.MASSHOLE.
Active member
So what do you think of England's Mass Surveillance then? ;-)
Boring white guy (Paul Ryan) picked as boring white guy (Mitt Romney)'s VP
- Thread starter volvotom
- Start date
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
Except, I forgot to mention, in my fathers line of work, it will fuck up that as well. So theres another reason to go against it. Selfish? Yes. Do I care? No. Where does anyone get in this world without being selfish.
And can I ask you, where will all these extra doctors come from? Its not like becoming a doctor is easy, or pays well. (Except plastic surgeons and private practices) AND they still will have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get to that place. Sounds like a pretty shitty lifestyle to me. Pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to be a doctor, then look and see that your income is falling. Hows the government going to pay for this as well? Tax more? Great. Sign me up for that.. This also means that the Insurance Companies are going to jack up the prices for more expensive health plans, to pay for the basic care. Great. Once again, prices are rising and income will be falling due to taxes. This is NOT like the Mass. Health Care.
This might SEEM great, but dig deeper. Its not the Mass. System. This is its own monster.
And can I ask you, where will all these extra doctors come from? Its not like becoming a doctor is easy, or pays well. (Except plastic surgeons and private practices) AND they still will have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get to that place. Sounds like a pretty shitty lifestyle to me. Pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to be a doctor, then look and see that your income is falling. Hows the government going to pay for this as well? Tax more? Great. Sign me up for that.. This also means that the Insurance Companies are going to jack up the prices for more expensive health plans, to pay for the basic care. Great. Once again, prices are rising and income will be falling due to taxes. This is NOT like the Mass. Health Care.
This might SEEM great, but dig deeper. Its not the Mass. System. This is its own monster.
Nerd alert here, but I grew up with some Star Trek on TV. "Space is the Final Frontier". Never was there a word about Mars in that sentence.
Mars is a Stepping stone - but one that we'd need to take if we as a society have any hope of achieving extra-solar system exploration.
Mars is a Stepping stone - but one that we'd need to take if we as a society have any hope of achieving extra-solar system exploration.
You know what? I like that tax return. You know why? because it makes it so I don't spend all that money all at once. I actually ask the government to withhold more money from me so when I get that fat lump sum at once, it goes into savings, and not towards frivolous consumer items from china.
Trust me. I have not stressed for 10 minutes about how much the government is taking from my coffers... I stress more from whether or not my healthcare plan is actually going to help me out in a time of need, or whether I'm going to have a massive headache for years to come over getting hurt. What little the government actually takes really isn't enough to pay for a 90 thousand dollar surgery that my healthcare provider might try not to cover.. not to mention the legal costs trying to fight them to pay up what I've been told I'm insured for.
Businesses aren't struggling to make a buck in this economy. They are struggling to recieve the massive profits they think they should be making. Don't tell me for a second that big business is having a hard time keeping afloat. They are fine. Small businesses struggle far more, and they don't get even a second of help from the government due to shit being cut that would normally help them out. We care more about the corporations in this country than the little guy. Any politician that says otherwise is full of shit, being what his likely political backers are...
I trust the government, which I and my peers have a say in far more than the insurance company that I don't have a say in.. This goes for almost any other corporation or business for that matter.
Trust me. I have not stressed for 10 minutes about how much the government is taking from my coffers... I stress more from whether or not my healthcare plan is actually going to help me out in a time of need, or whether I'm going to have a massive headache for years to come over getting hurt. What little the government actually takes really isn't enough to pay for a 90 thousand dollar surgery that my healthcare provider might try not to cover.. not to mention the legal costs trying to fight them to pay up what I've been told I'm insured for.
Businesses aren't struggling to make a buck in this economy. They are struggling to recieve the massive profits they think they should be making. Don't tell me for a second that big business is having a hard time keeping afloat. They are fine. Small businesses struggle far more, and they don't get even a second of help from the government due to shit being cut that would normally help them out. We care more about the corporations in this country than the little guy. Any politician that says otherwise is full of shit, being what his likely political backers are...
I trust the government, which I and my peers have a say in far more than the insurance company that I don't have a say in.. This goes for almost any other corporation or business for that matter.
So to receive healthcare you need to take on a shitload of debt? Not to mention, perhaps not even be able to take out enough college loans to be able to afford school in general? (especially if Ryan's idea to cut all the Student Pell Grants goes through..)
Sounds fucking retarded. Especially when a lot of conservatives are pretty much telling us NOT to go to college... or if not that, signing off on any possible cut they can to educational benefits, which would otherwise prop this country up with a smarter and more intellectual workforce. Sounds like some confusing fucking psychology there.
Plus, the schools plan? I went to 4 different schools in college and not one of them had a plan that would ever cover important shit. That plan is for non-emergency shit most of the time. Yeah. It's something, but if you're injured seriously, and roll off a massive medical bill that costs about as much as college tuition over 4 years would cost, then you pretty much are fucked forever with double debt - from college AND from being hurt.
Oh. Yeah. And on top of that. You're hurt. Now you have massive financial stress as you try to recover. Fucking sounds awesome. I want that life right now...
Sounds fucking retarded. Especially when a lot of conservatives are pretty much telling us NOT to go to college... or if not that, signing off on any possible cut they can to educational benefits, which would otherwise prop this country up with a smarter and more intellectual workforce. Sounds like some confusing fucking psychology there.
Plus, the schools plan? I went to 4 different schools in college and not one of them had a plan that would ever cover important shit. That plan is for non-emergency shit most of the time. Yeah. It's something, but if you're injured seriously, and roll off a massive medical bill that costs about as much as college tuition over 4 years would cost, then you pretty much are fucked forever with double debt - from college AND from being hurt.
Oh. Yeah. And on top of that. You're hurt. Now you have massive financial stress as you try to recover. Fucking sounds awesome. I want that life right now...
But really, it's mostly just to catch football hooligans in the act haha.
Zimmerman
Active member
Well this thread got good in the last two pages I missed.
JenniferGarner, thank you for a great healthcare explanation to Rockshead.
K_M, thank you for a great paragraph telling him to stop clinging to the constitution.
Furthermore, did anyone else laugh their ass off when he suggested that we need to adopt the Articles of Confederation as our new constitution?
I'd be keen with that. I live in California. This is why we're saving our offshore oil resources... For when we secede from the rest of you dingbats haha.
Do it! instead of being in Houston, You'll be in LA where you have skiing within an hour of where you'd be working, and we got Mammoth and Tahoe for Domestic shred trips!
Oh, Oregon, Hawaii, Washington, and I suppose Alaska can come too. BC, jump ship from your cowboy neighbors to the east. Colorado? You're our pot smoking rocky mountain enclave.
Best country ever.
Oh, Oregon, Hawaii, Washington, and I suppose Alaska can come too. BC, jump ship from your cowboy neighbors to the east. Colorado? You're our pot smoking rocky mountain enclave.
Best country ever.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
Naaahhh leave us out of it. Take Wyoming instead. Better skiing. NE doesnt bring much to the table...except bi-polar weather.
THIS.
I wouldn't say i trust the government fully but i do a hell of a lot more than some corp who's only concern is the bottom line. I don't understand why people are okay with having big business run our country over our government, at least we have a say who is in government.
Before anything can change for the better we NEED to get the money out of politics. You would think that the GOP would support transparency in government because they are so paranoid about them having to much control but instead they recently filibustered the Disclose Act, so they can protect all there big business donors who control them.
I grew up very fortunate and in a strong republican household but i just can't support what the party stands for now. Not to mention how fucked up their views are on the big social issues are, which is ironic as shit because they say they want government out of there lives but want to tell people who they can marry and tell woman what to do with their bodies.
Another thing: americans need to get off there fucking high horse thinking they should be able to do whatever they want "because this is America" Yes it would be fucking awesome if we could all go around indulging every impulse that we have but the reality is that we live in a society so we have to make some compromises so that society can function and live together. There are plenty of countries (Scandinavia) that are wayyyy more liberal than we are and they are some of the happiest, cleanest, safest, most educated countries in the world.
I wouldn't say i trust the government fully but i do a hell of a lot more than some corp who's only concern is the bottom line. I don't understand why people are okay with having big business run our country over our government, at least we have a say who is in government.
Before anything can change for the better we NEED to get the money out of politics. You would think that the GOP would support transparency in government because they are so paranoid about them having to much control but instead they recently filibustered the Disclose Act, so they can protect all there big business donors who control them.
I grew up very fortunate and in a strong republican household but i just can't support what the party stands for now. Not to mention how fucked up their views are on the big social issues are, which is ironic as shit because they say they want government out of there lives but want to tell people who they can marry and tell woman what to do with their bodies.
Another thing: americans need to get off there fucking high horse thinking they should be able to do whatever they want "because this is America" Yes it would be fucking awesome if we could all go around indulging every impulse that we have but the reality is that we live in a society so we have to make some compromises so that society can function and live together. There are plenty of countries (Scandinavia) that are wayyyy more liberal than we are and they are some of the happiest, cleanest, safest, most educated countries in the world.
also here is some food for thought on fairness the tax code:
"I posted this in yesterdays thread about Mitch McConnell saying that the tax system was too progressive, it works here too: Clever Mitch... I love that he uses the figure that top decile pays 70% of all Federal taxes collected to make it seem incredibly unfair. What he fails to point out is that the income share of that decile is also just shy of 50% of all income in the US (http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/decomposing-top-decile-us-income-share-3-groups-1913-2008) and that the top 1% represents nearly 25% of all income in the US. But instead, he uses the 10% figure, out of context, because at first glance, it seems insane. Some further investigation is also very illustrative. Mitch likes to point out that old falsehood that nearly half the population pays no income tax at all!!! Oh the humanity. The figure for the bottom 50% of the population's contribution to Federal revenue is low, at around 3%. But let's take a look at the income share of the bottom half of the nation shall we. The bottom 50% of earners in the USA, likely the same group that Mitch claims is freeloading, account for 12% of the total US income share. Their effective tax rate is 13.6%. In reality, while they may seem to contribute less as a share of their income, it is hard to squeeze blood from a rock. Let's look at it another way, after an effective Federal rate of 13%, someone in the bottom 50% can expect to have (before state taxes) 87% of $32,396. That is $28,185. Ignoring state taxes, that leaves this earner around $2350 a month to live on. According to MIT's figures (which include food, child care, medical, housing, transportation, and a miscellaneous extra), in a relatively cheap state, such as Idaho, one person living alone can expect to need $1,189 to cover basic living expenses (http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/16). If they have one adult and one child, that jumps to $2,350. Exactly what they earn post tax. Two adults, one child is prohibitively expensive, and two adults, two children is completely out of the question. Wow, they have it so lucky! At least most lucky than those in Michigan or Illinois that require around $1300 per month for a single adult. Now let's turn again to the top 10%, who are paying an effective rate of 17.5% and the top 1% are paying an effective rate of 20.6% (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html# _grp3). The income threshold to make it into the top 10% is around $115,000 per year for an individual. Let's apply an effective tax rate of 17.5% to that and see what is left, $94,875, or $7906 per month. Let's pick an expensive state for them, let's go with Massachusetts where an individual needs roughly $1,750 (statewide) or in Boston at $1,881. That leaves a fairly good amount of money left over to spend on the goods and services that build our consumer economy. If this individual has a child, it will be a bit harder, as they will need $3,220 per month, leaving only $4,686 over. How harsh that progressive tax is; it has clearly created a scenario where this individual could in no fashion contribute to the economy! They are being robbed by the lucky bottom 50%! But let's take this to the logical conclusion, let's get the top 1% and let's make them live in super expensive New York City. To qualify, nationally, for the top 1%, you need to earn around $458,000 per year. At an effective tax rate of 20.6%, that leaves $363,652, or $30,304 monthly (post tax more per month than the bottom 50% makes in a year...). Oh the horror! How on earth is an individual with no child going to come up with the $1,913 per month needed in New York Country (essentially Manhattan). Just imagine if they had a child and needed the $3,185 that a single parent and child would cost. So now we return to Mitch McConnell's claim that the tax system already over favors the bottom end. I know, myself, looking at these tax scenarios, I would certainly not want to put in the effort to make more money, look at how terrible it is for the top 10% with their exorbitant tax rate! And if I was in the top 1%, I really don't know how with those tax rates I could ever "create a job" for someone. I mean, maybe I could if that guy in Idaho would just pay his fair share!"
"I posted this in yesterdays thread about Mitch McConnell saying that the tax system was too progressive, it works here too: Clever Mitch... I love that he uses the figure that top decile pays 70% of all Federal taxes collected to make it seem incredibly unfair. What he fails to point out is that the income share of that decile is also just shy of 50% of all income in the US (http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/decomposing-top-decile-us-income-share-3-groups-1913-2008) and that the top 1% represents nearly 25% of all income in the US. But instead, he uses the 10% figure, out of context, because at first glance, it seems insane. Some further investigation is also very illustrative. Mitch likes to point out that old falsehood that nearly half the population pays no income tax at all!!! Oh the humanity. The figure for the bottom 50% of the population's contribution to Federal revenue is low, at around 3%. But let's take a look at the income share of the bottom half of the nation shall we. The bottom 50% of earners in the USA, likely the same group that Mitch claims is freeloading, account for 12% of the total US income share. Their effective tax rate is 13.6%. In reality, while they may seem to contribute less as a share of their income, it is hard to squeeze blood from a rock. Let's look at it another way, after an effective Federal rate of 13%, someone in the bottom 50% can expect to have (before state taxes) 87% of $32,396. That is $28,185. Ignoring state taxes, that leaves this earner around $2350 a month to live on. According to MIT's figures (which include food, child care, medical, housing, transportation, and a miscellaneous extra), in a relatively cheap state, such as Idaho, one person living alone can expect to need $1,189 to cover basic living expenses (http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/16). If they have one adult and one child, that jumps to $2,350. Exactly what they earn post tax. Two adults, one child is prohibitively expensive, and two adults, two children is completely out of the question. Wow, they have it so lucky! At least most lucky than those in Michigan or Illinois that require around $1300 per month for a single adult. Now let's turn again to the top 10%, who are paying an effective rate of 17.5% and the top 1% are paying an effective rate of 20.6% (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html# _grp3). The income threshold to make it into the top 10% is around $115,000 per year for an individual. Let's apply an effective tax rate of 17.5% to that and see what is left, $94,875, or $7906 per month. Let's pick an expensive state for them, let's go with Massachusetts where an individual needs roughly $1,750 (statewide) or in Boston at $1,881. That leaves a fairly good amount of money left over to spend on the goods and services that build our consumer economy. If this individual has a child, it will be a bit harder, as they will need $3,220 per month, leaving only $4,686 over. How harsh that progressive tax is; it has clearly created a scenario where this individual could in no fashion contribute to the economy! They are being robbed by the lucky bottom 50%! But let's take this to the logical conclusion, let's get the top 1% and let's make them live in super expensive New York City. To qualify, nationally, for the top 1%, you need to earn around $458,000 per year. At an effective tax rate of 20.6%, that leaves $363,652, or $30,304 monthly (post tax more per month than the bottom 50% makes in a year...). Oh the horror! How on earth is an individual with no child going to come up with the $1,913 per month needed in New York Country (essentially Manhattan). Just imagine if they had a child and needed the $3,185 that a single parent and child would cost. So now we return to Mitch McConnell's claim that the tax system already over favors the bottom end. I know, myself, looking at these tax scenarios, I would certainly not want to put in the effort to make more money, look at how terrible it is for the top 10% with their exorbitant tax rate! And if I was in the top 1%, I really don't know how with those tax rates I could ever "create a job" for someone. I mean, maybe I could if that guy in Idaho would just pay his fair share!"
k-rob
Active member
i just want to wish america good luck because you're gonna need it no matter who gets elected. remember when brazil had the world's largest debt (12 years ago) and it was only like 3 billion? good thing the whole world loves you so much (not). keep spending money that doesn't actually exist on shit you don't need and dividing your nation over things that shouldn't even be issues in 2012 and see where it gets you, i bet nowhere. meanwhile the rest of us are eating popcorn waiting to see who you'll start a war with (and subsequently lose) next, please let it be somebody with a real army this time (with wmd instead of imaginary wmd). way to let the terrorists win guys, world news is so much more interesting now that america has completely lost it's mind.
Join up with Canada, and then get the Albertans and western Montanans to join up. Along with those New Mexicans and northern Mexicans (so we have some sweet surf, and plenty of desert for hosting fat burning man parties all year long).
Fibonacci spiral country of awesomeness... I have to make a graphic for that...
Fibonacci spiral country of awesomeness... I have to make a graphic for that...
cobra_commander
Active member
The reason this is funny is because The People's Democratic Republic of Kalifornia is the only state in our country with a more disfunctional government than the current collection of incompetence in Washington D.C.
I would much rather live in Texas than California. Unless California decides it wants to stop installing stupid laws, and roll back the more retarded ones allready in place.
I would much rather live in Texas than California. Unless California decides it wants to stop installing stupid laws, and roll back the more retarded ones allready in place.
California is pretty damn dysfunctional... Especially ever since that downright retarded recall of Grey Davis. Ever since then, shit really has fallen off the wagon. That said, I have been at least slightly impressed with how Moonbeam has handled things in this second stint. He's actually stuck pretty well to his promises and the government spending is way back on track.
Things are getting better, and hopefully soon that whole prop 8 bullshit fiasco will figure it shit out entirely.
Things are getting better, and hopefully soon that whole prop 8 bullshit fiasco will figure it shit out entirely.
ski4fun420
Member
I just found this article on him. The article does not go into much detail, but it states he chose being a politician vs.
pro skier ?? Anyone know anymore about this??
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-paul-ryan-fitness-buff-20120811,0,3997794.story?track=rss
pro skier ?? Anyone know anymore about this??
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-paul-ryan-fitness-buff-20120811,0,3997794.story?track=rss
Also, Texas has zero skiing... and outside of Austin is downright awful (okay, I suppose Houston and Dallas are okay, but really...)
danderson.
Active member
Oh man, what a fuckin' saint.
icon1234
Active member
This is wrong. If anything doctors will run unnecessary test to protect themselves from potential malpractice suits. You want to fix healthcare, you first gotta fix the fuck up judicial system in America where you can sue people for millions of dollars for the most stupid shit ever.
SpookyCat
Active member
This is one of many articles that you can look up from varying sources. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/health/doctor-panels-urge-fewer-routine-tests.html
Another ignorant kid that opposes an amazing healthcare law that would benefit tens of millions of people including many who are passionate about our sport...
Another ignorant kid that opposes an amazing healthcare law that would benefit tens of millions of people including many who are passionate about our sport...
icon1234
Active member
Hey look douchebag I can cite news articles as well:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/doctors-estimate-68-billion-in-unnecessary-medical-tests/2011/10/28/gIQANpEXZM_story.html
The reason why those panels are being created is because of the shit my article just cited. And btw before you call me ignorant, you should learn how to read. I never said I was opposed for health care reform, in fact I am a fan of the implications Obamacare can have on our current healthcare system. I just said the judicial system in our country indirectly affects the high cost of healthcare as well.
Fuck u.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/doctors-estimate-68-billion-in-unnecessary-medical-tests/2011/10/28/gIQANpEXZM_story.html
The reason why those panels are being created is because of the shit my article just cited. And btw before you call me ignorant, you should learn how to read. I never said I was opposed for health care reform, in fact I am a fan of the implications Obamacare can have on our current healthcare system. I just said the judicial system in our country indirectly affects the high cost of healthcare as well.
Fuck u.
skiminnesota
Active member
you had me at embraces. 
its not about not giving a fuck about anyone but yourself. its about recognizing that you dont owe the looters or moochers anything. you can give all the fucks you want. but simply shouldnt be forced to have your hard work stolen under the guise of "charity or help"
and explain to me how social security ist a ponzi scheme? i know im sure as hell not planning on it bankrolling my retirement.
its not about not giving a fuck about anyone but yourself. its about recognizing that you dont owe the looters or moochers anything. you can give all the fucks you want. but simply shouldnt be forced to have your hard work stolen under the guise of "charity or help"
and explain to me how social security ist a ponzi scheme? i know im sure as hell not planning on it bankrolling my retirement.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
Im getting at nothing. Just interested to see your stance. People are all up in arms about the Patriot Act, but some seem to forget Britain has the same thing.
Personally, I have no issue with it. If its keeping me safe, great. I have nothing to hide.
Personally, I have no issue with it. If its keeping me safe, great. I have nothing to hide.
SpookyCat
Active member
So people sue doctors over malpractice, that's common knowledge but in what way does that have any relevance to what I was saying?
You do know that the story has nothing to do with what you just wrote about malpractice lawsuits, right? I hope you also know that there's a huge difference between doctors who run unnecessary tests for problems that have no symptoms as opposed to doctors who are given incentives in order to not test for potential problems that there are, albeit sometimes common, symptoms that show a reason to test for every possibility, right?
Regardless, socialized healthcare takes care of both those problems by removing the privatized portion out of medical institutions that focuses only on profit. This removes motivational factors in doctors that focus on what's best for the business rather than the patient's health. That includes testing for problems that have no symptoms (unnecessary tests that the article you provided the link for that cost the patient more money than required), or for not testing for problems that could potentially be there by using the symptoms present in the patient.
Do you get it now? If not then well... fuck u 2!
Honestly, what kind of self-respecting person uses "u" to write "you"? Are you an 8th grade girl because you're grammar and logic makes me think that.
You do know that the story has nothing to do with what you just wrote about malpractice lawsuits, right? I hope you also know that there's a huge difference between doctors who run unnecessary tests for problems that have no symptoms as opposed to doctors who are given incentives in order to not test for potential problems that there are, albeit sometimes common, symptoms that show a reason to test for every possibility, right?
Regardless, socialized healthcare takes care of both those problems by removing the privatized portion out of medical institutions that focuses only on profit. This removes motivational factors in doctors that focus on what's best for the business rather than the patient's health. That includes testing for problems that have no symptoms (unnecessary tests that the article you provided the link for that cost the patient more money than required), or for not testing for problems that could potentially be there by using the symptoms present in the patient.
Do you get it now? If not then well... fuck u 2!
Honestly, what kind of self-respecting person uses "u" to write "you"? Are you an 8th grade girl because you're grammar and logic makes me think that.
No no... Rational Egoism, or egotism or whatever you want to call it is straight up making an attempt at rationalizing selfishness.
Maybe being raised Catholic and given Samaritan morals and all that has something to do with this all, but I can see nothing good in rationalizing putting yourself before others. It sounds like it's just asking for a social darwinistic situation that would lead to an all out tribal deathwar. Accuse me of slipping slope if you will, but really... I can't see any other outcome if greed is seen as a moral construct by society.
And to me... apocalypse doesn't sound exactly great for the economy... or anything else for that matter...
Maybe being raised Catholic and given Samaritan morals and all that has something to do with this all, but I can see nothing good in rationalizing putting yourself before others. It sounds like it's just asking for a social darwinistic situation that would lead to an all out tribal deathwar. Accuse me of slipping slope if you will, but really... I can't see any other outcome if greed is seen as a moral construct by society.
And to me... apocalypse doesn't sound exactly great for the economy... or anything else for that matter...
As for this... I'll quote Larry DeWitt.
In contrast to a Ponzi scheme, dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.
If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. During periods when more new participants are entering the system than are receiving benefits there tends to be a surplus in funding (as in the early years of Social Security). During periods when beneficiaries are growing faster than new entrants (as will happen when the baby boomers retire), there tends to be a deficit. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes, or any other fraudulent form of financing, it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.
Social Security is and always has been either a "pay-as-you-go" system or one that was partially advance-funded. Its structure, logic, and mode of operation have nothing in common with Ponzi schemes or chain letters or pyramid schemes.
In contrast to a Ponzi scheme, dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.
If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. During periods when more new participants are entering the system than are receiving benefits there tends to be a surplus in funding (as in the early years of Social Security). During periods when beneficiaries are growing faster than new entrants (as will happen when the baby boomers retire), there tends to be a deficit. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes, or any other fraudulent form of financing, it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.
Social Security is and always has been either a "pay-as-you-go" system or one that was partially advance-funded. Its structure, logic, and mode of operation have nothing in common with Ponzi schemes or chain letters or pyramid schemes.
Oh, and I'll also quote Michael Mandel. Just for a 2nd opinion in the case.
Superficially, these critics have a point, and there is a parallel between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. But on a fundamental level, they are very wrong, and it's worth explaining why.
First, the parallel. Social Security taxes current workers to pay Social Security benefits for current retirees. In other words, the new entrants into the Social Security system, the young workers, pay off the previous entrants, the older workers. And despite the fact you have a Social Security "account", there is no necessary link between what you paid into the system in taxes, and what you receive.
That's very similar to the structure of a Ponzi scheme, where new investors pay off the original investors. As long as enough new 'victims' are brought into the scheme, it keeps growing and growing. But when the new investors runs out, the Ponzi collapses. Analogously, the slowdown in population growth puts pressure on Social Security finances.
But there is one enormous difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme: Technological change. Over the past century, new technologies have enabled the output of the country to grow much faster than its population. To be more precise, the U.S. population has more than tripled since the early 1900s, while the U.S. economic output has gone up by more than 20 times.
This long track record of technology-powered growth has enabled the enormous rise in living standards in the U.S. and other developed countries. In fact, this increase in productivity -- output per worker -- is the key fact which gives us our way of life today.
Superficially, these critics have a point, and there is a parallel between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. But on a fundamental level, they are very wrong, and it's worth explaining why.
First, the parallel. Social Security taxes current workers to pay Social Security benefits for current retirees. In other words, the new entrants into the Social Security system, the young workers, pay off the previous entrants, the older workers. And despite the fact you have a Social Security "account", there is no necessary link between what you paid into the system in taxes, and what you receive.
That's very similar to the structure of a Ponzi scheme, where new investors pay off the original investors. As long as enough new 'victims' are brought into the scheme, it keeps growing and growing. But when the new investors runs out, the Ponzi collapses. Analogously, the slowdown in population growth puts pressure on Social Security finances.
But there is one enormous difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme: Technological change. Over the past century, new technologies have enabled the output of the country to grow much faster than its population. To be more precise, the U.S. population has more than tripled since the early 1900s, while the U.S. economic output has gone up by more than 20 times.
This long track record of technology-powered growth has enabled the enormous rise in living standards in the U.S. and other developed countries. In fact, this increase in productivity -- output per worker -- is the key fact which gives us our way of life today.
BravoWhiskey5280
Active member
You couldn't be more wrong man. You can promote equal opportunity in this country and oppose an equal outcome with out making an attempt at rationalizing selfishness. Instead it is the other way around, it is selfish of the people and government officials who believe that one can not do anything they put their mind simply because they are struggling. It is also selfish to assume that it is the responsibility of those who accomplished their goals and aspirations, to pay for those who are incapable of supporting themselves. You guys really need to realize this and respect the wallets of the more fortunate in this country.
Ben.
Active member
At the same time, conservatives need to stop acting like a basic graduated income tax is inches from us all living in a commune and no one making more than someone else. If you want to keep more of your money, then say hey, I want to keep more of my money. But dont act like a graduated income tax is equal to you being thrown into the dungeons with those who make nothing, its not.
BrewskiJr
Active member
Thank you. It wasnt till Obama was elected that it became a bad thing if you have money. So many liberals look at people who have worked their asses off to make a solid living and just look down at them for having money thinking they are scum. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Dude. Nobody is saying the rich need to pay for everyone else. The only thing anyone really asks is that the tax rates on the rich go from 35% to 39%. That's NOT that hard to ask, especially when the richest people in this country can afford to get around that tax by throwing shitloads of their money overseas.
Also... I don't respect the wallets of the more fortunate in this country, because most of the time they are sending jobs overseas, and contributing to the economies of other nations with lavish trips and such. I don't see much trickledown coming from that - and that's why that theory doesn't work. Most of these larger companies with the most hiring power are just propping up china and india in todays world, and it's leaving America to rot.
Also... I don't respect the wallets of the more fortunate in this country, because most of the time they are sending jobs overseas, and contributing to the economies of other nations with lavish trips and such. I don't see much trickledown coming from that - and that's why that theory doesn't work. Most of these larger companies with the most hiring power are just propping up china and india in todays world, and it's leaving America to rot.
BravoWhiskey5280
Active member
If you had any idea of what I was talking about than you'd see that I was talking about BIASED FACTS. I dont need BIASED FACTS to present an argument.
FYI smarty pants, bias doesn't mean valid.
Seriously though, has Ben been smacking you're head with a frying pan every day? You talk as if you're missing part of you're brain.
FYI smarty pants, bias doesn't mean valid.
Seriously though, has Ben been smacking you're head with a frying pan every day? You talk as if you're missing part of you're brain.
BravoWhiskey5280
Active member
Thats not their faults though, thats the fault of the global market, one of which liberals often support seeing as to how they embrace the concept of globalization. You cannot expect business's to not do this in the ever growing globalized world we live in. The only reason you dont see liberals regulating business's from operating in other countries is because the concept of globalization also favors many liberal fundamental beliefs like socialized medicine.
You're right.. It is a global market. It's the 21st century now. This is why the 20th and 19th century ideas that the conservatives try to implement would never work anymore.
BravoWhiskey5280
Active member
Traditionalist conservative ideas dont translate to the social issues in this country is what you're trying to say, and Im right there with you.
BravoWhiskey5280
Active member
Sounds good to me.
/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
