Republicans lost in 2012 already.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Delsana:
Republicans want to keep things the same while increasing productivity and profitability,

They say they do. What policy have they passed recently, or what political stands have they made which actually would increase productivity or profitability?

but the Democrats every single time want to change everything and implement new policies which costs far too much for us to maintain our debt to any acceptable degree.

I'm kinda left wondering what, exactly, you're talking about. "Change everything"... You mean end policies that are pointlessly discriminatory? You mean implement health care reform which is bitterly needed and has been tested incredibly well in its home state and is projected to save us money in the long run? Seriously, this makes very little sense.

Sure, each side has their pros and cons and the Republicans aren't the best people or group ever.. but they've got more experience and we won't have 500 new policies and incredibly expensive programs added.

I think you need to start looking at the Democratic positions and stop listening to Fox News.

Stagnant:

Delsana:
Republicans want to keep things the same while increasing productivity and profitability,

They say they do. What policy have they passed recently, or what political stands have they made which actually would increase productivity or profitability?

but the Democrats every single time want to change everything and implement new policies which costs far too much for us to maintain our debt to any acceptable degree.

I'm kinda left wondering what, exactly, you're talking about. "Change everything"... You mean end policies that are pointlessly discriminatory? You mean implement health care reform which is bitterly needed and has been tested incredibly well in its home state and is projected to save us money in the long run? Seriously, this makes very little sense.

Sure, each side has their pros and cons and the Republicans aren't the best people or group ever.. but they've got more experience and we won't have 500 new policies and incredibly expensive programs added.

I think you need to start looking at the Democratic positions and stop listening to Fox News.

You do realize the fact you even mentioned any of the news channels at all, as well as making an assumption about me, completely invalidates your position, right? Because you can't be hypocritical and think you still have a case.

Just as a point of fact, I don't watch the news, AT ALL. Second, you are the only person in the world I know of that likes the health care reform other than Obama himself.

Delsana:
You do realize the fact you even mentioned any of the news channels at all, as well as making an assumption about me, completely invalidates your position, right?

Really? I was not aware that telling a joke about how woefully misinformed you are invalidates my entire position.

Just as a point of fact, I don't watch the news, AT ALL. Second, you are the only person in the world I know of that likes the health care reform other than Obama himself.

I don't like it. It's just better than nothing. And seriously - are you going to answer my questions and qualify your statements?

Stagnant:

Delsana:
You do realize the fact you even mentioned any of the news channels at all, as well as making an assumption about me, completely invalidates your position, right?

Really? I was not aware that telling a joke about how woefully misinformed you are invalidates my entire position.

Just as a point of fact, I don't watch the news, AT ALL. Second, you are the only person in the world I know of that likes the health care reform other than Obama himself.

I don't like it. It's just better than nothing. And seriously - are you going to answer my questions and qualify your statements?

Not if you keep assuming and invalidating your position. "Woefully misinformed I am?" well that would be another assumption. I'm beginning to think you can't actually provide any proof and are just doing this for kicks.

Delsana:

Stagnant:

Delsana:
You do realize the fact you even mentioned any of the news channels at all, as well as making an assumption about me, completely invalidates your position, right?

Really? I was not aware that telling a joke about how woefully misinformed you are invalidates my entire position.

Just as a point of fact, I don't watch the news, AT ALL. Second, you are the only person in the world I know of that likes the health care reform other than Obama himself.

I don't like it. It's just better than nothing. And seriously - are you going to answer my questions and qualify your statements?

Not if you keep assuming and invalidating your position. "Woefully misinformed I am?" well that would be another assumption. I'm beginning to think you can't actually provide any proof and are just doing this for kicks.

Proof of what? You've made a claim which seems outright ludicrous, and failed completely to justify it. Citations or GTFO.

's and "'sDelsana" post="528.307033.15084188"]

Just as a point of fact, I don't watch the news, AT ALL. Second, you are the only person in the world I know of that likes the health care reform other than Obama himself.[/quote]

You need to look up some polls about the healthcare reform.

Umm Democrats are not trying to enact new policies but old and proven to work policies. You know those that brought us out of the great depression, those that worked in the 1950's and 60's when our nation was prosperous. Those that Reagan implemented or didnt fight in some way.

You know your first post in this thread and the statement you made that i quoted removes all credibility in this thread?

Did you know that Gorfia makes a much better argument for Republicans than you do and you are really hurting him with your arguments? Dont try to help someone who is holding there own and make him lose his credibility.

I think you need to go back to political comments on CNN and FOX news comment sections for the articles they post on the net or just go to them if you havnt rather than make inane comments that is not a valid argument here where both sides views are welcome if they are valid arguments.

JET1971:
's and "Delsana" post="528.307033.15084188"]

Just as a point of fact, I don't watch the news, AT ALL. Second, you are the only person in the world I know of that likes the health care reform other than Obama himself.

You need to look up some polls about the healthcare reform.

Umm Democrats are not trying to enact new policies but old and proven to work policies. You know those that brought us out of the great depression, those that worked in the 1950's and 60's when our nation was prosperous. Those that Reagan implemented or didnt fight in some way.

You know your first post in this thread and the statement you made that i quoted removes all credibility in this thread?

Did you know that Gorfia makes a much better argument for Republicans than you do and you are really hurting him with your arguments? Dont try to help someone who is holding there own and make him lose his credibility.

I think you need to go back to political comments on CNN and FOX news comment sections for the articles they post on the net or just go to them if you havnt rather than make inane comments that is not a valid argument here where both sides views are welcome if they are valid arguments.[/quote]

Let's not pretend policies brought us out of the great depression as opposed to the war that brought about a war economy. Basic history lessons there.

------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I don't read the news, but making assumptions and or insults towards a person in a debate or discussion generally invalidates your entire position as it compromises your character. As such, that's what you've done.

Stagnant:

Delsana:

Stagnant:

Really? I was not aware that telling a joke about how woefully misinformed you are invalidates my entire position.

I don't like it. It's just better than nothing. And seriously - are you going to answer my questions and qualify your statements?

Not if you keep assuming and invalidating your position. "Woefully misinformed I am?" well that would be another assumption. I'm beginning to think you can't actually provide any proof and are just doing this for kicks.

Proof of what? You've made a claim which seems outright ludicrous, and failed completely to justify it. Citations or GTFO.

Oh gosh, it's immaturity with the whole illogical abbreviations PLUS the ignoring the fact your assumptions and insults have already compromised your character. Just as an FYI, unless you apologize and redeem yourself.. I'm going to continue ignoring you.

Delsana:

Again, I don't read the news, but making assumptions and or insults towards a person in a debate or discussion generally invalidates your entire position as it compromises your character. As such, that's what you've done.

Here if you want a reminder of why you have no credibility in this thread:

Delsana:
The Republicans are pretty much the only hope for the survival of our government... so.. yeah. Democrats are not fit for our situation.

Asked for citations and supporting links and you attacked the person asking.

Please exit the thread, you are hurting the Republicans and Mitt Romney and all his supporters.

If you continue i will report you for flame baiting and trolling. Infact that quoted comment is against the rules.

*edit. nevermind reported for trying to start a flame war and insulting other members.

arbane:

Gorfias:
Bush I and Juan McAmnesty were punished due to understanding they'd betray us in a way that Bush II didn't.

Wait, wait... Bush the Lesser ISN'T "Juan McAmnesty", like I thought? ISTR Dubya was pro-immigrant. Who is it, then?

Gorfias:

I think it is agreed, he won't be pushing Lilly Ledbetter type anti-business legislation,

What the FUCK is 'anti-business' about equal pay for equal work?

Business makes a business decision, even rightfully, to pay someone less than that person thinks they deserve. That person will be able to sue. That company, to avoid damages, is likely to settle, even if they are in the right. That money comes out of the private sector that would earn it.

Should that business prevail, chances are, they are counter complaining against someone that is judgement proof (broke). They'd still be screwed.

In potential class actions, there'd be a presumption of guilt that might be impossible from which to defend.

Even if I'm wrong, is it fair to write that is likely public perception, helping Romney in 2012?

Dunno where Romney is on Immigration, but so far, he doesn't have McAmnesty's reputation. He could still a GB 2 attempt at it though. Just hasn't been much of an issue now.

JET1971:

Delsana:

Again, I don't read the news, but making assumptions and or insults towards a person in a debate or discussion generally invalidates your entire position as it compromises your character. As such, that's what you've done.

Here if you want a reminder of why you have no credibility in this thread:

Delsana:
The Republicans are pretty much the only hope for the survival of our government... so.. yeah. Democrats are not fit for our situation.

Asked for citations and supporting links and you attacked the person asking.

Please exit the thread, you are hurting the Republicans and Mitt Romney and all his supporters.

If you continue i will report you for flame baiting and trolling. Infact that quoted comment is against the rules.

*edit. nevermind reported for trying to start a flame war and insulting other members.

I didn't actually do anything, but you guys insulted me and compromised your own character which made me ignore you, as is common in debates or arguments, and people suddenly start insulting people. I didn't actually attack anyone by the definition or otherwise, btw, so please don't say I did or make up lies. And I don't support Mitt Romney btw, he's not the right one for the job, granted he is a Republican of sorts.

I would of gladly given links and all that if people hadn't been insulting and assuming and compromised their character immaturely.

Welcome to ignore.

Delsana is on your ignore list. Click here to show the post

@Gorfias. thanks for returning to the conversation.

In your opinion is immigration as high a topic or higher than the job market this election?

Obama has made some questionable policy choices but none that were against the law if congressional committees are concerned.

Delsana:
Oh gosh, it's immaturity with the whole illogical abbreviations PLUS the ignoring the fact your assumptions and insults have already compromised your character. Just as an FYI, unless you apologize and redeem yourself.. I'm going to continue ignoring you.

Fulfill your burden of proof or stop acting as though your claims had any merit. Trying to say "oh, you're being mean to me" is a gigantic red herring, and you can drop that shit - nobody is falling for it.

Stagnant:

Delsana:
Oh gosh, it's immaturity with the whole illogical abbreviations PLUS the ignoring the fact your assumptions and insults have already compromised your character. Just as an FYI, unless you apologize and redeem yourself.. I'm going to continue ignoring you.

Fulfill your burden of proof or stop acting as though your claims had any merit. Trying to say "oh, you're being mean to me" is a gigantic red herring, and you can drop that shit - nobody is falling for it.

Last post I'm making towards you, but I don't care if you "fall for it" or not, because it's true. You compromised your character by insulting, making attacks on me and assuming things about me.. why would I waste my time debating with you?

Stagnant:
snip

I wouldnt bother. no credibilty and lack of a valid argument. just do what I did and call it good.

Here is something flaoting at Rueters right now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/us-usa-campaign-secrets-idUSBRE86G0Z420120718

Romneys secrets. Funny how the article shifts to Romneys religion. I didnt know anyone was talking about that.

*edit that article pretty much summed up what I have been saying about Romney's refusing to disclose his taxes.

Unlike most politicians seeking national office, Romney initially declined to release any of his tax returns. In January, under pressure from his opponents in the Republican primaries, he released his 2010 return and an estimate for 2011.

his own party has to beg him to release a safe one.

JET1971:

Stagnant:
snip

I wouldnt bother. no credibilty and lack of a valid argument. just do what I did and call it good.

Here is something flaoting at Rueters right now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/us-usa-campaign-secrets-idUSBRE86G0Z420120718

Romneys secrets. Funny how the article shifts to Romneys religion. I didnt know anyone was talking about that.

that article seems as if it was written and thrown together 10 minutes before the deadline. It discusses something without discussing it and is kind of jambled.

Delsana:

Stagnant:

Delsana:
Oh gosh, it's immaturity with the whole illogical abbreviations PLUS the ignoring the fact your assumptions and insults have already compromised your character. Just as an FYI, unless you apologize and redeem yourself.. I'm going to continue ignoring you.

Fulfill your burden of proof or stop acting as though your claims had any merit. Trying to say "oh, you're being mean to me" is a gigantic red herring, and you can drop that shit - nobody is falling for it.

Last post I'm making towards you, but I don't care if you "fall for it" or not, because it's true. You compromised your character by insulting, making attacks on me and assuming things about me.. why would I waste my time debating with you?

Same question to you. You posed a far-fetched statement. Then when I asked you to explain, what did you do? You avoided the question and simply tried to paint me as unreasonable, hypocritical, or rude. Yeah, no big loss there, oh Master Debater.

keiskay:

JET1971:

Stagnant:
snip

I wouldnt bother. no credibilty and lack of a valid argument. just do what I did and call it good.

Here is something flaoting at Rueters right now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/us-usa-campaign-secrets-idUSBRE86G0Z420120718

Romneys secrets. Funny how the article shifts to Romneys religion. I didnt know anyone was talking about that.

that article seems as if it was written and thrown together 10 minutes before the deadline. It discusses something without discussing it and is kind of jambled.

Kinda why i am trying to decipher half of it. plus it came from Reuters itself like AP's site and not a news source like a newspaper, website, or TV station. could be half drivel or it could be good stuff that gets ignored.

Just thought it was interesting enough to discuss.

JET1971:

keiskay:

JET1971:

I wouldnt bother. no credibilty and lack of a valid argument. just do what I did and call it good.

Here is something flaoting at Rueters right now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/us-usa-campaign-secrets-idUSBRE86G0Z420120718

Romneys secrets. Funny how the article shifts to Romneys religion. I didnt know anyone was talking about that.

that article seems as if it was written and thrown together 10 minutes before the deadline. It discusses something without discussing it and is kind of jambled.

Kinda why i am trying to decipher half of it. plus it came from Reuters itself like AP's site and not a news source like a newspaper, website, or TV station. could be half drivel or it could be good stuff that gets ignored.

Just thought it was interesting enough to discuss.

yeah, well the only time i would start worrying about romney's religion is only if the obama campaign tries to bring up as a negative. which hasn't happened yet, so all this talk about hinting to it is just bullshit.

a wealthy man with offshore accounts is hardly condemning and not really surprising.

Stagnant:
I love how you're willing to degrade an entire scientific field as "talking out of their asses"........ Yeah, no shit, they have to assume a lot.

That's really all I'm asking you to understand. Paul Krugmen would no doubt vote for Obama and write that his economics policys are dandy, assuming certain things here, given certain things there, and then use real things to "ground" those observations upon. He'd also slam Romney plans. That's what he does. But I'd rather be right with Reagan than wrong with Nixon/Carter.

Common sense is worthless. Throw it out the window and forget about it.

I cannot. Much of my thinking starts there. I have to believe an ant that toils and saves for a rainy day is better off than the grasshopper that plays in the sun all day. I'll look for facts later to back up what I think, but you have to start with first principals.

the private market cares about one thing and one thing only: profit.

That's a lot like writing that government only cares about graft, corruption, tyranny, etc. It isn't wholly correct. If it were, private charity would have died a long time ago.

in New Jersey after Chris Christie privatized them. What happened? Well, now they run at a profit, whereas before they cost the money quite a bit. How does that work? Well, prices are up, workers are considerably less qualified and get paid less, the staff got slashed, and the care offered went from "passable" to "wait, are they abusing the patients?". And you expect Social Security to be different why?

To me, translation: government was involved in something and messed it up. Better to hang on to your money and handle things yourself.

When I read of $100,000 a year bus drivers, or that the Mass Turnpike still has tolls, I have to think the transportation things you think of would be corrupt boondogles.

Wait, what? Citation needed on the first thing. Either way, though, why? Germany's public transit worked fine (until it was privatized). So does almost everywhere else in the world.

The Mass turnpike works fine too. It boasts of the highest bond rating ever. Its roads are very well maintained. The toll booths offer employment!
The problem is, this is an unjust waste. The road was paid off decades ago. Excise taxes are supposed to be paid by everyone, for everyone to enjoy maintained roads. In a perfect market system, those employed by the turnpike authority are supposed to be doing actual helpful wealth producing activity. Instead, they're just dragging down the economy and wasting oxygen. Sad.

Stagnant:

Gorfias:

Words

Common sense is worthless. Throw it out the window and forget about it. We need actual facts, not what you think is "intuitive", Mr. Democratic Voter Fraud Machine.

Hey, it looks like there may have been ACTUAL voter fraud committed in the Wisconsin recall elections!

...Guess by which team.

Delsana:
Republicans want to keep things the same while increasing productivity and profitability, but the Democrats every single time want to change everything and implement new policies which costs far too much for us to maintain our debt to any acceptable degree.

man what

have you not been paying ANY attention to actual reality and getting all your information from press releases? Because if you HAVE, not noticing that the Repubs are the ones who want to execute social security and starve the nonmilitary of our government into worthlessness would be BARELY understandable.

arbane:

Stagnant:

Gorfias:

Words

Common sense is worthless. Throw it out the window and forget about it. We need actual facts, not what you think is "intuitive", Mr. Democratic Voter Fraud Machine.

Hey, it looks like there may have been ACTUAL voter fraud committed in the Wisconsin recall elections!

...Guess by which team.

Delsana:
Republicans want to keep things the same while increasing productivity and profitability, but the Democrats every single time want to change everything and implement new policies which costs far too much for us to maintain our debt to any acceptable degree.

man what

have you not been paying ANY attention to actual reality and getting all your information from press releases? Because if you HAVE, not noticing that the Repubs are the ones who want to execute social security and starve the nonmilitary of our government into worthlessness would be BARELY understandable.

...

I notice you're somewhat respectful, so we can talk. First, social security was never meant to be a permanent thing, so while removing it may not be fair persay, it isn't a bad idea in itself. That being said, yes some people, particularly older groups will be annoyed by that, but don't they have 401's or some type of long term saving account? They should of.

A lot of our issues come from a middle class being thought to exist, perhaps eradicating some of these governmental draining programs will allow the government to resuscitate the country better, perhaps not. In any case, Social Security and Welfare has gone on for far too long as it stands, and many abuse it.

Delsana:
snip

...

I notice you're somewhat respectful, so we can talk. First, social security was never meant to be a permanent thing, so while removing it may not be fair persay, it isn't a bad idea in itself. That being said, yes some people, particularly older groups will be annoyed by that, but don't they have 401's or some type of long term saving account? They should of.

A lot of our issues come from a middle class being thought to exist, perhaps eradicating some of these governmental draining programs will allow the government to resuscitate the country better, perhaps not. In any case, Social Security and Welfare has gone on for far too long as it stands, and many abuse it.

Social Security is entirely funded by people paying into it. It is essentially a government operated 401. People pay into it with the expectation that they get a return after they retire.

The idea that the US has a welfare problem is ridiculous. The US spends a stupidly low amount on welfare compared to the rest of the developed world and it shows. The idea that there is widespread abuse of welfare is entirely unfounded. In the UK for example more money is lost in the welfare system through error than fraud. That is not to say there is no fraud, there is, but in the UK it accounts for less than 1% of welfare spending.

pyrate:

The idea that the US has a welfare problem is ridiculous. The US spends a stupidly low amount on welfare compared to the rest of the developed world and it shows.

Yep. The USA doesn't have a 'welfare people' it has a 'all our jobs have been outsourced to Timbuktu' problem.

Delsana:

I notice you're somewhat respectful, so we can talk. First, social security was never meant to be a permanent thing,

Citation needed.

Delsana:

so while removing it may not be fair persay, it isn't a bad idea in itself.

It's a TERRIBLE idea. The purpose of Social Security was to provide a nationwide retirement fund that didn't depend on corporate whim or the vagaries of the stock market (which, as you might have heard if you'd paid ANY attention to the news between 2007 and today, can be VERY vagarious indeed).

Delsana:
That being said, yes some people, particularly older groups will be annoyed by that, but don't they have 401's or some type of long term saving account? They should of.

"Oh, I'm sorry, Granny. You didn't predict that we were going to burn Social Security to the ground in the name of the Glorious Reagan? Guess you'll just have to starve!"

Why do rightwingers hate the poor SO MUCH? Is there supposed to be something ennobling about pointless misery?

Delsana:
A lot of our issues come from a middle class being thought to exist, perhaps eradicating some of these governmental draining programs will allow the government to resuscitate the country better, perhaps not. In any case, Social Security and Welfare has gone on for far too long as it stands, and many abuse it.

man what again

You want to get rid of the middle class?

what?

Anyone who thinks drilling for more domestic oil will do a goddamn thing knows nothing about the global oil market and should be summarily ignored.

Gorfias:
That's really all I'm asking you to understand. Paul Krugmen would no doubt vote for Obama and write that his economics policys are dandy, assuming certain things here, given certain things there, and then use real things to "ground" those observations upon. He'd also slam Romney plans. That's what he does. But I'd rather be right with Reagan than wrong with Nixon/Carter.

You have the cause and effect backwards. Paul Krugman isn't saying "the republican plan is bad" because he votes democrat. He's voting democrat because he recognizes "the republican plan is bad". This type of cause and effect will often lead to economists like him being labeled as "partisans", but nothing could be further from the truth: he investigated the situation, applied his knowledge, did careful research into both modern and past economies, and came to the conclusion that the republican plan is completely unworkable. And it's not just him, it's also the Tax Policy Center.

I cannot. Much of my thinking starts there. I have to believe an ant that toils and saves for a rainy day is better off than the grasshopper that plays in the sun all day. I'll look for facts later to back up what I think, but you have to start with first principals.

If common sense would tell you "there is a fire", that's one thing, but smell for smoke first, k? Because saying "it's common sense that Social Security is going bankrupt" is bullshit.

That's a lot like writing that government only cares about graft, corruption, tyranny, etc. It isn't wholly correct. If it were, private charity would have died a long time ago.

Pardon, private companies. And believe it or not, when things get privatized, it's not the charities who gain control of them. We see this quite often - In Germany, it was Deutsche Bahn, which became slower, more expensive, less efficient, stopped service to many stops, and cut back on the costs. In New Jersey, it was the halfway houses. Nation-wide in the USA, it was prisons. Yet the fact remains that for many things, the bottom line cannot be the bottom line.

To me, translation: government was involved in something and messed it up. Better to hang on to your money and handle things yourself.

Wow, you really do read only what you want to read, don't you? The correct translation was "government ceased its involvement in something and it got fucked up badly." I mean, how the hell do you get from "the government gave control of halfway houses over to a private company, and everything went to shit because the company could not afford to run the halfway house at a loss" to "the government screwed it up, best deal with it yourself"? That's exactly the point - we tried exactly that, and it was a colossal failure.

The Mass turnpike works fine too. It boasts of the highest bond rating ever. Its roads are very well maintained. The toll booths offer employment!
The problem is, this is an unjust waste. The road was paid off decades ago. Excise taxes are supposed to be paid by everyone, for everyone to enjoy maintained roads. In a perfect market system, those employed by the turnpike authority are supposed to be doing actual helpful wealth producing activity. Instead, they're just dragging down the economy and wasting oxygen. Sad.

I don't understand what you're talking about. The Mass turnpike is one of the better roads in the country; paying for maintenance is entirely reasonable. And you're saying that running toll booths drags down the economy?

Stagnant:

You have the cause and effect backwards. Paul Krugman isn't saying "the republican plan is bad" because he votes democrat. He's voting democrat because he recognizes "the republican plan is bad".

Can we agree there are whole institutions that think him a leftist idiot that often talks out of both sides of his mouth?

If common sense would tell you "there is a fire", that's one thing, but smell for smoke first, k?

Agreed. I do need to know things like people are living longer than when people were first paying into social security, and that they are having fewer kids too before I start making hypotheses. My bad.

private companies. And believe it or not, when things get privatized, it's not the charities who gain control of them. We see this quite often - In Germany, it was Deutsche Bahn, which became slower, more expensive, less efficient, stopped service to many stops, and cut back on the costs. In New Jersey, it was the halfway houses. Nation-wide in the USA, it was prisons. Yet the fact remains that for many things, the bottom line cannot be the bottom line.

I've read that richer nations are cleaner than poor nations. I wonder if they give more to charity as well? These private companies are meant to make us richer.

"government ceased its involvement in something and it got fucked up badly." I mean, how the hell do you get from "the government gave control of halfway houses over to a private company, and everything went to shit because the company could not afford to run the halfway house at a loss" to "the government screwed it up, best deal with it yourself"? That's exactly the point - we tried exactly that, and it was a colossal failure.

What was government doing involved with such houses to begin with? My understanding is that typically, government workers are difficult to motivate and get productive. Typically, privatization is a good thing. You've just found an exception. Didn't all of England benefit from privatization in the 1980s?

1) The Mass turnpike is one of the better roads in the country;
2) paying for maintenance is entirely reasonable.
3) And you're saying that running toll booths drags down the economy?

1) Other interstates, in the same State, are also well maintained.
2) Maintenance is paid for by excise taxes that everyone in the State pays, not just those who need to use the Turnpike
3) Maintaining an unnecessary Turnpike Authority costs money, takes workers away from better, necessary employment, costs commuters on the pike monetary burdens that should be shared by their brethren.

Gorfias:
Can we agree there are whole institutions that think him a leftist idiot that often talks out of both sides of his mouth?

Like what, Heartland and CATO?

Agreed. I do need to know things like people are living longer than when people were first paying into social security, and that they are having fewer kids too before I start making hypotheses. My bad.

Or, you know, actually look up the information and see that it's predicted to be solvent for at least another 30 years, and that making completely solvent past there would require very little - more or less just raising the cap on payroll tax so that it isn't one of the most regressive taxes in the country. So clearly, the solution is to scrap the entire system, right?

I've read that richer nations are cleaner than poor nations. I wonder if they give more to charity as well? These private companies are meant to make us richer.

No. Not "us". Themselves. If we get richer (which is not necessarily the case, see also: Bain Capital's record), that's a fairly common side-effect, but not the goal. What cleanliness has to do with charity kinda stumps me though.

What was government doing involved with such houses to begin with? My understanding is that typically, government workers are difficult to motivate and get productive. Typically, privatization is a good thing. You've just found an exception. Didn't all of England benefit from privatization in the 1980s?

Hmm... what the government was doing involved with what is essentially part of our prison system. Boggles the mind, really. Oh wait, no it doesn't - it in fact makes no sense for anyone else to be involved. Furthermore, I get the feeling that your "understanding" is based more in your own biases than in reality. Care to prove me wrong?

Beyond that, though, I don't think you know much about privatization. The idea that Deutsche Bahn, the halfway houses, our prison system, our medical system, and assorted other things are the "exception", while the success of the British privatization (was it even successful? Any brits care to chime in about that one?) is the rule is flat-out wrong. See, when talking about privatizing a system, you have to determine whether or not it, in its current form, is turning a profit. If it is, there's no reason to privatize it, because apparently the government is doing a fine job already. If it isn't, you have to check whether or not the cutting of service or increases in price can be justified to the people involved. Telecommunications, in advanced forms, generally works out pretty well. Transportation can, but usually doesn't. Medicine just fails, and fails miserably. Caretaking of any sort is usually a complete and utter flop. So it's largely based in both the branch and the specifics of that branch. But to call privatization successful "as a rule" is simply wrong.

arbane:

pyrate:

The idea that the US has a welfare problem is ridiculous. The US spends a stupidly low amount on welfare compared to the rest of the developed world and it shows.

Yep. The USA doesn't have a 'welfare people' it has a 'all our jobs have been outsourced to Timbuktu' problem.

Delsana:

I notice you're somewhat respectful, so we can talk. First, social security was never meant to be a permanent thing,

Citation needed.

Delsana:

so while removing it may not be fair persay, it isn't a bad idea in itself.

It's a TERRIBLE idea. The purpose of Social Security was to provide a nationwide retirement fund that didn't depend on corporate whim or the vagaries of the stock market (which, as you might have heard if you'd paid ANY attention to the news between 2007 and today, can be VERY vagarious indeed).

Delsana:
That being said, yes some people, particularly older groups will be annoyed by that, but don't they have 401's or some type of long term saving account? They should of.

"Oh, I'm sorry, Granny. You didn't predict that we were going to burn Social Security to the ground in the name of the Glorious Reagan? Guess you'll just have to starve!"

Why do rightwingers hate the poor SO MUCH? Is there supposed to be something ennobling about pointless misery?

Delsana:
A lot of our issues come from a middle class being thought to exist, perhaps eradicating some of these governmental draining programs will allow the government to resuscitate the country better, perhaps not. In any case, Social Security and Welfare has gone on for far too long as it stands, and many abuse it.

man what again

You want to get rid of the middle class?

what?

Of course we want to get rid of the middle-class, it doesn't officially exist, but it's causing a major level of issues because people think they're in the privy to it. Based on your responses to not knowing why Social Security was created in the first place, as well as not even understanding the dissolution of the middle class... I have to wonder if you've ever taken a class in politics, polysci, or any type of political debate club.. because those are some very basic factors that are pretty much givens.

And let's not be ignorant that Social Security is not supposed to be the thing the old fall back on because they didn't do anything in life.

I hate sources, because they make people who don't study it, able to look at it for a second and then claim knowledge and then argue it anyway... people who don't actually understand or research these things shouldn't just be given a clean bill to continue arguing what they don't understand but what they think they do..

But for this one time, here's some sources:

http://agonist.org/story/2005/1/6/212133/2309

http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/business-and-finance/your-social-security/the-temporary-social-security-benefit-that-is-still-around-76-years-later.html

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001572.php

While I hate wikipedia, they do some good quality control so you should be made privy to this:

Totals By Year
Year - Beneficiaries - Dollars[15]
1937 - 53,236 - $1,278,000
1938 - 213,670 - $10,478,000
1939 - 174,839 - $13,896,000
1940 - 222,488 - $35,000,000
1950 - 3,477,243 - $961,000,000
1960 - 14,844,589 - $11,245,000,000
1970 - 26,228,629 - $31,863,000,000
1980 - 35,584,955 - $120,511,000,000
1990 - 39,832,125 - $247,796,000,000
1995 - 43,387,259 - $332,553,000,000
1996 - 43,736,836 - $347,088,000,000
1997 - 43,971,086 - $361,970,000,000
1998 - 44,245,731 - $374,990,000,000
1999 - 44,595,624 - $385,768,000,000
2000 - 45,414,794 - $407,644,000,000
2001 - 45,877,506 - $431,949,000,000
2002 - 46,444,317 - $453,746,000,000
2003 - 47,038,486 - $470,778,000,000
2004 - 47,687,693 - $493,263,000,000
2005 - 48,434,436 - $520,748,000,000
2006 - 49,122,624 - $546,238,000,000
2007 - 49,864,838 - $584,939,000,000
2008 - 50,898,244 - $615,344,000,000

In just 2008 the total people benefitting from social security was over 50 million, and the cost 615 billion. That's a lot of money. It's far more today, being 4 years later, and a lot of things are going through as fraud.

---

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

You need to pretty much read all that and more to understand how Welfare and the Social Security program was not intended for wide-spread distribution or that many people. Let's also not forget that in the times it was enacted and which it has pretty much stayed active, it was thought many would die by 60+ and never take advantage of social security, unfortunately while the program has lived and so have the beneficiaries, the actual age hasn't been raised that much to compensate for the rare act of living past certain ages.

Also, even if you argued Social Security was meant to be a permanent function as time went by, but the policies just haven't been adapted for the current era and generations, you'd still be ignoring the fact that while you're correct about it potentially meaning to stay a permanent function for the POOR as in the history of pretty much every organization and infrastructure in the world's existence having a permanent help-line for the poor, the majority of policies, and arguably ALL of them, were themselves all listed as TEMPORARY policies in their own naming and those were the ones that affected the "middle-class" and many others during their plights or were abused and exploited by crafty deviants to society. So indeed, Social Security could be argued to be a permanent basis and that'd be fine, but those 50 million plus are not by majority poor and too many people are taking out of the fund for it to be effective anymore.

Stagnant:

Gorfias:
Can we agree there are whole institutions that think him a leftist idiot that often talks out of both sides of his mouth?

Like what, Heartland and CATO?

Sure. And enough people are paying attention to what they say rather than Krugman to influence the 2012 election. I don't think the Republicans have lost it already.

Or, you know, actually look up the information and see that it's predicted to be solvent for at least another 30 years, and that making completely solvent past there would require very little - more or less just raising the cap on payroll tax so that it isn't one of the most regressive taxes in the country. So clearly, the solution is to scrap the entire system, right?

Actually, I read things like this: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/04/social-security-will-run-out-by-2033-government-says-75206.html
I'm 50ish, so, it will run out pretty much just when I need it.

No. Not "us". Themselves. If we get richer (which is not necessarily the case, see also: Bain Capital's record), that's a fairly common side-effect, but not the goal. What cleanliness has to do with charity kinda stumps me though.

A richer people have more discretionary funds to use on things like charity. My understanding is that money must be spent, invested, or lost. Even if we make "them" rich, the money only does them any good if they use it to keep us employed.

What was government doing involved with such houses to begin with? My understanding is that typically, government workers are difficult to motivate and get productive. Typically, privatization is a good thing. You've just found an exception. Didn't all of England benefit from privatization in the 1980s?

Hmm... what the government was doing involved with what is essentially part of our prison system. Boggles the mind, really. Oh wait, no it doesn't - it in fact makes no sense for anyone else to be involved. Furthermore, I get the feeling that your "understanding" is based more in your own biases than in reality. Care to prove me wrong?

Feh. Keep a person in jail till they're released, then release them. Problem solved.

As I wrote, I'm old. A lot of what I've read and experienced isn't linkable to the web anymore, so, when I reference an old story, I am often called, literally, a liar for just sharing something I lived through.
I will acknowledge this about government vs. private sector: the bigger the private institution, the more it seems like the worst of what we think of government workers. I've worked in small private institutions, big private, and public. Small private was a world of different from big. If you sneezed in small private, the boss knew it and had to figure out how it affected the bottom line. Big private and public were a lot a like. I read of Jaguar workers really acting lazy.

I've never worked in a small public sector job though. Maybe they're more like private small firms, but I recall a 60 minute or 20/20 show (no I don't have a link) about a small mental hospital. They got footage of a patient crawling on all 4s to the garbage bin to try to get something to eat because they were failing to even feed her. The head of the program drove a luxury car (A Mercedes). The show colored my perception of even small public sector institutions. They're relatively unaccountable.
You can believe me about it or not. I'm just sharing with you some of where my thinking comes from. And I think there are enough people out there that the 2012 election is far from lost.

Beyond that, though, I don't think you know much about privatization. The idea that Deutsche Bahn, the halfway houses, our prison system, our medical system, and assorted other things are the "exception", while the success of the British privatization (was it even successful? Any brits care to chime in about that one?) is the rule is flat-out wrong. See, when talking about privatizing a system, you have to determine whether or not it, in its current form, is turning a profit. If it is, there's no reason to privatize it, because apparently the government is doing a fine job already. If it isn't, you have to check whether or not the cutting of service or increases in price can be justified to the people involved. Telecommunications, in advanced forms, generally works out pretty well. Transportation can, but usually doesn't. Medicine just fails, and fails miserably. Caretaking of any sort is usually a complete and utter flop. So it's largely based in both the branch and the specifics of that branch. But to call privatization successful "as a rule" is simply wrong.

Can we agree that there are plenty of people out there for privatization that will effect the 2012 election in favor of Republicans?

Well, I guess I missed the topic then, because I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about what's right. And maybe changing YOUR horribly misguided opinions. I find it interesting that you claim that Krugman talks out of both corners of his mouth, Gorfias, because you seem to be recognizing these issues, and refusing to change your stance regardless. Just like above, where you recognized that Romney was lying to you, and STILL fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. Yes, slandering and discrediting a very respectable economist is an incredibly easy way to discredit his position, however rational and well-founded it may be. That doesn't make it right. Yes, people out there who think "Government is automatically bad, private sector is automatically good" will hurt this nation. That doesn't make it right.

Gorfias:
snip

You seem to be under the impression that the social security trust fund is what benefits are paid out of. It isn't, though due to woeful reporting one can see why you'd think it is.
The trust fund is itself the surplus fund generated by decades of people paying into it more than they take out. Those surplus funds are used to purchase US backed securities that the federal government pays interest on(currently sitting at $2.7 trillion for the combined funds).
The 2012 report from the board of trustees gives an estimate that this surplus will be exhausted by 2033 (which is what was reported) and that current legislation and projections would allow for 75% of all obligations to be met regardless (not reported) so yeah you're still going to get your benefits.

For how to make up the shortfall you can either eliminate the cap (currently sitting at around $110,000) for paying into SS to fund it into perpetuity with a rather large surplus or lower the taxable percentage by 1% for each multiple you make to a minimum of 1% for everything made over [currently] $660k.

Doing either of those things before 2020 will suffice.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Gorfias:
snip

snip.

Of course, I could be wrong about everything. For grown-ups, kinda:

Topic is not social security people. Topic is the merits of the republicans running for office and if those merits help or hinder the election of them. Please lets get back on topic.

keiskay:

JET1971:

keiskay:
that article seems as if it was written and thrown together 10 minutes before the deadline. It discusses something without discussing it and is kind of jambled.

Kinda why i am trying to decipher half of it. plus it came from Reuters itself like AP's site and not a news source like a newspaper, website, or TV station. could be half drivel or it could be good stuff that gets ignored.

Just thought it was interesting enough to discuss.

yeah, well the only time i would start worrying about romney's religion is only if the obama campaign tries to bring up as a negative. which hasn't happened yet, so all this talk about hinting to it is just bullshit.

a wealthy man with offshore accounts is hardly condemning and not really surprising.

I am not worried about his religion and the Obama campaign isnt bringing it up. thats my point, why did that article bring it up? doesnt make sense and isnt really a topic. I was an am calling it bullshit that it was in the article.

It is hardly condemning when there is full disclosure. without disclosure there can only be speculation and speculation is unelectable. If Romney has nothing to fear about his accounts in known tax shelters then he has no reason to not disclose. If there is something damning in those records then not disclosing will bring out even more speculations. such as the amnesty for tax evading that the IRS did late last decade. did he use that? If he did then to the public he is a tax evader even though the IRS will not pursue him because of the amnesty.

As long as he allows speculation he loses more votes by the day, the longer he allows it the more of an issue it will become. the bigger the issue the more votes he will lose daily. snowball affect?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked