Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: joelocal on January 21, 2008, 06:00:05 PM
-
STOCKHOLM, Sweden — A Swedish university has received $590,000 in research funds to measure the greenhouse gases released when cows belch.
About 20 cows will participate in the project run by the Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala, about 40 miles north of Stockholm, officials said Monday.
Cattle release methane, a greenhouse gas believed to contribute to global warming, when they digest their food. Researchers believe the level of methane released depends on the type of food the eat.
Project leader Jan Bertilsson said that the cows involved in the study will have different diets and wear a collar device measuring the methane level in the air around them.
He said 95 percent of the methane released by cows comes out through the mouth.
"This type of research is already being conducted in Canada so we will be in contact with Canadian agricultural researchers in the near future," he said.
The research will be funded by a grant from the government's Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning.
-
Stealing is a sin.
We're stealing Iraq's oil. 80% of it, forever.
You support this war.
You're condoning stealing.
You and God work that out yet?
-
Stealing is a sin.
We're stealing Iraq's oil. 80% of it, forever.
You support this war.
You're condoning stealing.
You and God work that out yet?
funny thing about Joe is that i'll gaurantee you that he claims to be "pro life" but i'll bet he supports the death penalty. :D
-
He supports our Liberal President
9 Trillion Dollars Debt
-
He supports are Liberal President
9 Trillion Dollars Debt
Bush is the biggest liberal we've ever had in Washington, biggest spender in US history.
-
funny thing about Joe is that i'll gaurantee you that he claims to be "pro life" but i'll bet he supports the death penalty. :D
loco is so freakin naive, he believes that those at the last supper were seated at a table.
-
What are you saying, Swedish people are all liberals because they want to study cows? STFU n00b. ::)
-
funny thing about Joe is that i'll gaurantee you that he claims to be "pro life" but i'll bet he supports the death penalty. :D
or being "pro life" and supporting the war at the same time. I feel sorry for republicans.
-
repubs are torn.
Their party is killing lots of people to steal oil.
How do you support that?
Plus, ppl like Rush train them to believe if you don't support that, you're a Lib and youre going to hell. Repubs choose the lesser of two evils. And since they believe the bible, you know it messes with their minds.
-
or being "pro life" and supporting the war at the same time. I feel sorry for republicans.
pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-welfare, anti-universal health care, pro-war, anti-stem cell research.
the lesson is that the right wants to make you have a baby, but don't give a steaming shit about giving it a good life.
-
STOCKHOLM, Sweden — A Swedish university has received $590,000 in research funds to measure the greenhouse gases released when cows belch.
About 20 cows will participate in the project run by the Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala, about 40 miles north of Stockholm, officials said Monday.
Cattle release methane, a greenhouse gas believed to contribute to global warming, when they digest their food. Researchers believe the level of methane released depends on the type of food the eat.
Project leader Jan Bertilsson said that the cows involved in the study will have different diets and wear a collar device measuring the methane level in the air around them.
He said 95 percent of the methane released by cows comes out through the mouth.
"This type of research is already being conducted in Canada so we will be in contact with Canadian agricultural researchers in the near future," he said.
The research will be funded by a grant from the government's Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning.
Who cares what they do in Sweden. It's their money and they can spend it however they want
BTW - why do you post this kind of drivel on the G&O board?
-
I guess George bush fucking the US dollar in the ass with inflation, and putting the US trillions in debt to China is better?
-
funny thing about Joe is that i'll gaurantee you that he claims to be "pro life" but i'll bet he supports the death penalty. :D
Yeah, they always seem to go together, don't they? Pretty twisted logic. ???
-
pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-welfare, anti-universal health care, pro-war, anti-stem cell research.
the lesson is that the right wants to make you have a baby, but don't give a steaming shit about giving it a good life.
ha yeah they're right to life allright...but dont give a shit about kids after they're born
-
Liberalism sees the individual--person, plant, and animal--as to a large degree powerless victims of fate or of an oppressor, who must be saved by the intervention of others--in particular, government.
Conservatism, on the other hand, sees the individual as basically powerful, as valuable, and as both capable of and responsible for their own greatness. "
-
I guess George bush fucking the US dollar in the ass with inflation, and putting the US trillions in debt to China is better?
::) Wow, I guess US history began after the 2000 Presidential election.
-
Liberalism sees the individual--person, plant, and animal--as to a large degree powerless victims of fate or of an oppressor, who must be saved by the intervention of others--in particular, government.
Conservatism, on the other hand, sees the individual as basically powerful, as valuable, and as both capable of and responsible for their own greatness. "
oh brother ::)
-
Conservatism, on the other hand, sees the individual as basically powerful, as valuable, and as both capable of and responsible for their own greatness. "
and it works well for those who already have power. not so great for everyone else
-
this thread didn't turn out the way joe hoped :(
E
-
I love getbig...the no bullshit forum
-
::) Wow, I guess US history began after the 2000 Presidential election.
Debt was 4.5 trillion after 100 years of borrowing.
It doubled in 8 years, to today's 9 trillion.
You can argue it was a good investment (hooking into iraqi oil is worth 4 to 6 times that). But you have to admit, Bush did borrow a heck of a lot of money in the last 7 years, in order to maintain the tax cuts he gave to the wealthy, and to corporations.
-
Joelocal, I find your posts fascinating. I never quite understood the typical redneck irrational mindset that seems to defy logic and display enormous levels of hypocrisy and ignorance. You are helping me. Keep it up.
-
Joelocal, I find your posts fascinating. I never quite understood the typical redneck irrational mindset that seems to defy logic and display enormous levels of hypocrisy and ignorance. You are helping me. Keep it up.
Joelocal isn't a redneck. He's wealthy and lives in cali and voted for Clinton. He's a born-again christian.
Real rednecks like war cause they hate arabs and they love killing and they just want cheap gas for their trucks, and nobody to mess with their guns. They don't worry much about politics, just don't bring that sheeit to our town.
joe bashes 'libs' as a constant reassurance that he's doing the right thing by supporting the war machine. Many of us do, because we're okay with robbing another nation of oil to maintain our standard of life. Joe's trying the tricky task of convincing himself it's morally right. Since he can't out=think the common sense "yeah, it's about taking their oil", he has decided to change it to "Libs hate us, so I'm really just trying to protect the USA from libs".
He knows it's a moral conflict he cannot win. He knows, in the mirror, that the USA is straight up looting. And many of us are cool with that. But it does spit in the face of the 10 comandments.
-
Joelocal isn't a redneck. He's wealthy and lives in cali and voted for Clinton. He's a born-again christian.
Real rednecks like war cause they hate arabs and they love killing and they just want cheap gas for their trucks, and nobody to mess with their guns. They don't worry much about politics, just don't bring that sheeit to our town.
joe bashes 'libs' as a constant reassurance that he's doing the right thing by supporting the war machine. Many of us do, because we're okay with robbing another nation of oil to maintain our standard of life. Joe's trying the tricky task of convincing himself it's morally right. Since he can't out=think the common sense "yeah, it's about taking their oil", he has decided to change it to "Libs hate us, so I'm really just trying to protect the USA from libs".
He knows it's a moral conflict he cannot win. He knows, in the mirror, that the USA is straight up looting. And many of us are cool with that. But it does spit in the face of the 10 comandments.
stop enabling loco...that nutcase doesn't need you to splain why he says the shitty things he says. and couldn't you have said what you did in fewer words?
-
Real rednecks like war cause they hate arabs and they love killing and they just want cheap gas for their trucks, and nobody to mess with their guns. They don't worry much about politics, just don't bring that sheeit to our town.
What's wrong with that?? ;D
-
Here is an episode of Family guy:
-
Imagine what new anabolic steroids could be developed with time and $590,000?! What a waste heh
-
repubs are torn.
Their party is killing lots of people to steal oil.
How do you support that?
Plus, ppl like Rush train them to believe if you don't support that, you're a Lib and youre going to hell. Repubs choose the lesser of two evils. And since they believe the bible, you know it messes with their minds.
If America is stealing all this oil why the hell am I paying over 3 bucks a gallon for gas?
-
Bush is the biggest liberal we've ever had in Washington, biggest spender in US history.
-
LOL...29 replys and not one has to do with the original post, amazing!
-
LOL...29 replys and not one has to do with the original post, amazing!
Welcome to Getbig!
-
stop enabling loco...that nutcase doesn't need you to splain why he says the shitty things he says. and couldn't you have said what you did in fewer words?
$590k to research how much a cow's burp effects "global warming" and I'm the nutcase? LOL.....K!
-
LOL...29 replys and not one has to do with the original post, amazing!
Hey Joe,
I responded to the topic of your post
-
Huge waste of money.
-
LOL...29 replys and not one has to do with the original post, amazing!
Hi Matt C.
-
Hey Joe,
I responded to the topic of your post
You're right, the only one and truthfully I posted because it was drivel.
-
$590k to research how much a cow's burp effects "global warming" and I'm the nutcase? LOL.....K!
your gut level reaction aside (pun intended), do you know anything about the actual subject?
-
I have to agree with Joe, waste of money. I can see someone doing the study, whatever, but why the hell would it cost that much to measure the amount of methane out of a freaking cow and multiply ::)
and I'm liberal :D
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=196527.0;attach=228519;image)
So TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
your gut level reaction aside (pun intended), do you know anything about the actual subject?
Honestly no, but it sounded as rediculous as the research someone was doing last year on cow farts in relation to global warming or Cheryl Crow (I think it was her) who said to use only one square of toilet paper after pooping.
-
Honestly no, but it sounded as rediculous as the research someone was doing last year on cow farts in relation to global warming or Cheryl Crow (I think it was her) who said to use only one square of toilet paper after pooping.
Before you start a thread about how "rediculous" it is, perhaps you should research the facts, amigo.
Fifty percent of New Zeeland's CO2 emissions comes from cattle methane.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/climate-watch/quest-to-make-cattle-fart-like-marsupials/2007/12/06/1196812922326.html
So please, explain to me why it is "rediculous", and "liberal" to invest money in research on something that could lower the emissions from cattle?
-
Before you start a thread about how "rediculous" it is, perhaps you should research the facts, amigo.
Fifty percent of New Zeeland's CO2 emissions comes from cattle methane.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/climate-watch/quest-to-make-cattle-fart-like-marsupials/2007/12/06/1196812922326.html
So please, explain to me why it is "rediculous", and "liberal" to invest money in research on something that could lower the emissions from cattle?
Cow burps and farts Zack..........think about it :-\
-
Honestly no, but it sounded as rediculous as the research someone was doing last year on cow farts in relation to global warming or Cheryl Crow (I think it was her) who said to use only one square of toilet paper after pooping.
so do you normally just ridicule something without knowing anything about it?
Why did you mention the evil "Libs" in your title. Do you even know if the govt. of Sweden is Liberal??
Why are you even posting this on the G&O board again?
-
Cow burps and farts Zack..........think about it :-\
If you would actually take the time to read the article:
...Researchers say the bacteria also makes the digestive process much more efficient and could potentially save millions of dollars in feed costs for farmers and graziers.
"Not only would they not produce the methane, they would actually get something like 10 to 15 per cent more energy out of the feed they are eating," said Dr Klieve.
Even farmers who laugh at the idea of environmentally friendly kangaroo farts say that's nothing to joke about, particularly given the devastating drought Australia is suffering.
"In a tight year like a drought situation, 15 per cent would be a considerable sum," said farmer Michael Mitton.
But it will take researchers at least three years to isolate the bacteria, before they can even start to develop a way of transferring it to animals such as cattle and sheep.
No really, at least read these 9 lines! 8)
-
If you would actually take the time to read the article:
...Researchers say the bacteria also makes the digestive process much more efficient and could potentially save millions of dollars in feed costs for farmers and graziers.
"Not only would they not produce the methane, they would actually get something like 10 to 15 per cent more energy out of the feed they are eating," said Dr Klieve.
Even farmers who laugh at the idea of environmentally friendly kangaroo farts say that's nothing to joke about, particularly given the devastating drought Australia is suffering.
"In a tight year like a drought situation, 15 per cent would be a considerable sum," said farmer Michael Mitton.
But it will take researchers at least three years to isolate the bacteria, before they can even start to develop a way of transferring it to animals such as cattle and sheep.
No really, at least read these 9 lines! 8)
Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but something just doesn't seem right. I'd kinda like to read up on this.
-
Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but something just doesn't seem right. I'd kinda like to read up on this.
And I kinda like some scientists to research it further. ;)
-
so do you normally just ridicule something without knowing anything about it?
Research on cow burps deserves some mention
Why did you mention the evil "Libs" in your title. Do you even know if the govt. of Sweden is Liberal??
Hardly think you find a conservative study of this nature
Why are you even posting this on the G&O board again?
Hasn't been moved yet.......and admittedly, trying to get rise from the Liberal base of this board........it worked :P
-
Liberals...Hahahahahaha!
Typical neocon response to something s/he doesn't understand. It's all a matter of how things sound with neocons, and not the facts. No diss to regular cons, just neocons. ;D I myself am predominantly conservative. I am a libertarian which makes my mindset on par with the most of the founding fathers and that is about as truly conservative as a person can get.
-
WTF do "Liberals" have to do with this??
Do you even know anything about the Govt of Sweden?
Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you think
-
Typical neocon response to something s/he doesn't understand. It's all a matter of how things sound with neocons, and not the facts. No diss to regular cons, just neocons. ;D I myself am predominantly conservative. I am a libertarian which makes my mindset on par with the most of the founding fathers and that is about as truly conservative as a person can get.
::)
Explain how you can be both predominantly conservative and a libertarian.
-
WTF do "Liberals" have to do with this??
Do you even know anything about the Govt of Sweden?
Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you think
Sweden? They're not "liberals"... they're fucking socialists. Karl Marx himself may as well be prime minister.
-
::)
Explain how you can be both predominantly conservative and a libertarian.
Conservative = conserving the principles the nation was founded on. For all intents and purposes I am speaking about the Constitution of the United States or Canada's version which is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, the Declaration of Independence. Modern day "conservatives" do not conserve these values.
-
Conservative = conserving the principles the nation was founded on. For all intents and purposes I am speaking about the Constitution of the United States or Canada's version which is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, the Declaration of Independence. Modern day "conservatives" do not conserve these values.
A libertarian is anti-goverment, and wants to minimize military, taxes, and everything that is associated with government.
Individual freedom and responsibility is key.
For further reading, see Robert Nozick.
A conservative on the other hand, views the government as an organism, with the ruling body on top, and that everyone has a task in the system.
For further reading, see Edmund Burke.
So it is hard for me to see how you get these two extremely different ideologies to merge.
-
Sweden? They're not "liberals"... they're fucking socialists. Karl Marx himself may as well be prime minister.
Now you're forcing me to go learn stuff about Sweden and like I said on the first page of this thread I really don't care.
This Forbes article is from 2001 but it seems like it's not quite a pure socialist society and whatever they've got going on now it seems they got some extra $$$ to study bovine burps:
The new face of Swedish socialism
Swedish snapshot A: Shows a taxed-to-the-eyeballs welfare state where the government grabs more than 52% of the country's GDP—the highest percentage of any industrial country. A Swedish businessman who earns Euro200,000 a year gets to keep just 49% of his paycheck. Of OECD countries, only France comes close to Sweden in taxing its most successful businesspeople (for complete tax data on 33 countries, see "The tax grab 2001," Forbes Global, Feb. 5).
Swedish snapshot B: Shows a booming economy bubbling with entrepreneurial activity. Growth is predicted to be 3.5% for 2001; inflation, 1.7%; unemployment, 4% (less than half the European average). In 1999, according to the European Information Technology Observatory, Sweden ranked first in the world in investment in information technology and telecommunications. Venture capital is pouring into Sweden, and labor productivity is rocketing: From 1990 to 1999 productivity climbed 47% in Sweden, against 39% in the U.S. and 31% (on average) in the EU. Last year, Sweden topped the global standings in R&D spending as a percentage of GDP with 3.7% (in the U.S. it was 3.1%), according to the OECD.
How to reconcile snapshots A and B? Is Sweden a bloated welfare state? Or a People's Republic of Entrepreneurs?
The answer is that it's a mixture of both. But the entrepreneurial part of the mix is rapidly gaining ascendancy. One yardstick is the number of business startups. They averaged 29,000 a year between 1984 and 1989 and 36,000 between 1994 and 1999, an increase of nearly 25%.
Cradle-to-grave security is the rule in Sweden, and has been since the early 1950s (the country went socialist in 1932). Go on the dole in Sweden, for example, and you can get 80% of your last job's pay for at least five years. Like to fish? The government will put you in a twelve-month program to learn how to be a fishing guide. Health care is free. So is education. Hence those obscenely high taxes.
Less well known, however, is that starting in the early 1990s, Sweden finally woke up to the fact that to be successful, a country needs entrepreneurs. No entrepreneurs, no new businesses. No new businesses, rising unemployment. Rising unemployment, politicians looking for new jobs—or new careers. Deciding that they like their jobs, a new generation of Swedish Social Democrats has created a much more friendly environment for business. Sweden is not a capitalistic heaven on earth, but it's not the hell on earth for entrepreneurs that it was until a few years ago.
Consider the distance Sweden has traveled. After some flush years in the 1950s and 1960s (the result, according to Milton Friedman, the Nobel winning economist, of Sweden's "having had the good economic sense to stay out of World War II"), the socialists neutered then exiled the geese that laid the golden eggs. Ingvar Kamprad, 75, the founder of ikea, the $10 billion (estimated worldwide 2000 revenues) furniture retailing chain, describes meetings with Sweden's tax bureaucrats in the 1960s and 1970s this way: "They would accuse me: ‘But you just want a profit.' And I would proudly reply that I was giving people jobs."
Bertil Hult, 60, the founder of the Stockholm-based ef language schools, remembers those dark days well. "By the 1970s, the Swedish media were presenting anyone who started a business as someone who was using the people," he says. "Entrepreneurs were pariahs. So lots of entrepreneurs left. The government's view was, ‘Let them go, we don't need them here.'" In the 1970s Hult left and built ef from Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. Today the privately owned ef Group is the largest company of its kind in the world. Veckans Affärer, a respected Swedish business magazine, estimates that its revenues are $650 million; its net margin is 5%; and its payroll is 17,000.
With entrepreneurs like Hult fleeing, the economy began going down the tubes. Growth slowed, and inflation rose. State spending and debt soared. Private-sector jobs began to disappear.
By 1991 the voters had had enough. They threw out the Social Democrats for the first time since the war and installed Carl Bildt's Conservative government. Bildt set about liberalizing important state-monopolized or dominated markets, notably telecommunications and banking.
the rest here should anyone care to read it: http://www.forbes.com/global/2001/0319/034.html
-
A libertarian is anti-goverment, and wants to minimize military, taxes, and everything that is associated with government.
Individual freedom and responsibility is key.
For further reading, see Robert Nozick.
A conservative on the other hand, views the government as an organism, with the ruling body on top, and that everyone has a task in the system.
For further reading, see Edmund Burke.
So it is hard for me to see how you get these two extremely different ideologies to merge.
Because in America, which is a two-party system (no proportional representation), both libertarians and conservatives tend to ally on the right and vote for Republicans.
-
Because in America, which is a two-party system (no proportional representation), both libertarians and conservatives tend to ally on the right and vote for Republicans.
I know.
But Matt C claimed to be both conservative and Libertarian.
And one more thing...
Matt C, is Teh Canaids. ;D
-
Bush is the biggest liberal we've ever had in Washington, biggest spender in US history.
;D ;D being liberal means being a spender? hahaha. i always was under the impression that being liberal meant that you were progressive minded. 8)
-
I know.
But Matt C claimed to be both conservative and Libertarian.
And one more thing...
Matt C, is Teh Canaids. ;D
That just shows he's confused... both politically and sexually.
-
btw .. Sweden is one of the best countries to live in.
-
A libertarian is anti-goverment, and wants to minimize military, taxes, and everything that is associated with government.
Individual freedom and responsibility is key.
For further reading, see Robert Nozick.
A conservative on the other hand, views the government as an organism, with the ruling body on top, and that everyone has a task in the system.
For further reading, see Edmund Burke.
So it is hard for me to see how you get these two extremely different ideologies to merge.
a libertarian isnt anti-government..its pro small government. limiting the governments role to only those things that citizens cannot do for themselves.
a libertarian isnt anti fireman, policeman, military, post office, or office of transportation...they are just anti-social programs and anti financial regulations.
-
btw .. Sweden is one of the best countries to live in.
If you like freezing your balls off year round and sunset at 2:30 pm in winter, sure. ::)
-
a libertarian isnt anti-government..its pro small government. limiting the governments role to only those things that citizens cannot do for themselves.
What part of minimize did you have problem comprehend, muchacho? ::)
-
A libertarian is anti-goverment, and wants to minimize military, taxes, and everything that is associated with government.
Individual freedom and responsibility is key.
For further reading, see Robert Nozick.
A conservative on the other hand, views the government as an organism, with the ruling body on top, and that everyone has a task in the system.
For further reading, see Edmund Burke.
So it is hard for me to see how you get these two extremely different ideologies to merge.
The definition of conservative you pointed out is a tainted version of what a conservative meant when the United States was originally founded. The founding fathers did not want big government.
-
The definition of conservative you pointed out is a tainted version of what a conservative meant when the United States was originally founded. The founding fathers did not want big government.
The founders of the US were classical Liberals (as opposed to the modern definition of the term), almost libertarians, and they'd puke if they could see how large and pervasive our government has become today.
-
btw .. Sweden is one of the best countries to live in.
Shit - from the little I've read it sounds pretty damn good.
from that article
Go on the dole in Sweden, for example, and you can get 80% of your last job's pay for at least five years. Like to fish? The government will put you in a twelve-month program to learn how to be a fishing guide. Health care is free. So is education.
OK - so the tax rate is upwards of 52% but they don't have to spend any $$$ on health care or education (and I'm wondering what retirement benefit are like).
In the US the highest tax bracket is 35% and I live in California and the top tier for the state tax is 9.3 %
so for just a bit more in taxes the Swedes get free healthcare for life, free education, etc...
-
The founders of the US were classical Liberals (as opposed to the modern definition of the term), almost libertarians, and they'd puke if they could see how large and pervasive our government has become today.
Yes they would. The definitions of the terms have changed over time. Neocons really aren't very conservative at all!
-
Yes they would. The definitions of the terms have changed over time. Neocons really aren't very conservative at all!
Once again.
You claim to be both conservative and libertarian.
How do you get these two very different ideologies to mix?
-
If you like freezing your balls off year round and sunset at 2:30 pm in winter, sure. ::)
i don't know about you, but i'm talking about a quality of life, much of which the Swedish government will gladly provide, if you're willing to pay taxes :)
-
Typical neocon response to something s/he doesn't understand.
He admits to Zack that he doesn't understand what's in the article.
Yet he ridicules it.
He started a thread to bash scientsits in anther country on the other side of the world, researching something he admits he doesn't understand.
He did this because in his mind, he drew some parallel to americans democrats, which he knows he hates, despite the fact they are unrelated to this news story.
-
$590k to research how much a cow's burp effects "global warming" and I'm the nutcase? LOL.....K!
you didn't pay a fuckin cent for it so wtf is it to you? :)
-
He admits to Zack that he doesn't understand what's in the article.
Yet he ridicules it.
He started a thread to bash scientsits in anther country on the other side of the world, researching something he admits he doesn't understand.
He did this because in his mind, he drew some parallel to americans democrats, which he knows he hates, despite the fact they are unrelated to this news story.
in other words stupidy
-
You're right, the only one and truthfully I posted because it was drivel.
Nice to see you staying on message. I have the feeling that if you ever got off the cow farts you'd be in over your head, here. Some good points being made, from all sides. :D
/240 does a nice analysis of the joeloco mindset.
-
Shit - from the little I've read it sounds pretty damn good.
from that article
Go on the dole in Sweden, for example, and you can get 80% of your last job's pay for at least five years. Like to fish? The government will put you in a twelve-month program to learn how to be a fishing guide. Health care is free. So is education.
OK - so the tax rate is upwards of 52% but they don't have to spend any $$$ on health care or education (and I'm wondering what retirement benefit are like).
In the US the highest tax bracket is 35% and I live in California and the top tier for the state tax is 9.3 %
so for just a bit more in taxes the Swedes get free healthcare for life, free education, etc...
The benefit of the US is that you can opt in to what you want.
For example, in Britain, I have private dental and health care. I still have to pay for the NHS a service that I do not require.
In America you are given the responsibility via reductions in tax, to chose to do with the extra free cash as you please, be it healthcare, pension, bonds etc.
Of course if you Americans can admit you're stupid and irresponsible than maybe 50%+ taxation and the government treating you like babies is a good idea?
Also, Sweden is a small country in comparison why do you assume it's government style is scalable on the size of the US?
-
For example, in Britain, I have private dental and health care. I still have to pay for the NHS a service that I do not require.
No need to lie, here. ;) :D
-
No need to lie, here. ;) :D
We need a yawn smiley on getbig.
-
No need to lie, here. ;) :D
That's no lie, the British NHS is falling apart.
This is what happens when you put the government in charge of health care.
Under a universal health care system, health care is perceived as "free", so there is no discretion on the part of the public. Every time somebody has a minor cold or a scratch they go to the doctor. I mean why not it's free?
So what happens is demand rises exponentially and the government can't keep up the supply because government is piss poor at providing services compared to the private sector. As a result you get long waiting lists and even denial of services.
Now in Britain, private insurance is experiencing huge growth because the government is telling people that the system cannot take care of their health care anymore. But even if you decide to opt out of the NHS you still have to pay the taxes to support it. Sort of like in America when you decide to move you child to private school, you still have to pay the taxes to support the public schools.
It's a damn mess and we're going down the same road here in America, because the average voter has no clue how sh*t works.
-
That's no lie, the British NHS is falling apart.
This is what happens when you put the government in charge of health care.
Under a universal health care system, health care is perceived as "free", so there is no discretion on the part of the public. Every time somebody has a minor cold or a scratch they go to the doctor. I mean why not it's free?
So what happens is demand rises exponentially and the government can't keep up the supply because government is piss poor at providing services compared to the private sector. As a result you get long waiting lists and even denial of services.
Now in Britain, private insurance is experiencing huge growth because the government is telling people that the system cannot take care of their health care anymore. But even if you decide to opt out of the NHS you still have to pay the taxes to support it. Sort of like in America when you decide to move you child to private school, you still have to pay the taxes to support the public schools.
It's a damn mess and we're going down the same road here in America, because the average voter has no clue how sh*t works.
The comparisons between the government and private sector aren't entirely fair.
The majority of public services are stressed due to immigration. Today you will find ghettos of muslims, schools with full classes of pakistanis and the NHS trying to cope with an uncontrolled influx of diseased immigrants.
-
The comparisons between the government and private sector aren't entirely fair.
The majority of public services are stressed due to immigration. Today you will find ghettos of muslims, schools with full classes of pakistanis and the NHS trying to cope with an uncontrolled influx of diseased immigrants.
Yes it is fair. Governments, on average, run double the amount of overhead private companies do. Not only that but about 1/3 of all funds government collects is wasted, and these are modest estimates.
See it's all about incentives, private industries have to figure out how to be as efficient as possible or they go out of business. Government organizations don't have that problem, if they get into financial trouble they just demand more funds from the taxpayers.
The other problem with government organizations is that it's usually almost impossible to fire anyone. So if you have sh*tty employees your stuck with them. Compare this with GE under Jack Welch. Every year he took the bottom 10% of his employees and fired them. As a result he transformed GE into a super efficient corporate machine.
I understand the problems the NHS has, but an efficient organization takes problems like these and solves them. The NHS is buckling under the pressure; if it were a private organization it would go bankrupt and go away and some other organization that was up the task would take over. But since NHS is part of the government it's not going away and it's going down and it's going to take the public down with it by taxing them to oblivion while providing nothing in return.
-
The benefit of the US is that you can opt in to what you want.
For example, in Britain, I have private dental and health care. I still have to pay for the NHS a service that I do not require.
In America you are given the responsibility via reductions in tax, to chose to do with the extra free cash as you please, be it healthcare, pension, bonds etc.
Of course if you Americans can admit you're stupid and irresponsible than maybe 50%+ taxation and the government treating you like babies is a good idea?
Also, Sweden is a small country in comparison why do you assume it's government style is scalable on the size of the US?
I don't believe I made any statements about enacting this system in our country. I merely looked at the tax rates (Federal and State) and stated that they (Sweden) seems to get a lot more social services for just a bit more in taxes. Frankly, the problem with our system is that not only is it expensive but many people are simply excluded due to pre-existing conditions, rising costs, etc.. and quite frankly I think that is inhumane. I don't know anything about your system and I don't know what NHS is but I would guess the reason you pay for it is because that's how an insurance system works. It spreads the costs over an entire popluation. I assume if you coulnd't afford insurance that you could fall back on NHS? (please correct me if I'm wrong - again I don't know your system). That's alot better than simply being uninsured. The costs of insurance in the US is out of control. A family of 4 (2 adults and 2 kids) can easily pay 1000 to 1500 a month and still have their health claims rejected by their HMO. Dental Insurance in the US is a joke. It usually only covers a few thousand dollar a year in services and any major expenses are coming out of your own pocket.
Again, I know nothing about your system and really nothing about Sweden other than what I read in that article but I'm curious how many people are forced into bankruptcy every year in your country or Sweden due to a health emergency. In the US this is the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy.
Education is another big issue. At one time it was very cheap to go to a state school and financial aid was readily available. Over time this has been eroded.
It benefits the entire society (rich and poor alike) to have access to affordable education (note I didn't say free although I do think that would be great).
-
i don't know about you, but i'm talking about a quality of life, much of which the Swedish government will gladly provide, if you're willing to pay taxes :)
Yeah, darkness and cold really add to quality of life. ::)
I suppose the bottom 2/3 of society might "do better" under a socialist regime, but those of us with higher intelligence and better education will almost always do better under a system like America's. Pardon me if I don't want to "carry" two or three other people on my income. ::)
-
Hahah joeloco never makes sense....
-
Yes it is fair. Governments, on average, run double the amount of overhead private companies do. Not only that but about 1/3 of all funds government collects is wasted, and these are modest estimates.
See it's all about incentives, private industries have to figure out how to be as efficient as possible or they go out of business. Government organizations don't have that problem, if they get into financial trouble they just demand more funds from the taxpayers.
The other problem with government organizations is that it's usually almost impossible to fire anyone. So if you have sh*tty employees your stuck with them. Compare this with GE under Jack Welch. Every year he took the bottom 10% of his employees and fired them. As a result he transformed GE into a super efficient corporate machine.
I understand the problems the NHS has, but an efficient organization takes problems like these and solves them. The NHS is buckling under the pressure; if it were a private organization it would go bankrupt and go away and some other organization that was up the task would take over. But since NHS is part of the government it's not going away and it's going down and it's going to take the public down with it by taxing them to oblivion while providing nothing in return.
That's just not true about 'overhead' or administrative costs as related to the government and private industry. Just look at Social Security v. Private Life Insurance companies. Administrative costs for the private companies runs from 11% upto 17% of assets. The costs for Social Security are less 1% of assets. And we get so much more from Social Security--Life, retirement, disability, medical protections.
Why?
B/c the profit motive drives up the cost for private companies: competition means higher salaries to attract talent, national advertising, sponsoring golf tournaments, sponsoring new football stadiums, paying exorbitant executive salaries, corporate jets, luxurious corporate headquarters and on and on.
Those costs are passed along to the consumer and are all part of overhead.
-
That's just not true about 'overhead' or administrative costs as related to the government and private industry. Just look at Social Security v. Private Life Insurance companies. Administrative costs for the private companies runs from 11% upto 17% of assets. The costs for Social Security are less 1% of assets. And we get so much more from Social Security--Life, retirement, disability, medical protections.
Why?
B/c the profit motive drives up the cost for private companies: competition means higher salaries to attract talent, national advertising, sponsoring golf tournaments, sponsoring new football stadiums, paying exorbitant executive salaries, corporate jets, luxurious corporate headquarters and on and on.
Those costs are passed along to the consumer and are all part of overhead.
Social Security only has a 1% overhead. That's the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard.
You do know that you are using a government organization that is going to be bankrupt by 2042 by its own account as an example right?
The other thing is if you do not like an insurance company you DON'T HAVE TO DO BUSINESS WITH IT. FICA taxes are mandatory, you are in the social security system whether you like it or not.
Same thing goes with private organizations, if you don't like the way they do things don't buy their stuff. The reason private organizations spend more money on better people is because those people can make the business more efficient and successful, therefore keeping prices low.
Ultimately businesses have to compete with each other, and if the other guy has a better product for a lower price then people are going to buy his stuff. The government doesn't have to worry about this so they do not have an incentive to become more cost effective and efficient.
-
Social Security only has a 1% overhead. That's the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard.
You do know that you are using a government organization that is going to be bankrupt by 2042 by its own account as an example right?
The other thing is if you do not like an insurance company you DON'T HAVE TO DO BUSINESS WITH IT. FICA taxes are mandatory, you are in the social security system whether you like it or not.
Same thing goes with private organizations, if you don't like the way they do things don't buy their stuff. The reason private organizations spend more money on better people is because those people can make the business more efficient and successful, therefore keeping prices low.
Ultimately businesses have to compete with each other, and if the other guy has a better product for a lower price then people are going to buy his stuff. The government doesn't have to worry about this so they do not have an incentive to become more cost effective and efficient.
Very refreshing to see such posts. Keep it up.
-
repubs are torn.
Their party is killing lots of people to steal oil.
How do you support that?
Plus, ppl like Rush train them to believe if you don't support that, you're a Lib and youre going to hell. Repubs choose the lesser of two evils. And since they believe the bible, you know it messes with their minds.
Last time I checked we..America, is at war. We're not stealing anybodies oil. Oil is $88 so while we might protect it, we're not doing much else. Most people believ in the bible. U non-believers who laugh at "christians" ar the minority.
-
Social Security only has a 1% overhead. That's the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard.
You do know that you are using a government organization that is going to be bankrupt by 2042 by its own account as an example right?
The other thing is if you do not like an insurance company you DON'T HAVE TO DO BUSINESS WITH IT. FICA taxes are mandatory, you are in the social security system whether you like it or not.
Same thing goes with private organizations, if you don't like the way they do things don't buy their stuff. The reason private organizations spend more money on better people is because those people can make the business more efficient and successful, therefore keeping prices low.
Ultimately businesses have to compete with each other, and if the other guy has a better product for a lower price then people are going to buy his stuff. The government doesn't have to worry about this so they do not have an incentive to become more cost effective and efficient.
That's quite a temper you have there.
Total administrative costs are less than 1 percent of total program outlays and payment accuracy is over 99.5 percent for each of the last 5 years.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10008001.2006.html
Social Security is fine. It will not be bankrupt by 2042. You are referring to the trust fund's exhaustion. SS is a pay as you go system. The trust holds excess tax dollars till they are distributed. But since you insist, the actuaries at SSA predicted the trust fund would be exhausted in 2029...today it is 2042...tomorrow? The actuaries use extremely conservative assumptions in calculating their predictions. Actuaries can tinker with their formulae to keep SS in great shape for decades to come.
Unfettered capitalistic competition results in monopolies where quality is cut to shit, prices stay the same or go up and the consumer is left with few alternatives. That means we need government to moderate our markets.
Sometimes we have instances where the product is not amenable to the free market--like healthcare. Treating healthcare like a commodity is not only morally questionable, it results in failure when compared with UHC.
-
Very refreshing to see such posts. Keep it up.
It's depressing to see another person on these boards not familiar with the basic facts of Social Security.
-
That's quite a temper you have there.
Total administrative costs are less than 1 percent of total program outlays and payment accuracy is over 99.5 percent for each of the last 5 years.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10008001.2006.html
Social Security is fine. It will not be bankrupt by 2042. You are referring to the trust fund's exhaustion. SS is a pay as you go system. The trust holds excess tax dollars till they are distributed. But since you insist, the actuaries at SSA predicted the trust fund would be exhausted in 2029...today it is 2042...tomorrow? The actuaries use extremely conservative assumptions in calculating their predictions. Actuaries can tinker with their formulae to keep SS in great shape for decades to come.
Unfettered capitalistic competition results in monopolies where quality is cut to shit, prices stay the same or go up and the consumer is left with few alternatives. That means we need government to moderate our markets.
Sometimes we have instances where the product is not amenable to the free market--like healthcare. Treating healthcare like a commodity is not only morally questionable, it results in failure when compared with UHC.
This site is old age and survivors insurance, that is purely a redistribution program, this does not include Medicaid and Medicare that actually provide services. The pay-out system may well have such a low overhead since they only cut checks. But I'm still highly skeptical. Anyway.
First of all just because I don't agree with your view on the Social Security system doesn't mean I'm not familiar with it, that's just plain condescending.
Ok, trust fund. What trust fund? There is no trust fund, politicians spend the trust fund as soon as the revenue comes in.
Social Security is going bankrupt, the very site posted confirmed that. When it was designed, people didn't live as long as they do now, and with the baby boomers retiring there aren't going to be enough providers to provide for the non providers. So you either have to increase payroll taxes or reduce benefits or both.
The fact Social Security is a pay as you go system shows how outdated it is. If people were allowed to invest or even deposit their payroll taxes into a bank account, then they could earn some interest, but no that would just make too much sense.
About the market thing, yes you need government to enforce the rules of a free market. Capitalism doesn't work unless people follow the rules, but the government regulating the markets? That's a terrible idea, government is slow, politicians take forever to make decisions. The market millions of corrections every day, nobody really controls it.
Government control of a nations market has been tried before, it was called the Soviet Union, it didn't work too well.
Treating healthcare like a commodity is not morally questionable. The free market comes up with brilliant solutions to problems if we just let it. Just look at the mini clinics that Wal-Mart and others were offering. Instead going through the hassle of going to the doctor when you have a minor problem, you can go to these small clinics without an appointment, be seen promptly, for an affordable price, and the pharmacy is right there! But of course NO the AMA had a problem with that because the mini clinics are motivated by "profit", what a crock! The market system can solve a lot of our problems if we just get our intrusive federal government out of the way.
-
Great post..welcome to the board.
-
Decker is a great guy..I don't agree with him on a friggen thing and would like to throttle his liberal ass on occasion, but he's a great guy.
-
Yeah, darkness and cold really add to quality of life. ::)
I suppose the bottom 2/3 of society might "do better" under a socialist regime, but those of us with higher intelligence and better education will almost always do better under a system like America's. Pardon me if I don't want to "carry" two or three other people on my income. ::)
I'm going to go out on a leg here and say you already do 'carry' a handful of lowlife scumbags who leech the system for all they can.
And if you would trade all that for nicer weather, so be it, i have nothing against you
-
Great post..welcome to the board.
Thanks
-
...First of all just because I don't agree with your view on the Social Security system doesn't mean I'm not familiar with it, that's just plain condescending.
I'm sorry about that.
Ok, trust fund. What trust fund? There is no trust fund, politicians spend the trust fund as soon as the revenue comes in.
The trust fund is very real. It contains treasury notes. They must be repaid under law. If that is a hoax, then Greenspan and Reagan (if he were alive) would be charged with defrauding the gov. Back in the mid 80's Greenspan advised Reagan to raise the payroll tax to fund the babyboomer retirements down the road. If the trust fund was an accounting trick then that's a problem. But seriously, this is why Gore introduced the 'lockbox' idea so that payroll tax revenue would not be used as general tax revenue.
Social Security is going bankrupt, the very site posted confirmed that. When it was designed, people didn't live as long as they do now, and with the baby boomers retiring there aren't going to be enough providers to provide for the non providers. So you either have to increase payroll taxes or reduce benefits or both.
Post the web page where SSA says that it's going bankrupt. What happened is that Bush and his privatizers infested SSA and put in veiled warnings to make privatization a 'sound' option for the pending 'crisis'.
The fact Social Security is a pay as you go system shows how outdated it is. If people were allowed to invest or even deposit their payroll taxes into a bank account, then they could earn some interest, but no that would just make too much sense.
No. Social insurance means spreading the risk over the entire population. What risk? Abject poverty in one's golden years. Privatization is just another name for an IRA. There's no shared risk there.
About the market thing, yes you need government to enforce the rules of a free market. Capitalism doesn't work unless people follow the rules, but the government regulating the markets? That's a terrible idea, government is slow, politicians take forever to make decisions. The market millions of corrections every day, nobody really controls it.
Yes, the market has self-correcting features. I think we are in agreement on this. The market is moderated to the extent that the government effectuates fairness in bargaining--anti-trust laws and whatnot. When the Savings and Loan industry was deregulated it slid into corruption resulting in a 1/2 trillion tab picked up by the taxpayers. When Congress deregulated the Cable TV industry in '84 monopolies arose and service went in the crapper. We need government acting as the referee to these market games.
Treating healthcare like a commodity is not morally questionable. The free market comes up with brilliant solutions to problems if we just let it. Just look at the mini clinics that Wal-Mart and others were offering. Instead going through the hassle of going to the doctor when you have a minor problem, you can go to these small clinics without an appointment, be seen promptly, for an affordable price, and the pharmacy is right there! But of course NO the AMA had a problem with that because the mini clinics are motivated by "profit", what a crock! The market system can solve a lot of our problems if we just get our intrusive federal government out of the way.
If our free market solutions to healthcare are so innovative and wonderful, why are 40+ million people uninsured? Why are businesses scrapping their company coverage or offering benefits that are simply unaffordable. Why is the US ranked behind Britain and Canada and almost any other UHC country in terms of cost and efficacy?
B/c the free market is failing to provide adequate healthcare, that's why.
Isn't the AMA against UHC as well?
-
Decker is a great guy..I don't agree with him on a friggen thing and would like to throttle his liberal ass on occasion, but he's a great guy.
Oh yeah, let's see how big you talk when Green Bay trounces your....forget it.
Same here HH.
-
Decker,
The principles of Socialism, and redistribution of wealth DO NOT WORK and CANNOT WORK. They violate mans basic motive to produce.
Man is motivated by personal profit - Period.
Our constitutional Republic was designed to protect mans profit from theft by lies or force.
What you encourage is legalized theft by government in the name of Healthcare, Children's education, Fair wages, (insert your cause here)
The problems we have with our system stem from the power of federal government being controlled by corporations. Giving government more power only makes it worse = more erosion of liberty.
Smaller government and more personal responsibility - EACH PERSON PROVIDES FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES. PRIVATE CHARITY CAN TAKE CARE OF THE REST.
It is MY CHOICE to help a family with MY MONEY.
-
Oh yeah, let's see how big you talk when Green Bay trounces your....forget it.
Same here HH.
Sorry about GB Deck. My Father's side of the Family is all from Wisconsin, and they are on anti-depression meds now. ;D
-
Decker,
The principles of Socialism, and redistribution of wealth DO NOT WORK and CANNOT WORK. They violate mans basic motive to produce.
"[A man will do anything for food clothing and shelter...peace of mind. If he has the oppurtunity to steal from you for profit, he will. (see bush administration)"]
Man is motivated by personal profit - Period.
[Again its only because he has the oppurtunity]
Our constitutional Republic was designed to protect mans profit from theft by lies or force.
[Now the above is hilarious!! See (Bush Administration and oil profits)]
What you encourage is legalized theft by government in the name of Healthcare, Children's education, Fair wages, (insert your cause here)
[Its not theft...Its caring for youre fellowman.....is that so hard????]
The problems we have with our system stem from the power of federal government being controlled by corporations. Giving government more power only makes it worse = more erosion of liberty.
Smaller government and more personal responsibility - EACH PERSON PROVIDES FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES. PRIVATE CHARITY CAN TAKE CARE OF THE REST.
[Private charity will never work as you stated above man is moved by greed...]
It is MY CHOICE to help a family with MY MONEY.
-
Warhorse,
I love how Socialists such as yourself dance around the basic premise. You will take pot shots by using terms like "greed" and "helping fellow man"
The problem with your thinking is that you have to STEAL from me to distribute to a cause that SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME deems necessary.
Do you not see the flaw with this?
Do you not acknowledge that every man has the right to his property?
That was the point in the Revolution... Life, Liberty, and Property
I guess that level of thinking - Personal Liberty, Personal Responsibility, Freedom to Succeed, Freedom to Fail is just outdated right?
And the reason that you say that Private Charity fails, is because Socialists are the most uncaring and ungiving people there are.
How much have you donated to charity this year?
Oh thats right, government is supposed to take care of the needy so you don't have to part with YOUR MONEY. Let's take from the RICH, as they have PLENTY...
I am close friends with several multi-millionaires and they are the most giving people I know. What they do not do is get on TV and demand that someone else pays for a cause that they deem worthy. If they support it, then they use their own money.
-
haha that's an awesome post stormshadow :)
-
Warhorse,
I love how Socialists such as yourself dance around the basic premise. You will take pot shots by using terms like "greed" and "helping fellow man"
The problem with your thinking is that you have to STEAL from me to distribute to a cause that SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME deems necessary.
Do you not see the flaw with this?
Do you not acknowledge that every man has the right to his property?
That was the point in the Revolution... Life, Liberty, and Property
I guess that level of thinking - Personal Liberty, Personal Responsibility, Freedom to Succeed, Freedom to Fail is just outdated right?
And the reason that you say that Private Charity fails, is because Socialists are the most uncaring and ungiving people there are.
How much have you donated to charity this year?
Oh thats right, government is supposed to take care of the needy so you don't have to part with YOUR MONEY. Let's take from the RICH, as they have PLENTY...
I am close friends with several multi-millionaires and they are the most giving people I know. What they do not do is get on TV and demand that someone else pays for a cause that they deem worthy. If they support it, then they use their own money.
Hold youre money tight storm.......Youre faith in the current system will fail you soon.
Socialism has been proven not to work already. Dictatorships do not work. Democracy will fail as a young concept,also.
Dont assume Im poor, my friend...Im not. ;)
-
Who gives to charity?
By John Stossel
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity)
Americans are pretty generous. Three-quarters of American families give to charity -- and those who do, give an average of $1,800. Of course that means one-quarter of us don't give at all. What distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.
To test them, ABC's "20/20" went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money? I'll get to that in a minute.
San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.
San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to "care more" about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot.
But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
Researching his book, "Who Really Cares", Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."
Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood.
The second myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income.
Says Brooks: "The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."
We saw that in Sioux Falls, S.D. The workers at the meat packing plant make about $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees there than anywhere else. continued...
-
Hold youre money tight storm.......Youre faith in the current system will fail you soon.
Socialism has been proven not to work already. Dictatorships do not work. Democracy will fail as a young concept,also.
Dont assume Im poor, my friend...Im not. ;)
Awesome job of creating a strawman argument.
I never said you were poor, and I never said I have faith in "the current system" I also never said anything about "democracy"
You are correct, Democracy will fail. That is why the founding fathers very clearly distinguished between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic.
Again, to the "greedy" Socialist that is quick to demand MY MONEY and decide how it is spent...
How much have you donated to charity?
You "seem" concerned with Healthcare for all, so Surely you donate your own money to help those less fortunate...
You are quick to have my money looted for your causes, so I ask how much do you donate to support your own Ideals?
-
Decker,
The principles of Socialism, and redistribution of wealth DO NOT WORK and CANNOT WORK. They violate mans basic motive to produce.
Man is motivated by personal profit - Period.
Our constitutional Republic was designed to protect mans profit from theft by lies or force.
What you encourage is legalized theft by government in the name of Healthcare, Children's education, Fair wages, (insert your cause here)
The problems we have with our system stem from the power of federal government being controlled by corporations. Giving government more power only makes it worse = more erosion of liberty.
Smaller government and more personal responsibility - EACH PERSON PROVIDES FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES. PRIVATE CHARITY CAN TAKE CARE OF THE REST.
It is MY CHOICE to help a family with MY MONEY.
I disagree to the extent that my personal interests cannot come to fruition on an island. I am part of a society....a society that needs organization and support--monetary and otherwise. My society makes my individual success possible: I didn't build the roads, design the internet, teach myself my craft, grow my own food, set up my own telephone service, print my own money etc.
Calling taxation theft is just a denial of the basic fact that organized society must be tended to.
What the government gave the corporations, it can take away. We The People are the government and we can remove the personhood status of corporations and such.
It is your money but you must acknowledge the costs of government and pay your taxes for its support.
-
I'm sorry about that.
The trust fund is very real. It contains treasury notes. They must be repaid under law. If that is a hoax, then Greenspan and Reagan (if he were alive) would be charged with defrauding the gov. Back in the mid 80's Greenspan advised Reagan to raise the payroll tax to fund the babyboomer retirements down the road. If the trust fund was an accounting trick then that's a problem. But seriously, this is why Gore introduced the 'lockbox' idea so that payroll tax revenue would not be used as general tax revenue.
Post the web page where SSA says that it's going bankrupt. What happened is that Bush and his privatizers infested SSA and put in veiled warnings to make privatization a 'sound' option for the pending 'crisis'.No. Social insurance means spreading the risk over the entire population. What risk? Abject poverty in one's golden years. Privatization is just another name for an IRA. There's no shared risk there.
Yes, the market has self-correcting features. I think we are in agreement on this. The market is moderated to the extent that the government effectuates fairness in bargaining--anti-trust laws and whatnot. When the Savings and Loan industry was deregulated it slid into corruption resulting in a 1/2 trillion tab picked up by the taxpayers. When Congress deregulated the Cable TV industry in '84 monopolies arose and service went in the crapper. We need government acting as the referee to these market games.
If our free market solutions to healthcare are so innovative and wonderful, why are 40+ million people uninsured? Why are businesses scrapping their company coverage or offering benefits that are simply unaffordable. Why is the US ranked behind Britain and Canada and almost any other UHC country in terms of cost and efficacy?
B/c the free market is failing to provide adequate healthcare, that's why.
Isn't the AMA against UHC as well?
Sorry, I don't have the technological savvy to do that line-by-line quote thing.
Treasury notes that the government has to pay itself? Who is going to enforce that? Do you really think the government is going to prosecute itself if it doesn't pay its IOU's? I'm not holding my breath for that one.
As for the site that says that SS is going bankrupt here you go http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10008001.2006.html
Notice where it says "in 2042 will be unable to make scheduled benefit payments on a timely basis", this means that that Social Securities' debts will exceed its assets, that's also known as bankruptcy.
What is this obsession with "shared risk"? Why do I have to be responsible for someone else's bad decisions? If you pissed away your money all your life, why the hell should I bail you out?
The problem with Social Security is it is a negative incentive for people. They are less likely to save their money for retirement because the government is promising to take care of them in retirement, but it more than likely won't. If people had an option to invest their payroll taxes in a 401(k) type program or an IRA or something, then we'd already be better off. But big government people don't even want to give us that choice.
As far as the S&L scandal, I don't really know enough about it to debate it.
The problem with the 40 million numbers is that it includes illegal aliens that shouldn't even be here, and it doesn't take into consideration people that CHOOSE not to get medical insurance. A lot of young healthy people opt not to cover themselves for whatever reason. This is their choice. The left portrays these 40 million people as victims that can't afford medical insurance which is pretty dishonest.
Another thing is NOBODY in America is denied medical treatment. ER's, by law, have to treat you whether you can pay or not.
American health care is more expensive than the UK or Canada because it is BETTER. Tell me, why is it that cancer survival rates in the US are far better than in Canada or the UK? It's because there is virtually no wait for cancer treatment in the US. In Canada and the UK people often have to wait for months to get life saving treatment because of the waiting lists.
The problem with the US health care system is that the government is TOO involved. For example if I want to get private health insurance I can't pick and choose what kind of treatment I want covered. I have to get everything or nothing. Why for example, would a 25 year old health male need coverage for heart disease related treatment? Why would a 55 year old woman need coverage for pregnancy related expenses? It's silly but because the government mandates these things our premiums are unnecessarily high. We can't even buy insurance from other states, because our wonderful government forbids it.
Don't even get me started about malpractice lawyers do to the price of medical coverage.
More government control would just makes things worse, here are some of my idea's to fix the system:
1. Allow more choices and competition when it comes to medical coverage.
2. Serious tort reform on the part of malpractice lawyer who are doing serious damage to our medical community
3. I'd even be up to the idea of mandating a disaster insurance, kind of like we have for automobiles.
The AMA is composed of a bunch of doctors looking out for their own interest by using the government to squash any competition they might experience. But I do agree with them on the UHC issue. If you look at programs like Medicaid and Medicare, it is very hard for doctors to get paid for their services. This is why many practices don't accept M&M, it costs lots of man hours to deal with the bloated bureaucracy and they rarely if ever pay 100%. You just need to look at goverment health services like M&M and the Veterans Hospital system and how much they SUCK, to see how bad UHC will be for the rest of us.
But really I'm wasting my energy, UHC is going to be a reality because that's what the average voter today wants. So your going to get your way Decker. Hope you take real good care of your health in the future.
-
What the government gave the corporations, it can take away. We The People are the government and we can remove the personhood status of corporations and such.
What does the government "give" corporations? More like what the corporations "give" the government.
The personhood of the corporations? What does that even mean? Does that mean if you don't like a company you can punish it at will?
I'm sorry if I had a company and people like you were in charge, I'd leave and take my tax revenues and jobs with me. Which is what will happen.
The thing is you probably think your pro-job. But the thing is that you can't be pro-job and anti-business at the same time.
-
What does the government "give" corporations?
Tax breaks. You know that record-setting year the oil companies all had? Thank you tax breaks!
More like what the corporations "give" the government.
Campaign donations - donations in large amounts, as well as organized maximum number amounts from all members of a firm.
-
Tax breaks. You know that record-setting year the oil companies all had? Thank you tax breaks!
Campaign donations - donations in large amounts, as well as organized maximum number amounts from all members of a firm.
So taking less money away from a company is the same as giving them money? The record setting year the oil companies had was due to the record high prices of oil. The higher the oil prices the higher the profit due to profit margins. Did you know the government makes much more money off a gallon of gas than the oil companies do?
Who do you think owns these oil companies? They are publicly traded companies, they are owned by the public. If you have any kind of mutual fund or any kind of program that deals with stocks, more than likely you own some stock in an oil company. If the company makes a profit, then they pay dividends to the stockholders. So record profits for oil companies are good!
Your second sentence doesn't make any sense, try rewording it.
-
So taking less money away from a company is the same as giving them money? The record setting year the oil companies had was due to the record high prices of oil. The higher the oil prices the higher the profit due to profit margins. Did you know the government makes much more money off a gallon of gas than the oil companies do?
Who do you think owns these oil companies? They are publicly traded companies, they are owned by the public. If you have any kind of mutual fund or any kind of program that deals with stocks, more than likely you own some stock in an oil company. If the company makes a profit, then they pay dividends to the stockholders. So record profits for oil companies are good!
Your second sentence doesn't make any sense, try rewording it.
I feel like I'm arguing with a 6th grade social studies book.
Good day, sir.
-
I feel like I'm arguing with a 6th grade social studies book.
Good day, sir.
Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's not true.
I didn't think the great 240 is Back would give up so easily.
-
Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's not true.
I didn't think the great 240 is Back would give up so easily.
Dude.
Tax breaks to the oil companies mean we're not taxing them as much.
This means we need to borrow more $ to fund this war.
A couple hundred billion more from Exoon in 2006 means a couple billion less we're paying interest on chinese lended cash.
-
Treasury notes that the government has to pay itself? Who is going to enforce that? Do you really think the government is going to prosecute itself if it doesn't pay its IOU's? I'm not holding my breath for that one.
If the gov. cannot satisfy the “full faith and credit” provision in the T-bills that will mean one thing—the US gov. has dissolved. I don’t see that happening.
As for the site that says that SS is going bankrupt here you go http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10008001.2006.html
Notice where it says "in 2042 will be unable to make scheduled benefit payments on a timely basis", this means that that Social Securities' debts will exceed its assets, that's also known as bankruptcy.
That doesn’t mean bankruptcy. It just means that the pay-as-you-go system will present a little shortfall. Taxes will be raised or benefits will be cut or the normal retirement age will be raised.
What is this obsession with "shared risk"? Why do I have to be responsible for someone else's bad decisions? If you pissed away your money all your life, why the hell should I bail you out?
My obsession is this: nobody and I mean nobody can guarantee a life devoid of disaster and when it does strike, b/c it will, we do not want our people destitute and in the street.
The problem with Social Security is it is a negative incentive for people. They are less likely to save their money for retirement because the government is promising to take care of them in retirement, but it more than likely won't. If people had an option to invest their payroll taxes in a 401(k) type program or an IRA or something, then we'd already be better off. But big government people don't even want to give us that choice.
I disagree. People are as avaricious as ever and will seek to maximize their wealth in almost any situation.
...Another thing is NOBODY in America is denied medical treatment. ER's, by law, have to treat you whether you can pay or not.
Nobody in America is denied EMERGENCY treatment. By that time it’s too late in terms of mortality and expense to be considered efficient. The US has horrible preventive medical care.
American health care is more expensive than the UK or Canada because it is BETTER. Tell me, why is it that cancer survival rates in the US are far better than in Canada or the UK? It's because there is virtually no wait for cancer treatment in the US. In Canada and the UK people often have to wait for months to get life saving treatment because of the waiting lists.
The cancer survival rates are roughly the same but the UK gets the job done at a much cheaper cost.
If the long long waiting lists are so bad why do almost no Canadians cross the border for the US's superior care? Why did private insurance companies give up on policies for Canadians seeking care that would kick in if the wait for treatment was over 30 days?
"Only 90 of 18,000 respondents to the 1996 Canadian NPHS indicated that they had received health care in the United States during the previous twelve months, and only twenty indicated that they had gone to the United States expressly for the purpose of getting that care." http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=snow&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT#R13
The problem with the US health care system is that the government is TOO involved. For example if I want to get private health insurance I can't pick and choose what kind of treatment I want covered. I have to get everything or nothing. Why for example, would a 25 year old health male need coverage for heart disease related treatment? Why would a 55 year old woman need coverage for pregnancy related expenses? It's silly but because the government mandates these things our premiums are unnecessarily high. We can't even buy insurance from other states, because our wonderful government forbids it.
You would have to ask the private insurer about that one. The essence of insurance is to spread around the costs so that no one person or age group takes the big hit when it happens.
Don't even get me started about malpractice lawyers do to the price of medical coverage.
More government control would just makes things worse, here are some of my idea's to fix the system:
1. Allow more choices and competition when it comes to medical coverage.
2. Serious tort reform on the part of malpractice lawyer who are doing serious damage to our medical community
3. I'd even be up to the idea of mandating a disaster insurance, kind of like we have for automobiles.
Serious tort reform? How about asking the doctors to stop cutting off the wrong damn leg? Malpractice means practice that falls below the accepted norm. How would you like your damages capped at $50,000 knowing that your doctor amputated the wrong arm or took out the wrong kidney?
-
Dude.
Tax breaks to the oil companies mean we're not taxing them as much.
This means we need to borrow more $ to fund this war.
A couple hundred billion more from Exoon in 2006 means a couple billion less we're paying interest on chinese lended cash.
The US government takes almost 3 trillion dollars a year in revenue. The war has cost what, 500 billion over about 5 years? 100 billion a year on average. With an average of about 2.5 trillion dollars over that period of time the war has cost us on average about 4% of the US annual budget. It's really not straining us that much financially. I'm not even comparing the cost of the war to the GDP which is over 10 trillion dollars.
We need to borrow money because the US government is run by people spend money like trophy wives with platinum credit cards :)
But don't worry we're taxing the crap out of the oil companies. The US capital gains tax is one of the highest in the western world, and state and local government take about 30-50 cents per gallon of gas on average, whereas the oil companies take about 7-8 cents.
Soon Hillary will be President and she'll "take those profits away from the oil companies" so it doesn't matter anyway.
-
If the gov. cannot satisfy the “full faith and credit” provision in the T-bills that will mean one thing—the US gov. has dissolved. I don’t see that happening.
The government may not dissolve, but the actions it will have to take in order to correct the problem will be very damaging to the US economy.
That doesn’t mean bankruptcy. It just means that the pay-as-you-go system will present a little shortfall. Taxes will be raised or benefits will be cut or the normal retirement age will be raised.My obsession is this: nobody and I mean nobody can guarantee a life devoid of disaster and when it does strike, b/c it will, we do not want our people destitute and in the street.
Taxes raised? Benefits cut? Retirement age increased? What a horrible retirement plan system. America is a very generous nation and it will take care of people that cannot take care of themselves. But what I don't like is charity at gun point.
The raiding of the trust fund is a big deal. The whole point of the trust funds is that they collect interest over the years. Since the money is spent as soon as it comes in, it doesn't have a chance to grow. This is like cleaning out your IRA every year and leaving yourself IOU's, it's stupid.
I disagree. People are as avaricious as ever and will seek to maximize their wealth in almost any situation.
Nobody in America is denied EMERGENCY treatment. By that time it’s too late in terms of mortality and expense to be considered efficient. The US has horrible preventive medical care.
The cancer survival rates are roughly the same but the UK gets the job done at a much cheaper cost.
If the long long waiting lists are so bad why do almost no Canadians cross the border for the US's superior care? Why did private insurance companies give up on policies for Canadians seeking care that would kick in if the wait for treatment was over 30 days?
Look at the American saving rate, it's in the negative, has been for years. Americans spend more than they earn, it's a huge problem and the fake promise of a retirement safety net is part of the problem, not the solution.
Preventive medical care is a whole other issue, America doesn't have a preventive medical care plan, they only deal with health when something goes wrong and often it is too late. We need to figure out a way to reward healthy behavior in this country, in the long run it will save us lots of cash.
Private insurance companies in Canada have been illegal until recently. In most countries that have UHC we're seeing an increase in demand for private health care coverage because the government isn't doing it's job. So people there end up not only paying high taxes for the UHC, but they have to pay for private insurance on top of it, and it hurts the poor the most because they can't afford private insurance. It's just a huge mess.
Long waiting lines in Canada are well documented and no secret.
"Only 90 of 18,000 respondents to the 1996 Canadian NPHS indicated that they had received health care in the United States during the previous twelve months, and only twenty indicated that they had gone to the United States expressly for the purpose of getting that care." http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=snow&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT#R13
You would have to ask the private insurer about that one. The essence of insurance is to spread around the costs so that no one person or age group takes the big hit when it happens.
One problem with that survey, it is ILLEGAL for Canadians to cross the border for medical care. Of course people aren't going to admit it.
Serious tort reform? How about asking the doctors to stop cutting off the wrong damn leg? Malpractice means practice that falls below the accepted norm. How would you like your damages capped at $50,000 knowing that your doctor amputated the wrong arm or took out the wrong kidney?
What a straw man argument. Nobody is calling for capping a malpractice suit for a mistaken amputation at $50,000.
Malpractice suits in this country is out of control. I'll give you the example of John Edwards. He suit doctors on behalf of parents of children with Cerebral Palsy. His argument was that because the doctors didn't perform a cesarean section the children developed the disease.
Edwards and his clients made a fortune off this case, only problem was that this was proven to be false. There is no link between cesarean sections and Cerebral Palsy. But the damage was done, many more Cesarean sections are performed today because of that case, many of them unnecessary, even though the science vindicated the doctors. Not only that but the Cesarean section is serious surgery and can be fatal.
Cases like this happen all the time and it causes our health care costs to go up due to unnecessary medical work done to cover doctors asses in case of lawsuits.
-
Warhorse,
I love how Socialists such as yourself dance around the basic premise. You will take pot shots by using terms like "greed" and "helping fellow man"
The problem with your thinking is that you have to STEAL from me to distribute to a cause that SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME deems necessary.
Yes Warhorse is fine with that. 8)
Do you not see the flaw with this?
No.....I made more money than you, so im entitled to kick you in the ribs. 8)
Do you not acknowledge that every man has the right to his property?
Yes.......................Until i need it more than you. :D
That was the point in the Revolution... Life, Liberty, and Property
I guess that level of thinking - Personal Liberty, Personal Responsibility, Freedom to Succeed, Freedom to Fail is just outdated right?
And the reason that you say that Private Charity fails, is because Socialists are the most uncaring and ungiving people there are.
How much have you donated to charity this year?
Oh thats right, government is supposed to take care of the needy so you don't have to part with YOUR MONEY. Let's take from the RICH, as they have PLENTY...
I am close friends with several multi-millionaires and they are the most giving people I know. What they do not do is get on TV and demand that someone else pays for a cause that they deem worthy. If they support it, then they use their own money.
Oh geez i sound like limbaugh...
-
The government may not dissolve, but the actions it will have to take in order to correct the problem will be very damaging to the US economy.
Maybe, maybe not. I doubt it will seriously damage the economy….Paying down our debt may do wonders for the economy.
Taxes raised? Benefits cut? Retirement age increased? What a horrible retirement plan system. America is a very generous nation and it will take care of people that cannot take care of themselves. But what I don't like is charity at gun point.
Taxes are taxes--don't be so histrionical and selfish. Pay your damn taxes like everyone else.
Soc. Sec. is the single most successful gov. program in history. It puts to shame any private enterprise re life insurance or retirement benefits (which are generally held under insurance contracts call group annuity contracts.).
The raiding of the trust fund is a big deal. The whole point of the trust funds is that they collect interest over the years. Since the money is spent as soon as it comes in, it doesn't have a chance to grow. This is like cleaning out your IRA every year and leaving yourself IOU's, it's stupid.
T-bills are one of the most conservative investments out there. The purpose is not to grow the money, the purpose is to preserve the existing amounts to fund social insurance benefits. Growing wealth means growing risk and the SSA does not want to gamble with the benefits of others.
Look at the American saving rate, it's in the negative, has been for years. Americans spend more than they earn, it's a huge problem and the fake promise of a retirement safety net is part of the problem, not the solution.
How is it a fake promise?
Preventive medical care is a whole other issue, America doesn't have a preventive medical care plan, they only deal with health when something goes wrong and often it is too late. We need to figure out a way to reward healthy behavior in this country, in the long run it will save us lots of cash.
If you have health insurance, you have a preventive medical care plan. If you do not have insurance, or are underinsured, you do not.
Private insurance companies in Canada have been illegal until recently. In most countries that have UHC we're seeing an increase in demand for private health care coverage because the government isn't doing it's job. So people there end up not only paying high taxes for the UHC, but they have to pay for private insurance on top of it, and it hurts the poor the most because they can't afford private insurance. It's just a huge mess.
I wasn’t referring to private insurance companies in Canada: “Some private insurance firms have expressed interest in offering policies that would provide service in the United States if one had to wait more than thirty days on a Canadian waiting list; however, there has been no apparent demand for such policies to date.”
How do you know that private health care coverage in UHC countries is increasing?
Long waiting lines in Canada are well documented and no secret.
One problem with that survey, it is ILLEGAL for Canadians to cross the border for medical care. Of course people aren't going to admit it.
Maybe there are long lines for some procedures. A long line in Canada for treatment is better than no treatment in the US. Some private insurance firms have expressed interest in offering policies that would provide service in the United States if one had to wait more than thirty days on a Canadian waiting list; however, there has been no apparent demand for such policies to date.
Can you show me the Canadian Statute that bars its citizens from going outside the country for treatment?
What a straw man argument. Nobody is calling for capping a malpractice suit for a mistaken amputation at $50,000.
I didn't say anyone in particular is advocating $50,000 cap, I just used it as an example. The proposed federal cap is $250,000 by Bush. What’s the difference between $250,000 and $50,000 when your talking about lifelong problems due to the incompetence of others?
It’s nothing. Might as well be $5.
Malpractice suits in this country is out of control. I'll give you the example of John Edwards. He suit doctors on behalf of parents of children with Cerebral Palsy. His argument was that because the doctors didn't perform a cesarean section the children developed the disease.
Edwards and his clients made a fortune off this case, only problem was that this was proven to be false. There is no link between cesarean sections and Cerebral Palsy. But the damage was done, many more Cesarean sections are performed today because of that case, many of them unnecessary, even though the science vindicated the doctors. Not only that but the Cesarean section is serious surgery and can be fatal.
So since the case was decided wrong, I take it the judgment was vacated and poor innocent doctors were made whole again?
I don't think you are giving a faithful recount of the case.
One case does not make the national malpractice situation out of control. Like I said, you want malpractice cases to reduce in number, then start reducing the number of incompetent doctors.
Cases like this happen all the time and it causes our health care costs to go up due to unnecessary medical work done to cover doctors asses in case of lawsuits.
"The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending. So how can such litigation be a serious threat to medical care in the first place?
Malpractice suit awards have declined
Granted, despite these other points, damage awards are at least a factor in rising premiums -- and damage awards are rising. According to Justice Department statistics, the typical (or median) damage award won by plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits increased from $253,000 in 1992, to $431,000 in 2001. (The statistics are based on civil trials conducted in the U.S.'s 75 largest counties.)"
I don't understand your point about unnecessary medical work and malpractice.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/sebok.edwards/index.html?iref=newssearch
-
$590k to research how much a cow's burp effects "global warming" and I'm the nutcase? LOL.....K!
That amount of money is chicken feed. It's a drop in the bucket, and actually for that small of an investment you might be surprised at the potential for helpful scientific evidence.
You do realize that greenhouse gasses are largely a result of the enormous amounts of methane that livestock produce, don't you? Livestock that exists to satiate our grossly over-consuming population. 590k may seem like a large amount but in reality it's a piddly little sum.
-
Honestly no, but it sounded as rediculous as the research someone was doing last year on cow farts in relation to global warming or Cheryl Crow (I think it was her) who said to use only one square of toilet paper after pooping.
OK, now I see that you really are uneducated on the subject. What a surprise.
-
He admits to Zack that he doesn't understand what's in the article.
Yet he ridicules it.
He started a thread to bash scientsits in anther country on the other side of the world, researching something he admits he doesn't understand.
He did this because in his mind, he drew some parallel to americans democrats, which he knows he hates, despite the fact they are unrelated to this news story.
QFT
-
Last time I checked we..America, is at war. We're not stealing anybodies oil. Oil is $88 so while we might protect it, we're not doing much else. Most people believ in the bible. U non-believers who laugh at "christians" ar the minority.
WTF? Hahahaha!!!!
Oh, BTW, GO PATS!!! That much we can agree on!
-
Maybe, maybe not. I doubt it will seriously damage the economy….Paying down our debt may do wonders for the economy.
Taxes are taxes--don't be so histrionical and selfish. Pay your damn taxes like everyone else.
So running astronomically high debts and then increasing taxes to pay them off is good for the economy? That's a stretch even for a socialist.
I prefer to be charitable with my money at my own discretion, I say again I'm not fond of charity at gunpoint.
Soc. Sec. is the single most successful gov. program in history. It puts to shame any private enterprise re life insurance or retirement benefits (which are generally held under insurance contracts call group annuity contracts.).
I'd say the GI bill was vastly more successful than Social Security. The GI bill helped get education and become productive members of society. Social Security is just an income redistribution program.
Social Security is superior to life insurance and retirement benefits? Do you actually know how much Social Security actually pays people? About $1000 a month on average. WOW what an awesome retirement that would be, a whole 250 bucks a week. All you have to do is pay 9% of your income for you whole life, gain absolutely no interest on it, and then get paid next to nothing when you retire.
If you would pay 9% of your income into a 401(k) plan for your whole life, you'd get all of that money that paid in when you retire PLUS interest and growth of your stock options. 401(k) is a far superior to Social Security.
Comparing life insurance to Social Security to life insurance is comparing apples to oranges. When you die, your life insurance pays your beneficiaries lots of money, Social Security pays your beneficiaries nothing and your Social Security Payments do not transfer over to your spouse, they just stop. What a compassionate way to handle a death of a spouse in retirement, not give the widow(er) a dime. Thanks government!
T-bills are one of the most conservative investments out there. The purpose is not to grow the money, the purpose is to preserve the existing amounts to fund social insurance benefits. Growing wealth means growing risk and the SSA does not want to gamble with the benefits of others.
Get real, politicians are not using the Social Security Trust Fund to buy T-Bills, they're spending it in order to buy votes and fund social programs.
How is growing money risky? Investing in the stock market is not gambling, the stock market grows every year regardless of recessions and depressions.
Plus more than likely you won't get back all of the money you paid into Social Security anyway.
How is it a fake promise?
Because $1000 bucks a month is not a "living wage", and it won't support you in retirement, and payments are likely to go down in the future.
If you have health insurance, you have a preventive medical care plan. If you do not have insurance, or are underinsured, you do not.
Preventive medial plans in the US are a joke, plain and simple. There is no reward for healthy behavior in our system today.
I wasn’t referring to private insurance companies in Canada: “Some private insurance firms have expressed interest in offering policies that would provide service in the United States if one had to wait more than thirty days on a Canadian waiting list; however, there has been no apparent demand for such policies to date.”
One who? A Canadian or American citizen?
How do you know that private health care coverage in UHC countries is increasing?
Because I can read. This information is not a secret.
Maybe there are long lines for some procedures. A long line in Canada for treatment is better than no treatment in the US. Some private insurance firms have expressed interest in offering policies that would provide service in the United States if one had to wait more than thirty days on a Canadian waiting list; however, there has been no apparent demand for such policies to date.
Can you show me the Canadian Statute that bars its citizens from going outside the country for treatment?
I stand corrected on the illegality of pursuing health care abroad for Canadians, I had heard that before but I haven't found evidence for it. My bad.
When is says "to date" on your statement there, when was that? Because only recently has Canada allowed its citizens to pursue health insurance (2005 I think).
I didn't say anyone in particular is advocating $50,000 cap, I just used it as an example. The proposed federal cap is $250,000 by Bush. What’s the difference between $250,000 and $50,000 when your talking about lifelong problems due to the incompetence of others?
It’s nothing. Might as well be $5.
The problem is that a lot of malpractice lawsuits are actually due to errors. There is a huge difference between malpractice and error, but lawyers don't see it this way. So a lot of good doctors are being unfairly sued.
So since the case was decided wrong, I take it the judgment was vacated and poor innocent doctors were made whole again?
I don't think you are giving a faithful recount of the case.
One case does not make the national malpractice situation out of control. Like I said, you want malpractice cases to reduce in number, then start reducing the number of incompetent doctors.
No, it wasn't vacated and the money was never returned. Last time I checked John Edwards was still pretty rich.
What I said was basically this case in a nutshell, if I said something inaccurate please point it out to me.
This one case was an example, this kind of thing happens all the time.
There aren't as many incompetent doctors as the lawyer would like you to think. The more they can convince people that all medical mistakes are due to malpractice, the more money they make, just follow the money.
"The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending. So how can such litigation be a serious threat to medical care in the first place?
Malpractice suit awards have declined
Granted, despite these other points, damage awards are at least a factor in rising premiums -- and damage awards are rising. According to Justice Department statistics, the typical (or median) damage award won by plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits increased from $253,000 in 1992, to $431,000 in 2001. (The statistics are based on civil trials conducted in the U.S.'s 75 largest counties.)"
I don't understand your point about unnecessary medical work and malpractice.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/sebok.edwards/index.html?iref=newssearch
It's not just the cost of medical insurance that drives up prices. The threat of litigation changes behaviors. Doctors are more likely to perform unnecessary tests and procedures just to cover their asses in case of a lawsuit. The cost of all these unnecessary procedures are way more than 2%. What's hard to understand about that?
-
Warhorse,
I love how Socialists such as yourself dance around the basic premise. You will take pot shots by using terms like "greed" and "helping fellow man"
The problem with your thinking is that you have to STEAL from me to distribute to a cause that SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME deems necessary.
Do you not see the flaw with this?
Do you not acknowledge that every man has the right to his property?
That was the point in the Revolution... Life, Liberty, and Property
I guess that level of thinking - Personal Liberty, Personal Responsibility, Freedom to Succeed, Freedom to Fail is just outdated right?
And the reason that you say that Private Charity fails, is because Socialists are the most uncaring and ungiving people there are.
How much have you donated to charity this year?
Oh thats right, government is supposed to take care of the needy so you don't have to part with YOUR MONEY. Let's take from the RICH, as they have PLENTY...
I am close friends with several multi-millionaires and they are the most giving people I know. What they do not do is get on TV and demand that someone else pays for a cause that they deem worthy. If they support it, then they use their own money.
Bravo
-
WTF? Hahahaha!!!!
Oh, BTW, GO PATS!!! That much we can agree on!
opium maybe ???
-
Decker,
The principles of Socialism, and redistribution of wealth DO NOT WORK and CANNOT WORK. They violate mans basic motive to produce.
Man is motivated by personal profit - Period.
Our constitutional Republic was designed to protect mans profit from theft by lies or force.
What you encourage is legalized theft by government in the name of Healthcare, Children's education, Fair wages, (insert your cause here)
The problems we have with our system stem from the power of federal government being controlled by corporations. Giving government more power only makes it worse = more erosion of liberty.
Smaller government and more personal responsibility - EACH PERSON PROVIDES FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES. PRIVATE CHARITY CAN TAKE CARE OF THE REST.
It is MY CHOICE to help a family with MY MONEY.
I definitely understand you on a philosophical level.
However there is a slight problem applying it in real life.
Because everyone are not equally productive, some people are born and brought up in criminal environments, et al.
A state cannot be effective unless a very high grade of the population is working, has a good education, and are living under not just acceptable conditions, but conditions that allows for a good life.
Back in the early 90's in Russia, everything was capitalized, and it led to huge riches for a few, but also the occurance of poverty, and high crime.
So giving a big responsibility to each and every one is a very nice thought.
But unless you by some magic wand can give everyone an equal start in life, a fair chance at a good childhood, a fair chance at a calm school day, the idea of minimal goverment and maximal individual responsibility a la Robert Nozick is an Utopia.
And BTW, one of the premises of your reasoning is flawed.
Man is motivated by personal profit - Period.
If you would study organizational theory or take a leadership course, you would learn that profit is only one part of it, and a temporary motivation. Other factors are more important to motivate, eg:
Inspiring work
Democracy
Recognition
Check Herzberg's Two Factor Theory if you want to know more.
-
All fine and dandy Mr. Hedga la socialist.
Socialism in Europe is young, and is already showing fault lines.
Keep believing in your idealistic dream ::)
-
opium maybe ???
haha no Mercury.
-
If you would study organizational theory or take a leadership course, you would learn that profit is only one part of it, and a temporary motivation. Other factors are more important to motivate, eg:
Inspiring work
Democracy
Recognition
Check Herzberg's Two Factor Theory if you want to know more.
Of course there are other motivating factors. Quit trying to distract my argument with knee jerk factors that are secondary to man's Primary and most important motive PROFIT.
I am friends with millionaires, along with wage slaves. I do not know one person that would continue to do what they do if it did not provide a sufficient income. They may enjoy building computers or running a daycare, but if the income stopped, they would do something else.
So don't waste my time talking about secondary motives for producing value.
Of course there are people that need help and cannot provide for themselves, and that is when we rely on compassion and love to help our fellow man. WE DO NOT NEED TO RELY ON FORCE
An example of the unintended consequences that result from fucking around with legalized theft:
My neighboor gets fired and asks me for rent money for the next month so he can find a job. He then decides to screw off all month. If he has the nerve to ask me for more, he will not get it.
Now when Socialists such as yourself demand that my money is stolen by govenment and then redistributed to the same man, it becomes an entitlement from an organization with no face, no family, and no expectations. He has no incentive to produce for himself.
If man does not need to work to recieve his profit, there is no incentive.
Profit is the primary motive. Save the secondary bullshit for a social science class in a public school.
-
So running astronomically high debts and then increasing taxes to pay them off is good for the economy? That's a stretch even for a socialist.
I prefer to be charitable with my money at my own discretion, I say again I'm not fond of charity at gunpoint.
Paying off debt is a good thing. How is that a stretch? The fact at hand is the Reagan tax increase for pre-funding Soc. Was spent and the T-bills must be paid in full. This was Reagan’s cute maneuver to raise taxes on the poor and middle class and still claim not to raise income taxes. He had to find some source to fund governmental spending while slashing income taxes irresponsibly.
By definition Social Security retirement benefits are not charity b/c the benefit can only be received if the worker pays into the system.
I'd say the GI bill was vastly more successful than Social Security. The GI bill helped get education and become productive members of society. Social Security is just an income redistribution program.
Social Security is superior to life insurance and retirement benefits? Do you actually know how much Social Security actually pays people? About $1000 a month on average. WOW what an awesome retirement that would be, a whole 250 bucks a week. All you have to do is pay 9% of your income for you whole life, gain absolutely no interest on it, and then get paid next to nothing when you retire.
If you would pay 9% of your income into a 401(k) plan for your whole life, you'd get all of that money that paid in when you retire PLUS interest and growth of your stock options. 401(k) is a far superior to Social Security.
Comparing life insurance to Social Security to life insurance is comparing apples to oranges. When you die, your life insurance pays your beneficiaries lots of money, Social Security pays your beneficiaries nothing and your Social Security Payments do not transfer over to your spouse, they just stop. What a compassionate way to handle a death of a spouse in retirement, not give the widow(er) a dime. Thanks government!
Any government program that redistributes wealth is a redistribution program including the GI Bill.
SSI’s retirement benefit is supplemental not primary. You show me a private insurance company that provides for one low cost: retirement benefits, life insurance and disability insurance for life without qualifying exams for life and then we’ll see which system is better.
SSI’s death benefit is not dependent on insurability, private LI is. SSI wants to be inclusive. Private LI is exclusive.
Where do you get the notion that social security payments just stop upon the death of a spouse? You’ve never heard of the Widow’s pension for surviving spouses?
Get real, politicians are not using the Social Security Trust Fund to buy T-Bills, they're spending it in order to buy votes and fund social programs.
How is growing money risky? Investing in the stock market is not gambling, the stock market grows every year regardless of recessions and depressions.
Plus more than likely you won't get back all of the money you paid into Social Security anyway.
The trust fund is currently funded by T-bills. That is a debt instrument of the federal government since the money was borrowed from the trust to pay other bills. So I’m not sure what you are talking about.
“Investment in the stock market is not gambling?” Are you serious? Have you ever heard of options trading which, in some cases, gambles on the notion that a stock will lose money? Are you aware that due to the stock market tanking, some people’s 401(k) individual accounts have lost up to half of the equity?
It is not more likely than not that people will see their benefits reduced. I don’t know where you got that estimation.
Because $1000 bucks a month is not a "living wage", and it won't support you in retirement, and payments are likely to go down in the future.
Social Security retirement benefits were never ever meant to be the sole source of retirement income for anyone. It’s always been a supplemental benefit.
Preventive medial plans in the US are a joke, plain and simple. There is no reward for healthy behavior in our system today.
I guess having a healthy body is its own reward?
One who? A Canadian or American citizen?
“one” refers to Canadians seeking out of province medical care.
Because I can read. This information is not a secret.
Then provide a citation so I too can read the information re your claim.
...
It's not just the cost of medical insurance that drives up prices. The threat of litigation changes behaviors. Doctors are more likely to perform unnecessary tests and procedures just to cover their asses in case of a lawsuit. The cost of all these unnecessary procedures are way more than 2%. What's hard to understand about that?
We want doctors to change their behaviors from that of careless and incompetent to careful and competent. Let's face it, it's a field that demands a lot from its practitioners.
"The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending." Do you think the author of the article is lying?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/sebok.edwards/index.html?iref=newssearch
-
...Now when Socialists such as yourself demand that my money is stolen by govenment and then redistributed to the same man, it becomes an entitlement from an organization with no face, no family, and no expectations. He has no incentive to produce for himself.
If man does not need to work to recieve his profit, there is no incentive.
Profit is the primary motive. Save the secondary bullshit for a social science class in a public school.
So you are saying that the US Constitution is somehow authorizing theft when it grants the power to the states and feds to raise tax revenue?
That's just not so.
Taxation is not theft. Why? For starters, we have taxation with representation. That's the main factor for splitting from the British way back when.
Then we have that whole "taxation is constitutional b/c it's in the constitution" thing.
-
So you are saying that the US Constitution is somehow authorizing theft when it grants the power to the states and feds to raise tax revenue?
That's just not so.
Taxation is not theft. Why? For starters, we have taxation with representation. That's the main factor for splitting from the British way back when.
Then we have that whole "taxation is constitutional b/c it's in the constitution" thing.
I am talking on a federal level.
If a state wants to tax people to death and fund everything under the sun, that is fine. I have the choice to move to another state.
When the Federal government is taking from me via a direct income tax instead of apportionment from the states, that is theft.
If you read some history or the Federalist Papers, you would know what I am talking about.
The checks and balances were to prevent consolidation of power at the Federal Level.
If a state wants to legalize abortion, or have high taxes, or free education for certain races, they are given that authority by the Constitution.
You should Turn off the TV and try reading it sometime.
The Federal government was meant to be VERY limited. Now it steals directly from the citizens and pushes around the states via Federal Funding. States lost their representation with the 17th amendment.
-
Paying off debt is a good thing. How is that a stretch? The fact at hand is the Reagan tax increase for pre-funding Soc. Was spent and the T-bills must be paid in full. This was Reagan’s cute maneuver to raise taxes on the poor and middle class and still claim not to raise income taxes. He had to find some source to fund governmental spending while slashing income taxes irresponsibly.
By definition Social Security retirement benefits are not charity b/c the benefit can only be received if the worker pays into the system.
I stated that "So running astronomically high debts and then increasing taxes to pay them off is good for the economy? That's a stretch even for a socialist."
It seems all you saw here was "paying off debts" and you ignored the "running astronomically high debts" part. If you going to respond to something I say please respond to my point in it's entirety. Otherwise your just taking it out of context.
First of all, the President doesn't spend a dime or raise taxes, this is a function of Congress which the Democrats controlled during Reagans Presidency.
Reagan proposed and got through massive tax cuts across the board. During his Presidency government revenues doubled, so much for "irresponsible" income tax cuts.
Any government program that redistributes wealth is a redistribution program including the GI Bill.
SSI’s retirement benefit is supplemental not primary. You show me a private insurance company that provides for one low cost: retirement benefits, life insurance and disability insurance for life without qualifying exams for life and then we’ll see which system is better.
SSI’s death benefit is not dependent on insurability, private LI is. SSI wants to be inclusive. Private LI is exclusive.
Where do you get the notion that social security payments just stop upon the death of a spouse? You’ve never heard of the Widow’s pension for surviving spouses?
You right, the GI Bill is also an income redistribution program, but that wasn't the issue, you claimed that Social Security is the single most successful government program in history, and I just had to point out you were wrong.
I sure have heard of the Widow's pension for surviving spouses, and it SUCKS, here see for yourself http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_050103.html
Social Security is low cost? 1 out 10 dollars I earn during my life goes to FICA and then they pay me about 11,000 dollars a year after I retire? Not only that but they're debts are going to surpass their assets before I even retire, causing them to lower these meager payments, raise the age I can receive benefits, and significantly raise my children's taxes?
Social Security is a poster child for what is wrong with government.
The trust fund is currently funded by T-bills. That is a debt instrument of the federal government since the money was borrowed from the trust to pay other bills. So I’m not sure what you are talking about.
“Investment in the stock market is not gambling?” Are you serious? Have you ever heard of options trading which, in some cases, gambles on the notion that a stock will lose money? Are you aware that due to the stock market tanking, some people’s 401(k) individual accounts have lost up to half of the equity?
It is not more likely than not that people will see their benefits reduced. I don’t know where you got that estimation.
I don't know how else I can explain this to you: There is no Social Security trust fund, the money that goes into this trust fund is wasted every single year. What is left are IOU's, and they don't collect interest, so inflation eats the value of the trust fund IOU's alive.
The stock market is not tanking, it just gained 300 points yesterday, and it still up today. The market is adjusting itself after the sub-prime loan mess we've gotten ourselves in.
The stock market on average has grown in size every year, even during the depression the stock market grew on average, just slower, look it up.
The only reason your 401(k) is going to tank is if your an idiot and put all your equity in very few companies. Some people only buy stock in the company they work for, and then if the company goes under they're screwed. That's their fault for making bad decisions.
I didn't say that benefits will be reduced (they will be though) I said you won't get back all the money you paid into the FICA system. For example, if you make 50,000 per year and work for 50 years, you'll pay about $225,000 into the Social Security system over your lifetime. If you go by today's standards, you will get around $11,000 per year after you reach 65 years of age. At that rate, you'd have to live for 20.45 years after that in order to collect back everything you made during your life. So you'd have to live to be 85 years old, since the average life expectancy for American males is 77 years, your going to be short $36,000, on average.
With your 401(k) you get everything you paid into, plus interest and growth. I remember during 401(k) orientations when I was in the workforce, they estimated that if you have a matching 401(k) plan making about 50k per year for 50 years, you'll end up with around 1 million dollars when you retire, and it won't take 20 years for you to collect it, you get it all immediately.
Just let my put my 9% FICA tax into my 401(k), I'll think I'll live without my 250 bucks a week from the government.
Social Security retirement benefits were never ever meant to be the sole source of retirement income for anyone. It’s always been a supplemental benefit.
If that's the case why is it mandatory? Why can't I opt out of the system? If I feel like I won't need a supplemental benefit, and I feel I can invest my FICA taxes more wisely than the government, why can't I make that choice?
I guess having a healthy body is its own reward?
It is for you and me, but if you look at the obesity rates in America you'll see we're the exception unfortunately.
The thing is people respond to incentives, and financial incentive to encourage people to take better care of themselves will definitely save us vast amounts of money later on.
“one” refers to Canadians seeking out of province medical care.
The timing of this survey matters because private insurance for Canadians only recently became legal due to a supreme court ruling.
Then provide a citation so I too can read the information re your claim.
Sure, here you go: http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=16801
We want doctors to change their behaviors from that of careless and incompetent to careful and competent. Let's face it, it's a field that demands a lot from its practitioners.
"The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending." Do you think the author of the article is lying?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/sebok.edwards/index.html?iref=newssearch
So your saying all doctors that make mistakes are incompetent and should be sued? Why do you not demand any discretion from the sue happy trial lawyers? Is it not possible that they're careless and incompetent too?
Look if you going to respond to what I say at least take the time and read what I have to say.
I did not disagree with the fact that "The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending." That may very well be true. What I was saying is that the cost of medical malpractice insurance is not the only way malpractice lawsuits affects the cost of health care.
I told you before, irresponsible malpractice lawsuits alters the behavior of doctors. The doctors perform more procedures and test due to fear of being sued. These unnecessary procedures are not free, they cost more money thus increasing all of our premiums.
-
I am talking on a federal level.
If a state wants to tax people to death and fund everything under the sun, that is fine. I have the choice to move to another state.
When the Federal government is taking from me via a direct income tax instead of apportionment from the states, that is theft.
If you read some history or the Federalist Papers, you would know what I am talking about.
The checks and balances were to prevent consolidation of power at the Federal Level.
If a state wants to legalize abortion, or have high taxes, or free education for certain races, they are given that authority by the Constitution.
You should Turn off the TV and try reading it sometime.
The Federal government was meant to be VERY limited. Now it steals directly from the citizens and pushes around the states via Federal Funding. States lost their representation with the 17th amendment.
Thanks for the advice about TV. I watch sports, Bill Moyers, and some movies. I also read 2-4 books a week.
So you've read the Federalist Papers. That's great.
Have you read the US Constitution?
Have a look at this amendment:
AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
How praytell did the 17th Amendment cause the States to lose their representation?
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Thank goodness the US Constitution is a living document that changes with history. Otherwise Strict Constructionist Originalists might rule the day...and they are just nuts.
We could go back to where blacks are property or women are second class citizens or the like.
Here's a pretty good list of things in our Constitution alien to Originalists:
Amendments to the Constitution subsequent to the Bill of Rights cover a wide range of subjects. One of the most far-reaching is the fourteenth, ratified in 1868, which establishes a clear and simple definition of citizenship and guarantees equal treatment under the law. In essence, the Fourteenth Amendment required the states to abide by the protections of the Bill of Rights. Other amendments have limited the judicial power of the national government; changed the method of electing the president; forbidden slavery; protected the right to vote against denial because of race, color, sex, or previous condition of servitude; extended the congressional power to levy taxes to individual incomes; and instituted the election of U.S. senators by popular vote.
The most recent amendments include the twenty-second, limiting the president to two terms in office; the twenty-third, granting citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote; the twenty-fourth, giving citizens the right to vote regardless of failure to pay a poll tax; the twenty-fifth, providing for filling the office of vice president when it becomes vacant in midterm; the twenty-sixth, lowering the voting age to 18; and the twenty-seventh, concerning the compensation of U.S. senators and representatives.
http://countrystudies.us/united-states/government-2.htm
-
I stated that "So running astronomically high debts and then increasing taxes to pay them off is good for the economy? That's a stretch even for a socialist."
It seems all you saw here was "paying off debts" and you ignored the "running astronomically high debts" part. If you going to respond to something I say please respond to my point in it's entirety. Otherwise your just taking it out of context.
First of all, the President doesn't spend a dime or raise taxes, this is a function of Congress which the Democrats controlled during Reagans Presidency.
Reagan proposed and got through massive tax cuts across the board. During his Presidency government revenues doubled, so much for "irresponsible" income tax cuts.
Never in the history of the United States of America have tax cuts doubled tax revenue or even come close to paying for the tax cuts themselves.
You’re really telling it like it ain’t.
Ok, how’s this?: Paying off “astronomically high debts” is a good thing. Even if it means raising taxes.
You right, the GI Bill is also an income redistribution program, but that wasn't the issue, you claimed that Social Security is the single most successful government program in history, and I just had to point out you were wrong.
I sure have heard of the Widow's pension for surviving spouses, and it SUCKS, here see for yourself http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_050103.html
Social Security is low cost? 1 out 10 dollars I earn during my life goes to FICA and then they pay me about 11,000 dollars a year after I retire? Not only that but they're debts are going to surpass their assets before I even retire, causing them to lower these meager payments, raise the age I can receive benefits, and significantly raise my children's taxes?
Social Security is a poster child for what is wrong with government.
I’m wrong just b/c you say so? Nope. SS has done more for more Americans than the GI bill ever has.
That’s right, let’s get rid of the sucky widow’s pension to make sure our streets are populated with aging homeless folks. That’s not so good.
1 out of 10 of your dollars? I pay 6.2% in payroll taxes for Social Security. It’s an insurance program and not a wealth creating program…it’s always been that way. Tinkering with the actuarial assumptions, the retirement age, the payroll tax, or benefits will leave SS in great shape. Anyways, the 2042 number is likely to go much higher b/c SS actuaries use extremely conservative estimates in projecting costs/benefits that do not reflect the real economic growth of the US. 10 years ago the 2042 number used to be 2029.
I don't know how else I can explain this to you: There is no Social Security trust fund, the money that goes into this trust fund is wasted every single year. What is left are IOU's, and they don't collect interest, so inflation eats the value of the trust fund IOU's alive.
There is a trust fund. That’s a fact.
The bonds do accrue interest: The trust funds hold special issues (SI) sold only to the trust funds. These SI securities are of two types: short-term certificates of indebtedness and long-term bonds. The certificates of indebtedness are issued on a daily basis for the investment of receipts not required to meet current expenditures, and they mature on the next June 30 following the date of issue. Special-issue bonds, on the other hand, are normally acquired only when special issues of either type mature on June 30. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/cgi-bin/transactions.cgi
Here’s a list of the nominal interest rates: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/newIssueRates.html
Tell Warren Buffet that the T-Bills he holds are just “IOUs” That’s just flat out untrue.
The stock market is not tanking, it just gained 300 points yesterday, and it still up today. The market is adjusting itself after the sub-prime loan mess we've gotten ourselves in.
The market is at a 2005 rate in 2008 thanks largely to a subprime meltdown, an end to cheap credit and rising oil prices which have brought U.S. consumer spending to a halt.
The only reason your 401(k) is going to tank is if your an idiot and put all your equity in very few companies. Some people only buy stock in the company they work for, and then if the company goes under they're screwed. That's their fault for making bad decisions.
You’ve just described the average retirement account investor. They are not pro’s and they do not understand how to invest. B/c of fiduciary liability, most retirement plans are 404(c) compliant meaning that self-directed investments are the responsibility of the investor and the participant is left with useless prospectuses.
I didn't say that benefits will be reduced (they will be though) I said you won't get back all the money you paid into the FICA system. For example, if you make 50,000 per year and work for 50 years, you'll pay about $225,000 into the Social Security system over your lifetime. If you go by today's standards, you will get around $11,000 per year after you reach 65 years of age. At that rate, you'd have to live for 20.45 years after that in order to collect back everything you made during your life. So you'd have to live to be 85 years old, since the average life expectancy for American males is 77 years, your going to be short $36,000, on average.
50,000 x 50 years x 6.2% = 115,000. The retirement age is 67 not 65 and the life expectancy 81 or 82 not 77.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html
DOB 1927; NRA 67 Avg Career Ann. Earnings: $50,000
Average monthly benefit: $1192.00; 81-67 = 14 years x 12 = 168 months x 1192 = $200,256 total which is greater than the $115,000 paid in for a gain of $85,256.
With your 401(k) you get everything you paid into, plus interest and growth. I remember during 401(k) orientations when I was in the workforce, they estimated that if you have a matching 401(k) plan making about 50k per year for 50 years, you'll end up with around 1 million dollars when you retire, and it won't take 20 years for you to collect it, you get it all immediately.
I know what retirement plans can do, I’m a pension tax lawyer.
Just let my put my 9% FICA tax into my 401(k), I'll think I'll live without my 250 bucks a week from the government.
Again, you are funding a social insurance program to keep our elderly off the streets and out of poverty and not for you to open your money to risk in the market for your own personal gain.
If that's the case why is it mandatory? Why can't I opt out of the system? If I feel like I won't need a supplemental benefit, and I feel I can invest my FICA taxes more wisely than the government, why can't I make that choice?
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=435&p_created=974129735&p_sid=S-iYjaJi&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjMsMjMmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPTMsMSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PTIuMSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1
SS retirement benefits are a form of social insurance for the good of the country. You cannot opt out.
It’s for the good of the country as a whole. The same country that has given you the opportunity to be all you can be. You are not an island nor should you want to be.
It is for you and me, but if you look at the obesity rates in America you'll see we're the exception unfortunately.
Sure, here you go: http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=16801
UHC costs are rising, according to your source, b/c you are taking the word of a member of a "think tank" who did a survey. Thinktanks are generally unreliable when their income depends on coming to a certain conclusion like with our Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and so on. I would like to see some numbers rather than the survey of a slanted organization.
So your saying all doctors that make mistakes are incompetent and should be sued? Why do you not demand any discretion from the sue happy trial lawyers? Is it not possible that they're careless and incompetent too?
Look if you going to respond to what I say at least take the time and read what I have to say.
I did not disagree with the fact that "The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending." That may very well be true. What I was saying is that the cost of medical malpractice insurance is not the only way malpractice lawsuits affects the cost of health care.
I told you before, irresponsible malpractice lawsuits alters the behavior of doctors. The doctors perform more procedures and test due to fear of being sued. These unnecessary procedures are not free, they cost more money thus increasing all of our premiums.
No doubt that malpractice cases affect medical costs. I don't deny that. I just misread what you wrote.
Lawyers are held in check regarding frivolous lawsuits--the courts can censure, fine and disbar a lawyer for bringing a frivolous malpractice suit.
-
What does the government "give" corporations? More like what the corporations "give" the government.
The personhood of the corporations? What does that even mean? Does that mean if you don't like a company you can punish it at will?
I'm sorry if I had a company and people like you were in charge, I'd leave and take my tax revenues and jobs with me. Which is what will happen.
The thing is you probably think your pro-job. But the thing is that you can't be pro-job and anti-business at the same time.
Government gives coporations tax breaks, exemptions, personhood, subsidies and more..
Personhood for a corporation means that corporations have the same rights under the US constitution as a person does. But a corporation can live into infinity, doesn't feel pain, doesn't need clean air, doesn't need potable water, and doesn't need edible food. A corporation is a fiction. We are not.
Who is anti-business?
-
How praytell did the 17th Amendment cause the States to lose their representation?
You have proven yourself to be nothing but opinionated with a nearly ZERO understanding of how our government was originally designed to work. You probably call it a democracy...
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof,
Do you really read? Or do you just verbalize words in your mind?
Before the 17th amendment the US Senate was elected by the state legislature. Therefore the states had a voice to compete with that of the people who elect their respective US Congressmen. The 17th amendment handed the Senate over to the people so instead of the people just controlling one house by electing those that promise them the most, they now control BOTH.
I will not even bother to respond to the rest of your post as you have just embarrased yourself with your lack of understanding of the 17th amendment, and proven you cannot read, let alone have an intelligent discussion.
To add, I never said that I was against every amendment made since it's original ratification. I was arguing the principles of Life, Liberty, and Property. Principles that Socialists pay alot of lip service to, but see the public not as people with individual rights, but a bunch of babies that need taken care of by government.
I am against the 16th amendment as well, which added the income tax to go along with the creation of the Central Bank in 1913. The Federal Income tax was created to guarantee that interest payments would be made on the Credit created by the Private Bank we call the Federal Reserve.
-
You have proven yourself to be nothing but opinionated with a nearly ZERO understanding of how our government was originally designed to work. You probably call it a democracy...
Translation: You were wrong about SS from the beginning—from how it’s funded to how the Trust corpus works to how benefits are calculated to what the applicable payroll tax amount is. Other than all that, you were dead on. Come on, part of being a man is admitting when you’re wrong.
I do call it more Democracy--one person and one vote in the mix--the rule by the people.
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof,
Do you really read? Or do you just verbalize words in your mind?
Before the 17th amendment the US Senate was elected by the state legislature. Therefore the states had a voice to compete with that of the people who elect their respective US Congressmen. The 17th amendment handed the Senate over to the people so instead of the people just controlling one house by electing those that promise them the most, they now control BOTH.
I’m not sure what you are objecting to here. Are you saying that more Democracy is a bad thing since The People and not the state legislators picked the Senators or that Senators do not represent the interests of their constituency and require some indirect voice of the people as articluated by their state congress? No matter how you dice it, We The People are the government at both the State and Federal level. If we do not care for our representatives, we vote them out of office.
I will not even bother to respond to the rest of your post as you have just embarrased yourself with your lack of understanding of the 17th amendment, and proven you cannot read, let alone have an intelligent discussion.
You sure ‘embarrased’ yourself by misspelling ‘embarrassed’. You haven’t shown any erosion of State’s rights by simply listing your ill-conceived objection.
This is a discussion forum. Please enlighten me if I'm in error about Social Security or the 17th Amendment. Don't run away crying that I'm the one with the problem. I'm here.
To add, I never said that I was against every amendment made since it's original ratification. I was arguing the principles of Life, Liberty, and Property. Principles that Socialists pay alot of lip service to, but see the public not as people with individual rights, but a bunch of babies that need taken care of by government.
I like John Locke. You take his notion of life, liberty and property to a degree of selfishness that is extreme. Me, me, mine and no other. I don’t see Socialists paying lip service to Locke.
What’s wrong with a Safety Net Society? No one’s asking anything from you except for your tax dollar. And why not? You prosper b/c of the achievements of others.
-
I was not debating SS with you... I don't know why you are bringing that up with me.
Yes there is a big difference between the state legislature electing the senators and the people electing them.
A democracy is not even close to a Constitutional Republic.
Democracy = Mob Rule
Democracy does not protect the rights of the minority.
The Founders were very aware of the difference. The infusion of Socialism has erased the word Republic. Even the president uses the word democracy.
Do we pledge to the Republic for which it stands, or to the Democracy for which it stands?
Thanks for pointing out the spelling error.
-
I also question voting. I will not say which way is right or wrong because I do not know, so save the argument.
I will ask some questions:
1. Maybe there was a reason the founders felt that only landowners had the Constitutional right to vote?
2. Should someone that recieves a check at tax time, someone that pays no taxes, have a Constitutional right to vote for the government they are not funding?
3. What criteria is used for voting when someone is getting a check from the government? Will they have a tendency to vote for the person that promises them the most?
4. Would it not create an incentive for production to be a tax paying citizen in order to have a voice in the selection of government?
Again these are just questions, I am not arguing that only White landowners should have the right to vote, so please do not start a strawman argument.
-
A democracy is not even close to a Constitutional Republic.
Democracy = Mob Rule
Democracy does not protect the rights of the minority.
good point...i always laugh to myself when i hear politicians talk about spreading democracy.
-
Democracy = Mob Rule
Democracy does not protect the rights of the minority.
You're, of course, wrong.
In a democracy, the minority is represented by several outlets.
Eg, the media and ombudsmen.
There are daily examples of how minorities, such as gays and muslims, have their rights protected in democracies.
If the minority didn't have any rights in a democracy, muslims would obviously not be cared for so viciously in democracies.
You are not just wrong, you are totally wrong. In the most democratic countries, the rights of the minorities are most protected.
Countries like North Korea, that rank at dead bottom on the democracy index, give the least protection for minorities.
Or Saudi Arabia, what rights does a gay person have there?
-
Or Saudi Arabia, what rights does a gay person have there?
They have a right to be murdered by the oppressive islamic regime.
Rhetorical question I assume tho?
-
You're, of course, wrong.
In a democracy, the minority is represented by several outlets.
Eg, the media and ombudsmen.
There are daily examples of how minorities, such as gays and muslims, have their rights protected in democracies.
If the minority didn't have any rights in a democracy, muslims would obviously not be cared for so viciously in democracies.
You are not just wrong, you are totally wrong. In the most democratic countries, the rights of the minorities are most protected.
Countries like North Korea, that rank at dead bottom on the democracy index, give the least protection for minorities.
Or Saudi Arabia, what rights does a gay person have there?
Wow... I did not think people could be this dumb. Please refrain from replying to anymore of my posts.
Minority means the MINORITY VOTE
I'm not talking about race or sexual orientation.
Democracy is two lions and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
-
I was not debating SS with you... I don't know why you are bringing that up with me.
Forgive me, I'm going in and out of threads and my work is really interfering with my posting so I lose track of whom I speak with. Sorry.
Yes there is a big difference between the state legislature electing the senators and the people electing them.
A democracy is not even close to a Constitutional Republic.
Democracy = Mob Rule
Democracy does not protect the rights of the minority.
The Founders were very aware of the difference. The infusion of Socialism has erased the word Republic. Even the president uses the word democracy.
Do we pledge to the Republic for which it stands, or to the Democracy for which it stands?
Thanks for pointing out the spelling error.
You're one of the first people I've encountered that recognized that the very flower of Democracy is the Lynch Mob.
That's why we don't have a direct Democracy, we have democratic republic. The People choose the politicians but the politicians make the laws....not the people. That way mob rule does not directly determine our laws b/c we have the politicians as a buffer or filter.
Like with most of the things in our form of government: It's a balance. We want to encourage democracy to effectuate the will of The People without trampling the minority position.
I have no use for the pledge...I think it misses the point that our political system is a democratic republic.
-
I also question voting. I will not say which way is right or wrong because I do not know, so save the argument.
I will ask some questions:
1. Maybe there was a reason the founders felt that only landowners had the Constitutional right to vote?
2. Should someone that recieves a check at tax time, someone that pays no taxes, have a Constitutional right to vote for the government they are not funding?
3. What criteria is used for voting when someone is getting a check from the government? Will they have a tendency to vote for the person that promises them the most?
4. Would it not create an incentive for production to be a tax paying citizen in order to have a voice in the selection of government?
Again these are just questions, I am not arguing that only White landowners should have the right to vote, so please do not start a strawman argument.
Every citizen has a stake in the government--from welfare recipients to tax subsidized oil men. A democratic republic is inclusive b/c our Constitution is predicated on 'We The People and not 'We The Landowners'.
We the people, in order to form a more perfect union (not perfect, but more perfect) establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE,....
So the Constitution comprehends a general welfare in which all citizens have a stake/part. From that principle, it follows that everyone should have a say. But thanks to the republican form of government, that 'say' does not carry the day.
-
Wow... I did not think people could be this dumb. Please refrain from replying to anymore of my posts.
Minority means the MINORITY VOTE
I'm not talking about race or sexual orientation.
Democracy is two lions and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Again, the minority right in a majority rule is protected through laws and institutions, and countries that rank high on the democracy index, also have good protection for the minority.
Since you seem to have a problem understanding, I will try to make it a little easier understanding, by examplifying with a political minority group this time:
If a grass roots movement of eg anti-violence activists forms, that wants a legislative change, they can sway a national opinion, and get enough people behind their cause to either get a referendum or a legislative change.
Even though they never won an election.
And the tyranny of the majority, is also the blessing of the majority. You won't see any crazy shit done against the will of the majority.
When the ruling parties legislates, they have been elected.
Look at GWB and the past mid-term elections. How much support do they have? How many of the eligible voters voted for them?
-
So anyway, Warhorse can lift heavy objects... 8)
I gotta say you guys amaze me with youre knowledge and eloquent words......I need to go the gym.... ;D