Interesting Quote to get your Noodle Goin (Not to rip Kraft)

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Botef
Sojourner
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington
Contact:

Interesting Quote to get your Noodle Goin (Not to rip Kraft)

Postby Botef » Tue May 24, 2005 6:23 pm

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue May 24, 2005 9:00 pm

Eisenhower was stupid.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue May 24, 2005 9:02 pm

Eisenhower was smart.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue May 24, 2005 10:53 pm

Obviously, he was wrong.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed May 25, 2005 1:31 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Obviously, he was wrong.


Notice how it says "1952" and not "2005".
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Wed May 25, 2005 10:13 am

How delightfully applicable. Is it 2008 yet? I just hope we can move past this phase in our country's history without doing too much damage to ourselves.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed May 25, 2005 1:20 pm

Kifle wrote:Notice how it says "1952" and not "2005".


I had. Nice of you to point it out. I stand by my previous statement.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed May 25, 2005 1:49 pm

Does the date matter?

Most politicians still would never do such a thing, and the one guy who is so adamant about messing with these things at all (especially social security) actually IS a Texas Oil millionaire just like Eisenhower said.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sangdraxus
Sojourner
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:27 pm
Location: Dallas, TX - Portland, OR
Contact:

Postby Sangdraxus » Wed May 25, 2005 2:17 pm

Bush rules...

nuff said there
Sangdraxus Blackfire - 50th Level Anti-Paladin
Sangdraxus - 60th Undead Warrior - Whisperwind
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed May 25, 2005 2:29 pm

Unfortunately, in this day and age in the United States, these sorts of people are no longer a splinter group and their numbers are certainly not negligible.

They gain their power by taking advantage of peoples' ignorance, fears, ingrained prejudices, laziness, etc.

There is a direct correlation to the number of wealthy people in this country and the number of stupid people in this country. The same could be said about the number of Republicans/Conservatives in office and the number of stupid people in this country.

Coincidence? *ponder*
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Wed May 25, 2005 2:35 pm

Ashiwi. . .I think it's time to get the popcorn! Save me a spot on the couch :)
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed May 25, 2005 2:48 pm

Vigis wrote:Ashiwi. . .I think it's time to get the popcorn! Save me a spot on the couch :)


Nah... false alarm. Not really in the mood today... sorry!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed May 25, 2005 3:07 pm

Splinter groups are now called "special interest lobbies."

enjoy.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed May 25, 2005 3:30 pm

Its very easy to avoid justifying your position by simply calling your opponent stupid and leaving it at that. I'm not rich or a texas oil baron, and I don't consider myself stupid (although some people might dispute that), but if I had my way, all of the above mentioned entitlements would be eliminated.

Unfortunately, the republicans won't go that far. They are simply trying to keep programs like social security fiscally viable. Thus, I suppose that Eisenhower would not consider them stupid.

Anyway, Birile, I'd like to see you exercise some of those persuasive argument skills they are supposed to teach you in law school. Or would you rather just call me ignorant and stupid? :)

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed May 25, 2005 3:45 pm

Birile wrote:There is a direct correlation to the number of wealthy people in this country and the number of stupid people in this country.
The same could be said about the number of Republicans/Conservatives in office and the number of stupid people in this country.

Coincidence? *ponder*


Someone's taking his cow for a walk.
Sephraem
Sojourner
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:45 am
Contact:

Postby Sephraem » Wed May 25, 2005 3:52 pm

Birile wrote:Unfortunately, in this day and age in the United States, these sorts of people are no longer a splinter group and their numbers are certainly not negligible.

They gain their power by taking advantage of peoples' ignorance, fears, ingrained prejudices, laziness, etc.

There is a direct correlation to the number of wealthy people in this country and the number of stupid people in this country. The same could be said about the number of Republicans/Conservatives in office and the number of stupid people in this country.

Coincidence? *ponder*

People are stupid everywhere. Contrary to popular belief, rich, Conservative Americans do not possess a monopoly on this.

Further, just think how fortunate it would be if we were all so stupid. Why, we could solve all the world's financial problems in a single blow. I propsose we slaughter all the intelligent people. Anyone know any? :lol:
Last edited by Sephraem on Wed May 25, 2005 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you love something, let it go; especially if you love fireworks.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed May 25, 2005 3:54 pm

I didn't call you stupid, Corth, nor did I claim to have an opponent, much less call my opponent stupid. :?

As for my persuasive argument skills, I'm old enough to know when it's utterly futile to try to persuade someone, especially in such an area as politics. I could talk 'til I was blue in the face and it would get me nothing more than a case of oxygen deprivation. Anyone who already agrees with me would simply nod their head and continue to agree while anyone who already disagrees with me would probably not be persuaded. And if this BBS's history means anything, most anyone who doesn't care or isn't sure where they stand on this topic stopped reading this when they saw Sarvis, Teflor, Corth, Kifle and Birile in the same thread. :lol:
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed May 25, 2005 3:55 pm

Corth wrote:Its very easy to avoid justifying your position by simply calling your opponent stupid and leaving it at that.


You mean like your first post in this thread?

I'm not rich or a texas oil baron, and I don't consider myself stupid (although some people might dispute that), but if I had my way, all of the above mentioned entitlements would be eliminated.


No, you aren't an oil baron... however you are "...an occasional... businessman from other areas."

So yes, you were one of the types of people Eisenhower was talking about.



/still not in the mood... just had to point out the glaring inconsistancies.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sephraem
Sojourner
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:45 am
Contact:

Postby Sephraem » Wed May 25, 2005 4:00 pm

Sarvis wrote:/still not in the mood... just had to point out the glaring inconsistancies.

Talking of inconsistencies... ;)

Maybe it's just the way it reads to me, but that looks a little like, "I'm arguing, but I'm not arguing, and hey, no one argue back, okay?" :D
If you love something, let it go; especially if you love fireworks.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed May 25, 2005 4:07 pm

Sephraem wrote:
Sarvis wrote:/still not in the mood... just had to point out the glaring inconsistancies.

Talking of inconsistencies... ;)

Maybe it's just the way it reads to me, but that looks a little like, "I'm arguing, but I'm not arguing, and hey, no one argue back, okay?" :D


Yeah... I know. I'm trying to avoid letting myself get dragged into this... but it's a slow day at work and I've got a headache. :(
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed May 25, 2005 4:09 pm

Sephraem wrote:People are stupid everywhere. Contrary to popular belief, rich, Conservative Americans do not possess a monopoly on this.


Nah, RICH conservatives aren't stupid... just POOR conservatives.

Rich conservatives are the ones controlling all the dumb ones to maintain their power. ;)

Further, just think how fortunate it would be if we were all so stupid. Why, we could solve all the world's financial problems in a single blow. I propsose we slaughter all the intelligent people. Anyone know any? :lol:


Corth seems pretty smart...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sephraem
Sojourner
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:45 am
Contact:

Postby Sephraem » Wed May 25, 2005 4:16 pm

Sarvis wrote:Nah, RICH conservatives aren't stupid... just POOR conservatives.

Rich conservatives are the ones controlling all the dumb ones to maintain their power. ;)

So, there is a direct correlation between wealth and intelligence? I must be really stupid. :lol:

Sarvis wrote:Corth seems pretty smart...

Hmm... So he must be rich, right? ;)
If you love something, let it go; especially if you love fireworks.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed May 25, 2005 4:18 pm

It just amuses me that the "party of the rich" would have more reason to make others rich as well, while the "party of the poor" dot dot dot
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed May 25, 2005 5:43 pm

Sarvis:

Just to clear things up, the first post I made in this thread was not meant to be a statement of opinion that Eisenhower actually was stupid.. It was kind of a flippant response to a 50+ year old quote that was probably taken out of context. For the record, I have no actual opinion as to General Eisenhower's intelligence or lack thereof :)

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed May 25, 2005 5:53 pm

Birile wrote:I didn't call you stupid, Corth, nor did I claim to have an opponent, much less call my opponent stupid. :?


Birile:

I'm glad to see you are in fact getting something in return for your tuition. :)

You didn't specifically call me stupid. Rather, you stated that the politicians I agree with feed upon ignorance, fears, and ingrained prejudices, and implied that the people who vote for them are stupid. So I'm not individually stupid, just stupid by association. :)

And yes, you didn't state that you have an opponent. I suppose you have no opinion on the topic whatsoever. :)

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed May 25, 2005 6:10 pm

Sephraem wrote:So, there is a direct correlation between wealth and intelligence? I must be really stupid. :lol:


Nah, you can be dumb and rich too... you just wouldn't be a conservative then. ;)


Hmm... So he must be rich, right? ;)


He's a lawyer and a business owner... so probably. :p (Or at least he will be.)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed May 25, 2005 6:43 pm

Corth wrote:You didn't specifically call me stupid. Rather, you stated that the politicians I agree with feed upon ignorance, fears, and ingrained prejudices, and implied that the people who vote for them are stupid. So I'm not individually stupid, just stupid by association. :)


Whatever implied meaning you took from my initial post is entirely up to you, Corth. :) Frankly, I'm rather confident in your intelligence and reasoning or I wouldn't bother replying. It's no fun bantering with someone who can't hold his/her own--why do you think I mostly ignore what others here say? :twisted:

Furthermore, having an opinion which differs from someone else's does not make me that person's opponent. :)
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Fri May 27, 2005 4:10 am

Sarvis wrote:
Sephraem wrote:So, there is a direct correlation between wealth and intelligence? I must be really stupid. :lol:


Nah, you can be dumb and rich too... you just wouldn't be a conservative then. ;)


Hmm... So he must be rich, right? ;)


He's a lawyer and a business owner... so probably. :p (Or at least he will be.)


Nope, no stereotyping here! Guess I'll have to keep looking.
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Thilindel
Sojourner
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Postby Thilindel » Fri May 27, 2005 4:49 am

Man, nothing rejuv's the bbs like a good old political debate! I just thought it was funny that someone said bush rules :P I'd think _most_ would agree that bush rules...Oh!? We're talking about the pres? *snap!* Darn.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Fri May 27, 2005 1:56 pm

Corth wrote:
Unfortunately, the republicans won't go that far. They are simply trying to keep programs like social security fiscally viable. Thus, I suppose that Eisenhower would not consider them stupid.

Corth


Actually, the privatization plans have little to do with keeping the program solvent. Private programs are very expensive (as any financial planner who deals with 401ks will tell you) and social security has, so far, been very cost effective. If you believe those who deal with the numbers (and this includes the Weekly Standard), the most effective way of keeping social security going is by making minor changes to the current program. Introducing privatization actually makes the program less solvent.

Ultimately, the debate between private accounts and social security is ideology driven. I would think you would (as a libertarian or neocon, I can't tell which) support the president and his supporters on these actions instead of pointing to unfortunate actions. Bush has repeatedly talked about his dislike of social security in the past and his desire to do away with it. This is a step in that direction, but it's going to be hard because too many people (according to poll numbers) disagree.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri May 27, 2005 4:08 pm

Social security cost effective? Thats ridiculous. If people were allowed to keep the money that they pay towards Social Security, and they decided to conservatively invest it in CD's at a 4% return, the vast majority would end up with much more money coming back to them than they could have otherwise expected from SS benefits. Especially if you consider the probability that the retirement age for collecting SS benefits will likely rise to 70+ in order to make up for the crushing baby boom generation, and the benefits themselves will likely drop.

Hey if people aren't responsible enough to save for their retirement, then let them have social security. If I were them, I wouldn't count on it.. but cie la vie. As for my own situation, I'd rather the government let me worry about it. The problem with SS as far as I'm concerned is that the government coerces you into particupating in it.


Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Fri May 27, 2005 9:26 pm

Actually, that would be profit effective and I said cost effective. Social security administration costs are much lowers than a privatization plan because of the higher level of management required (ignoring transition costs).

I've never heard of anyone advocating CDs. It was an interesting concept that left me a couple of questions. 1. Why haven't they? 2. Will financial institutions be comfortable with issuing that many CDs? I think (2) would depend on the market. (1) may be because the trustees report shows an effective return of 5.7% on trust assets. We would effectively be downgrading. So, it doesn't appear to be profit effective either.

I would stick with supporting private accounts on the basis of ideology. Government staying small and out of your business seems to be the best argument for changing the system. But remember to the "claw-back" that may occur in a private system. The government may still be getting into people's business and taking from them if they do well.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri May 27, 2005 9:42 pm

Trust assets? SS contributions go right into the general revenue account where it gets spent on whatever the Federal Government is currently wasting its money on. The Federal Government essentially writes the SS Administration an IOU. So yes, SS could be expecting a return on investment as the Federal Government pays them back with interest.. but there is no real money growth. Those IOU's along with the so-called interest being earned upon them will have to be paid by our government by increasing our taxes. Its like robbing one pocket to pay the other.

And I still would submit that even a 4% return on SS benefits for the vast majority of us would be greater than what we can expect to get back. Over the course of a lifetime that money would double several times... even at 4%. On the other hand, by the time they raise the retirement age to 70+ and lower payments, you aren't getting much back at all. Furthermore, 4% was a very conservative investment option. Personally, I would choose more aggressive options at my young age, and could probably expect to get around 8-10% over the course of my life.

Fact of the matter is that the major domestic battle over the next thirty years will be between the baby boomers who have not saved up nearly enough money on their own to take care of themselves and have stupidly depended upon the government to take care of them in their retirement, and the rest of us who will be expected to break our asses to keep them fed and sheltered.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Fri May 27, 2005 10:04 pm

Yes. The assets are backed by the government which must pay them, but that only describes the entire macro government situation. If you want to complain about financial irresponsibility in taxation policies and government spending, then go to town. Instead, you support these policies because you don't like being "robbed." The only reason you wouldn't have faith in these IOUs is you do not have faith in the government staying solvent over the long run. Will taxes have to be raised at some point to make up for the current problem? Yes. Will taxes have to be raised at some point to deal with our constant large scale spending? Probably. Taxes are gonna go up no matter what we do because we want to keep investing in big projects and don't want the government to "rob" us. But that says little about private accounts vs the current system and which is a better system to pursue.

And you may submit all you like. I submit that we invest everything we get each year in moon rocks. Those things are cool and I bet the market is gonna explode! We can all have our opinions, but the most cost effective, moderate, and sure system is the one we currently have in place (with some modifications).

As for stupidly depending on the government, it made sense for many people to count on social security. Unless the government was going under, it was assumed that people would get back at least part of what they invested.

I find it curious that you do not find any value in a social safety net program. It is a government's active duty to promote social stability. This helps keep the economy stable and increases investment in businesses (larger group of people who can buy). Why do you believe that your short-term economic happiness is more important than the stability of the entire system? Is it strictly ideology and worry of being "robbed?"

I can understand saying "screw everyone except me and my own" on a personal basis, but on a macro level I don't understand it. Oh, and I'm not changing the subject. The question ties in with the uncertainty of aggressive investment.
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Sat May 28, 2005 12:05 am

The whole social security debate could probably be best answered by an 11th grader taking U.S. History. Since we are lacking in 11th graders, I'll try to remember as much as I can....

When Social Security was instituted, the retirement age was higher than the average life expectancy. . .so the system worked. If you lived long enough to retire, the government took care of you. Social Security saw massive gains during that time and there was a nice surplus. Politicians saw that surplus and figured they could borrow against it to fund some pork barrel legislation. As politicians were borrowing against social security, there were some pretty big jumps in medical technology. . .they could keep people alive for longer. So, your life expectancy increased, your retirement age stayed the same, and there was less actual money and more IOU's in the system.

When the country was founded, the idea was to keep the federal government weak and the state government strong. One of our greatest presidents stood that idea on its head and started a civil war. (At the time, slavery was on its way out. . .until mister Eli Whitney created the cotton gin). While we consider that the Civil War was based on freeing slaves. . . it is not entirely the truth. The Southern states tried to secede because they saw the federal government trying to dictate how they would live. Lincoln enacted income taxes (which were expressly forbidden in the original Constitution) to help fund the war. It is my opinion that every Congress thereafter decided they liked the money so much that they refused to repeal the income tax.

I do not consider it the government's duty to take care of me (I'm smart enough to do it on my own) nor do I think it is my duty to take care of the government (since we elect them, we should pick people smart enough to do it themselves). I'd much rather have the money that the government is taking from me, because there is a very good chance that it won't be around by the time I retire. I'll take that money and invest it. Then, when my mom can't work anymore and needs some help, she doesn't have to rely on the government because I can't afford to help her. . .she can actually do what people are supposed to do and rely on her family.

I was planning to go on, but decided that if I do, I'll be old enough to retire and not have enough money to live :P
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'



Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat May 28, 2005 2:04 am

Mitharx:

I did not say I do not have faith in the IOU's. I have all too much faith. They will have to be paid back to SS with the interest that is promised. And we will ultimately have to fund the Federal government to pay it back plus interest. The point though is that whatever 'investment return' ss is claiming, is coming out of all of our pocket's.

As for 'stupidly' depending upon SS.. well its stupid to depend upon something that is not going to come through for you. They will see their retirement age raised to the point that its only a few years below the median mortality age, and they will see their benefits decrease. Its impossible for anything else to happen as you watch america get older. So yes, assuming that you will receive the same benefits then that people do now is stupid.

And this is not about disliking a social safety net or 'screw everyone except me'. We can debate that any time. This is simply about a very poorly conceived program that is expensive and simply not very effective. If we're going to have a social safety net, shouldn't we want one that is 'profit effective'?

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon May 30, 2005 12:09 pm

C'mon, you guys aren't going to let Corth get the last word are you?


Man these things die fast without me... :(
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue May 31, 2005 2:40 pm

There isn't much to say on the topic of Social Security for me. I actually agree with much of what Corth said (although his belief that even with aggressive investments he would net 8-10% is... optimistic in my opinion, but I would prefer he were right because I would like to net as much myself :wink: ). I also agree that it's absolutely insane for anyone in their 30s and younger (not to exclude those older, I mention <30 because we'll be the most affected, I believe) to actually think it's a good idea to depend on Social Security. I mean, really. We have to deal with helping pay for the Baby Boomer generation's SS benefits--a generation, might I add, who grew up after WWII when things were booming in the U.S. and were taught that they could have pretty much anything they wanted, that the sky was the limit--and, in general, they still think the sky is due them. Meanwhile, an insane number of us are entering colleges and universities only to find out later that the vast majority of jobs available don't even require a college degree. Is it any wonder many of us are now "under-employed"?

Social Security is dying and I'm fine with admitting that I don't know where the answer lies. But keeping the status quo in that sort of program is destructive and unfair to us and to future generations. Some sort of change is needed.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue May 31, 2005 3:03 pm

Birile wrote:Some sort of change is needed.


Even one that may be even MORE harmful?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue May 31, 2005 5:29 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Birile wrote:Some sort of change is needed.


Even one that may be even MORE harmful?


Are we really so afraid of the unknown that we're willing to let SS die a definite slow death for fear of the potential of a quicker one? Dead is dead. If it's going to die, I would sooner it happened now so I could set about making my preparations rather than find out in 35 or 40 years that it's gone and wish I had put more money into retirement investments.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue May 31, 2005 6:21 pm

The problem being the trillions of dollars wasted to change the system to one that would fail more quickly, if that proves true.

It's not as if we need to make some blind leap here. The Bush administration has just once again shoved a false dilemma upon us in order to further it's own agenda. The choice is not between Privatization and and a failed system, it's between Privatization and other options no one has explored yet.

I mean, even in the ludicrous worst case scenario that the system were beyond any hope of salvation why should we spend trillions of dollars now, then trillions of dollars again to dismantle the system when it fails? We'd be better off dismantling it now right?


There are, however, very few indications that privatization is the right direction. The only thing about it that even sounds good is the "ownership" part. But I can't help but wondering who the "owners" are...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue May 31, 2005 7:07 pm

Sarvis wrote:There are, however, very few indications that privatization is the right direction. The only thing about it that even sounds good is the "ownership" part. But I can't help but wondering who the "owners" are...


With all due respect, I never said privatization was the way to go. I said some change was in order, whatever that change may be.

Off-topic--what is it with peoples' penchant for using "..." at the end of their remarks as though that is supposed to increase the profundity of what they didn't say? It's okay, though, Teflor uses "..." more than you do, Sarvis. *poke* Its overuse has caused a downgrade in its value in the world of literature and debate. Sorry, it's the editor coming out of me.

On-topic: I wouldn't oppose Social Security's complete dismantling (as well as the dismantling of the current welfare system in the U.S.) in exchange for a more Euro-minded socialistic system of taking care of our country's citizens. Federally-funded healthcare and education would make a fine start, along with getting rid of the idea of post-industrialism in this country.

Cheers!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue May 31, 2005 7:34 pm

So to summarize where we're at..

Birile and Corth agree that SS is in trouble. Sarvis does not necessarily agree or disagree with that assertion but is concerned that any change to SS will cause it to die an even quicker death (assuming he eventually concludes that it is in fact failing). Birile and Corth probably agree that SS should simply be dismantled, but strongly disagree on what, if anything, should take its place. Assuming he eventually concludes that SS is in trouble, Sarvis will probably agree with Birile on her proposed replacement of SS.

Got it? :)

Corth...
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue May 31, 2005 7:46 pm

Birile wrote:
Sarvis wrote:There are, however, very few indications that privatization is the right direction. The only thing about it that even sounds good is the "ownership" part. But I can't help but wondering who the "owners" are...


With all due respect, I never said privatization was the way to go. I said some change was in order, whatever that change may be.

Off-topic--what is it with peoples' penchant for using "..." at the end of their remarks as though that is supposed to increase the profundity of what they didn't say? It's okay, though, Teflor uses "..." more than you do, Sarvis. *poke* Its overuse has caused a downgrade in its value in the world of literature and debate. Sorry, it's the editor coming out of me.


Well I actually agree that I overuse the ellipses. However most of the time I use it it's to signify a pause as if I were speaking, or if I'm just not sure whether there should be a comma or not. In this case it was more that I was trailing off... if you see what I mean?

On-topic: I wouldn't oppose Social Security's complete dismantling (as well as the dismantling of the current welfare system in the U.S.) in exchange for a more Euro-minded socialistic system of taking care of our country's citizens. Federally-funded healthcare and education would make a fine start, along with getting rid of the idea of post-industrialism in this country.

Cheers!



The problem there is taht healthcare and education don't have anything to do with the reasons for social security and welfare. Both of those systems are there for when things go wrong, so that people don't fall through the cracks or, worse yet, become a problem for others. Social Security isn't meant to be a retirement plan, it's meant to be there in case your other retirement plans fall through for some reason. Like if your company goes under and takes your pension plan with it, or your investments go bad right before retirement. Things like that are happening as we speak, and people who had planned on their pension are now getting screwed over and needing to depend on SS.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue May 31, 2005 7:57 pm

Sarvis wrote:The problem there is taht healthcare and education don't have anything to do with the reasons for social security and welfare.


If you honestly believe this statement to be true then you're not thinking into the issue quite enough. :(
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue May 31, 2005 8:06 pm

Corth wrote:Sarvis does not necessarily agree or disagree with that assertion but is concerned that any change to SS will cause it to die an even quicker death


That's not quite accurate. I just it's a bit dangerous to change the system simply for the sake of changing it, as Birile was suggesting. We should figure out what would work, and then change to that rather than just making any old change because "some change is needed."

Properly thought out changes could only help.

We're just not gonna get that from Bush though...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue May 31, 2005 8:29 pm

Birile wrote:
Sarvis wrote:The problem there is taht healthcare and education don't have anything to do with the reasons for social security and welfare.


If you honestly believe this statement to be true then you're not thinking into the issue quite enough. :(


Did you read the rest of my post?

Those systems are meant for <i>emergencies</i>, and no amount of education or healthcare will prevent those from happening. It might help lessen the number of people who chose to depend on those things, but it won't remove the need for them.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Tue May 31, 2005 8:49 pm

Corth wrote:So to summarize where we're at..

Birile and Corth agree that SS is in trouble. Sarvis does not necessarily agree or disagree with that assertion but is concerned that any change to SS will cause it to die an even quicker death (assuming he eventually concludes that it is in fact failing). Birile and Corth probably agree that SS should simply be dismantled, but strongly disagree on what, if anything, should take its place. Assuming he eventually concludes that SS is in trouble, Sarvis will probably agree with Birile on her proposed replacement of SS.

Got it? :)

Corth...


Right... but I'm not a "her." :(
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue May 31, 2005 10:49 pm

Sarvis,

I stand by my assertion! You misquoted me by leaving out the end of my sentence!

Birile,

I knew that but wasn't sure if it was public information so I figured I'd keep things simple. :)

Corth (profound!)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue May 31, 2005 11:03 pm

Corth wrote:Sarvis,

I stand by my assertion! You misquoted me by leaving out the end of my sentence!



I do hope you are joking.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests