.

A) Minarchists: Individuals who believe the government should be limited to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud.

B) Anarchists: Individuals that advocate government's complete elimination as a political system.

C) classical liberalism

Rolleyes

Oh, yes -- another camp which supports laissez-faire economic policies. You are only further proving my point.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 11:52 AM
RE: Why do we treat poor people like children?
(05-03-2014 11:13 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(04-03-2014 02:40 PM)War Horse Wrote:  We can go back and forth citing references, but the money was not ever meant to be taken by politicians to prop up their sweetheart deals.

They took the money out of my paycheck, over which I had no control, and were suppose to invest it in future 'help' with retirement. Had I been able to invest the money myself, I would have no one to blame but myself as to the outcome.

But thats not the case, is it?

Think of all the people that paid into SS and died before ever collecting one red cent... the system was working great untill the surplus money in the fund got to much for the greedy fucks in Washington to keep their hands of off.

Entitlement my ass... they took my money for years and years, used it for their pleasure and now say, oops, to bad, none left for you.

Fuck that train of thought. Assholes are trying to hurt the very people that can least afford it, and they know that there wont be much of a fight when it comes to grandmas living on a can of dog food a day. Fuck that shit, I paid my dues, and now its their turn to step up to the plate. Angry

War - SS was never an investment. It was always a ponzi scheme. Well, worse than one, since you were compelled to participate in it. The recipients of benefits from SS always relied on the previous generation's payments into the system.
Those do not collect anything (through early death) pales in comparison to the amount of people that outlive their contribution.

The mistake of the government was implying to its citizens when it established the program in 1935, was that "don't worry...we'll take care of you" and declined to postulate that sustained complete reliance on SS for income was unsustainable. No one considered the generational population gaps. There hasn't been a "baby boom" in more than 60 years. On the contrary, families are getting smaller and smaller, which means there just isn't enough people on the bottom pyramid to support the top. As the baby boomers die off, and there is less strain on the system, there will probably be some improvement.

I'm not saying you aren't deserving of help. Not at all. We are a society that tries - although can fail miserably - to take care of our old and our sick. I'm just pointing out that rallying against the poor is a little like pissing and moaning about a crack in the bottom of your boat when there is a huge gaping hole in the side of it. Welfare is a drop in the bucket of entitlement spending.

I never once said that SS was meant as an investment (I did go back and check my posts) .

What I said was that the government took money out without a vote or public approval and replaced that money with IOU's.

They knew clear well that if they didnt replace that money by the time the baby boomers came of age, that it wouldnt support itself for long (welfare or not).

Fact is they stole the money and now dont want to pay it back (or cant), and nobody is held responsible.

I have nothing against welfare and food stamps, unless someone abuses the system.

I also strongly detest the use of the word "entitlement" as they use it now to describe SS.

Try living on the average SS income for a while and see if you feel "entitled" . I know many (especially women) living on $700.00 to $800.00 a month.... and some would want that to be reduced, thats fucking nice, isnt it?

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: Why do we treat poor people like children?
(05-03-2014 11:22 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 11:13 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  War - SS was never an investment. It was always a ponzi scheme. Well, worse than one, since you were compelled to participate in it. The recipients of benefits from SS always relied on the previous generation's payments into the system.
Those do not collect anything (through early death) pales in comparison to the amount of people that outlive their contribution.

The mistake of the government was implying to its citizens when it established the program in 1935, was that "don't worry...we'll take care of you" and declined to postulate that sustained complete reliance on SS for income was unsustainable. No one considered the generational population gaps. There hasn't been a "baby boom" in more than 60 years. On the contrary, families are getting smaller and smaller, which means there just isn't enough people on the bottom pyramid to support the top. As the baby boomers die off, and there is less strain on the system, there will probably be some improvement.

I'm not saying you aren't deserving of help. Not at all. We are a society that tries - although can fail miserably - to take care of our old and our sick. I'm just pointing out that rallying against the poor is a little like pissing and moaning about a crack in the bottom of your boat when there is a huge gaping hole in the side of it. Welfare is a drop in the bucket of entitlement spending.

Actually, that is not entirely accurate -- though you are right that the system should be improved. Current generations could sustain social security if they were payed wages equal to the amount of inflation. Sadly, wages have been stagnant since the 1980s.


Oh yes, very true. I didn't realize that I need to point out each problem with the system in order to make a point about one particular problem .

Thats why debating politics is so damn difficult. Its impossible to try to isolate a problem for the sake of conversation.

While equal wages would improve the situation, there just aren't enough younger people working to sustain the greater, older population that is living longer .


A ponzi scheme only works so long as there are more and more payers into the system. Madoff only got caught when he couldn't find a any new investors to fund the old ones.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: Why do we treat poor people like children?
(05-03-2014 11:52 AM)War Horse Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 11:13 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  War - SS was never an investment. It was always a ponzi scheme. Well, worse than one, since you were compelled to participate in it. The recipients of benefits from SS always relied on the previous generation's payments into the system.
Those do not collect anything (through early death) pales in comparison to the amount of people that outlive their contribution.

The mistake of the government was implying to its citizens when it established the program in 1935, was that "don't worry...we'll take care of you" and declined to postulate that sustained complete reliance on SS for income was unsustainable. No one considered the generational population gaps. There hasn't been a "baby boom" in more than 60 years. On the contrary, families are getting smaller and smaller, which means there just isn't enough people on the bottom pyramid to support the top. As the baby boomers die off, and there is less strain on the system, there will probably be some improvement.

I'm not saying you aren't deserving of help. Not at all. We are a society that tries - although can fail miserably - to take care of our old and our sick. I'm just pointing out that rallying against the poor is a little like pissing and moaning about a crack in the bottom of your boat when there is a huge gaping hole in the side of it. Welfare is a drop in the bucket of entitlement spending.

I never once said that SS was meant as an investment (I did go back and check my posts) .

What I said was that the government took money out without a vote or public approval and replaced that money with IOU's.

They knew clear well that if they didnt replace that money by the time the baby boomers came of age, that it wouldnt support itself for long (welfare or not).

Fact is they stole the money and now dont want to pay it back (or cant), and nobody is held responsible.

I have nothing against welfare and food stamps, unless someone abuses the system.

I also strongly detest the use of the word "entitlement" as they use it now to describe SS.

Try living on the average SS income for a while and see if you feel "entitled" . I know many (especially women) living on $700.00 to $800.00 a month.... and some would want that to be reduced, thats fucking nice, isnt it?

My mistake, when you said something to the tune of 'its my money, now you gotta pay up', I misunderstood your meaning. I apologize.

Yeah...its sucks. I think a lot of things can be improved, even only marginally, if medicare and ss didn't pay for frivolous things. A single $200 (or is it $250? I can't remember) payment when someone dies towards funeral expenses is so frivolous and pointless, its laughable. Or for medicare, things like penis pumps are covered, but basic chemo treatment puts you in the doughnut hole. That makes no sense to me.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 12:12 PM
RE: Why do we treat poor people like children?
(05-03-2014 12:02 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  My mistake, when you said something to the tune of 'its my money, now you gotta pay up', I misunderstood your meaning. I apologize.

Yeah...its sucks. I think a lot of things can be improved, even only marginally, if medicare and ss didn't pay for frivolous things. A single $200 (or is it $250? I can't remember) payment when someone dies towards funeral expenses is so frivolous and pointless, its laughable. Or for medicare, things like penis pumps are covered, but basic chemo treatment puts you in the doughnut hole. That makes no sense to me.

I agree that the medicare system is in dire need of an overhaul, the abuse with both the medical profession and civilian sector are outragous, and I dont understand why they havent been able to get some better oversight and control of either.

But thats a whole different conversation. Undecided

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 12:37 PM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2014 10:35 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Why do we treat poor people like children?
(05-03-2014 11:57 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Oh yes, very true. I didn't realize that I need to point out each problem with the system in order to make a point about one particular problem .

Thats why debating politics is so damn difficult. Its impossible to try to isolate a problem for the sake of conversation.

Well, duh. That's why you need to make insane non sequitur hypotheticals the basis for your argument, and then declare victory when people can't even be bothered responding to you.
Thumbsup

(05-03-2014 11:57 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  While equal wages would improve the situation, there just aren't enough younger people working to sustain the greater, older population that is living longer .

A ponzi scheme only works so long as there are more and more payers into the system. Madoff only got caught when he couldn't find a any new investors to fund the old ones.

Right, but the original social security intent (somewhat inevitably, I think - calling it a Ponzi scheme seems a little fatuous to me, since faulty assumptions are not "a scheme") assumed demographic structures would remain relatively constant.

Which, of course, they haven't. Making the retirement age a floating point tied to life expectancy and actuarial tables would go a long way to helping. But that's notwithstanding the population pyramid in developed states is looking more and more like a population obelisk...

But I think Logica's point is also valid; it isn't really about the number of people but the distribution of wealth, and economic growth has mapped much more closely to a classic exponential curve.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
05-03-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: Why do we treat poor people like children?
(05-03-2014 11:51 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Oh, yes -- another camp which supports laissez-faire economic policies. You are only further proving my point.

Classical liberalism does not imply wild-west style laissez-faire policies. At the core of libertarianism, is the nonagression principle. Other than the ancap types, libertarians generally see the purpose of government to be to prevent aggression to the greatest extent practical, and to deal with problems of the commons.

From this perspective, regulation designed to prevent the side effects of private behavior from destroying the commons (water and air pollution for example), or regulations designed to prevent risk from being socialized (the fertilizer plant at West, for example) fit just fine into a classical liberal perspective. But regulations designed to micromanage the economy, or with specious justification, would not.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: Why do we treat poor people like children?
(05-03-2014 01:38 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Classical liberalism does not imply wild-west style laissez-faire policies. At the core of libertarianism, is the nonagression principle. Other than the ancap types, libertarians generally see the purpose of government to be to prevent aggression to the greatest extent practical, and to deal with problems of the commons.

From this perspective, regulation designed to prevent the side effects of private behavior from destroying the commons (water and air pollution for example), or regulations designed to prevent risk from being socialized (the fertilizer plant at West, for example) fit just fine into a classical liberal perspective. But regulations designed to micromanage the economy, or with specious justification, would not.

No, one of the core economic principles of classical libertarianism is, in fact, laissez-faire policies completely restricting federal regulation on private industry. A free market.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 03:19 PM
RE: Why do we treat poor people like children?
(05-03-2014 02:43 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 01:38 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Classical liberalism does not imply wild-west style laissez-faire policies. At the core of libertarianism, is the nonagression principle. Other than the ancap types, libertarians generally see the purpose of government to be to prevent aggression to the greatest extent practical, and to deal with problems of the commons.

From this perspective, regulation designed to prevent the side effects of private behavior from destroying the commons (water and air pollution for example), or regulations designed to prevent risk from being socialized (the fertilizer plant at West, for example) fit just fine into a classical liberal perspective. But regulations designed to micromanage the economy, or with specious justification, would not.

No, one of the core economic principles of classical libertarianism is, in fact, laissez-faire policies completely restricting federal regulation on private industry. A free market.

...well, I was discussing "classical liberalism", not "classical libertarianism". I'm not sure what the latter even means. At any rate classical liberals do generally prefer to keep government as local as practical - whatever impacts only a city level would be up to the city to regulate, then counties, then states, and finally federal only if the activity impacted multiple states.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 09:02 PM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2014 09:06 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Why do we treat poor people like children?
(05-03-2014 09:19 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(04-03-2014 07:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  This is untrue.

Libertarians favor economic regulations or government involvement in the market that eliminates externalities.

This is untrue.

Libertarians are divided into two camps.

A) Minarchists: Individuals who believe the government should be limited to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud.

B) Anarchists: Individuals that advocate government's complete elimination as a political system.

Neither one describes any government regulation pertaining to currency regulation, market fairness, or wealth distribution. Libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism manifested in a pseudo-intellectual name. Unless you want to argue that you are a Libertarian Socialist (which is still unrealistic and unsustainable), I am absolutely correct. If you are a libertarian who supports the minimum wage, you are supporting a concept that is fundamentally contradictory to your childish socio-economic ideology.


You're just plain wrong.

The 2012 Libertarian presidential candidate position on the environment was this:

Quote:Johnson has stated that the best environmental practices are due to a good economy.[7] He says "America needs to be a land with a clean environment," and supports "clean-air and clean-water action and believe[s] in conservationism." [b]He cites the Environmental Protection Agency as an example of good government[/b].[14] Johnson has stated he agrees that human carbon emissions do impact the climate. However, he opposes mandatory cap-and-trade policies, and favors allowing private businesses to build more coal-fired power plants, creating jobs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_p...ry_Johnson

Libertarians favor government interference in the market to eliminate negative externalities.

I'm sure that if I looked hard enough, I can find democrats advocating the killing of jews. Ideology statements are meaningless. If you want to know the general position of a party...look at the positions of the people they put up for election.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: