The preceding statements just overloaded and burnt up my bullshit meter!

Not the only thing of yours that is burnt apparently.

Finally, one thing on which we can agree

Just because the money was mismanaged does not mean we didn't pay for it.

No, entitlement means entitlement and socialism means socialism. Saying entitlements = socialism is political rhetoric.

Yes they did!

No denial here. That is not the fault of either the entitlement program (which expressly stated this was not to happen) or the American citizens who paid into the program.

There is not trust fund. It was all spent. It was mismanaged. Saying government is inherently evil does not change the facts. The American experiment is based on having a workable Democratic Republic. A little mismanagement and you label the whole idea as “inherently evil”. Are you going to burn the constitution and kick the cat when you stomp out of the room and refer to the rest of the world as a bunch of socialist idiots?

It has been my experience that businesses and the rich inherently act out of self-interest. That is how I expect them to act. No more. No less. The only comment about business and the rich that I have is that they should contribute their fair share to the common good. This is an especially good time for them to do it because the common good saved their collective ass!

I have looked through here and not found one sentence or thought I have posted that supports more entitlements. I have only commented that the entitlements that sent you off kicking the cat were legally created to serve a purpose (that the evidence suggests was created because capitalism failed) to help the average American with their retirement and medical needs. The fact is that most people receiving benefits did pay for them. They did not hold a gun to anybody's head (as you would suggest) and force this upon them. They complied with the laws as written and approved by elected officials and deemed constitutional by the government of this land as specified in the constitution that you hold sacred but want to burn because government is inherently evil. Had the funds and system been managed properly there is plenty of evidence to suggest this would have been a successful and popular program. The reality is that it was mismanaged and we have millions of people who are still dependent upon it because capitalism has not provided an alternative. We also have millions of people who paid into it all their lives and are going to be dependent upon it in the near future (like myself). Sure there are new ways of dealing with this problem but IRA’s and 401K’s are only supplemental. Pensions are a thing of the past. Medical care is only affordable if you are healthy. You proclaim, "piss and everybody and let the evil government default, if you are not wealthy then die and get it over with!"

No thank you. Not a good approach. I do expect responsibility!

What is it you are looking for? I already have a dysfunctional political system to worry about. We have cities and communities across the country that are bankrupt. We are living through a period of massive unemployed or underemployed people. I know a lot of people that were doing fine until poor health relieved them of their life savings and left them alive to worry about tomorrow. I know people who would be living on the edge without the benefits of these entitlements you rant about. Now you are standing around shouting the government is evil without any caring at all about the people. What do you want? How about if people reach a certain age where they don't measure up too your idea of financial success we take them out to a pit and shoot them as worthless trash. We can confiscate what wealth they did accumulate for the fruits of their obviously inferior labors and redistribute it to the common good! How is that for an approach? Your rich friends don't even have to be involved.

Why do you suppose they call it SOCIAL security?



No they didn't! You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on one hand, people paid into the social security system and yet took that money to spend on other stuff rather than the trust fund. Did the same people who put money in the system, vote for the people who spent the money elsewhere? Yes.

Here is an analogy based on your logic:

I start saving money to buy a car. I decide to take that money to buy a flat screen tv, pay for other peoples health care, build bridges to nowhere, etc., and then at some point I start asking where my car is. Well?!?! I specifically saved money for a car!



Yes it is. Who voted for the people who spent the money?!



A little mismanagement? We are almost $16 trillion dollars in debt and take a look at all the candidates people have put forward to vote for. With possibly the exception of Ron Paul, all of the candidates, Obama, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are for the status quo. Each one wants to use an ever intrusive federal government to further erode the principles of a republic and to enlarge itself. This is against what the Constitution stood for. We are in a post-constitutional society when Republicans think that somehow they can write legislation that invades the privacy of the bedroom, or make illegal what they disagree with and where Democrats think they can mandate people to purchase private contracts, or somehow find federal abortion rights in a constitution written by people who clearly would have been appalled by such notions.

I am not trying to stomp out the Constitution, I am trying to revive it.



I agree, business is (and should be) Darwinistic. But the term "common good" is code for redistribution. We never should have saved their asses. That was not an act of pure capitalism, that was at best crony capitalism, at worst a groping feel of socialism.



Mismanaged by the VOTERS. When people vote for Ted Kennedy or Strom Thurmond over and over, when it is these people raiding their funds, then the VOTERS have decided to not invest in social security, but for the whim of madmen.

You seem to have the mentality that everyone will die if government shrinks. I am not of that belief. Americans have NEVER died in the streets, even when there was, for all intents and purposes, no real federal government.



Then hold the voter responsible.



If someone raped a child, would you decide not to condemn them if they were also taking care of their sick mother? Your logic here seems to say: yeah the government is corrupt, but if we do anything about it, people will suffer. People are already suffering.

As for the second part of your paragraph, I won't even dignify that with a response.

I got you. Society and community are bad words because you tack ism on the end and instantly give them negative connotations. OOOOH scary. Then you can create guilt by association like saying entitlements = socialism. OOOOH clever. You are such a clever one. C'MON MAN!

Yes, Americans did pay for those entitlements and you are the one telling everybody the government should default not me? What is up with that?

As far as voting power, there are plenty of people I have voted for that never got elected.

Let's see, oh $16 trillion dollars in debt and you blame that on entitlements. C'MON MAN?

You say "common good" is just a code word for redistribution. Maybe so, but it was Alexander Hamilton's word for it...the Godfather of American Capitalism. If I recall, you were claiming all kind of miracles and great deeds associated wit the advent of American Capitalism a few posts back. What's up with that? Please don't tell me you are a Social Darwinist? We will now return to the year 1900 when Laissez-Faire was all the rage and you were nobody in the SOCIETY world unless you could pontificate on Social Darwinism as a scientific justification for your elite status! C'MON MAN!

You follow that up with some mother raper / child raper story. Don't know where you are going there, don't care.

And you won't dignify the last paragraph about just shooting the poor and getting it over with. You talk a good elitist rap but you are unwilling to go all the way. WTF?

I guess I am cranky, I am just tired of hearing people spew this ill conceived elitist crapola all over the place! You want attack socialism in the American Government, aim at the department of Defense or the department of Agriculture. You don't even know where to f@#kin aim for Christ's sake?

Hey maaaaaan, the government running business is socialism maaaaaan, c'mon maaaan don'tcha get it maaaan? When the government forces you to partake in their ponzi scheme, I mean an investment business called social security, they are practicing socialism..... Man....



Just because you repeat something, doesn't make it true. THEY DID NOT PAY FOR IT. Show me where Americans paid for Social Security and I will show you where the funds went elsewhere.



Welcome to Democracy.



Yeah man, entitlements are almost 50% of the budget man, how could we blame that man?



I guess Darwinism works everywhere else in the universe but not right here in your world? C'mon maaaaaan, you call me elite? Wow maaaaaan.



Can't ya dig it maaan? Are analogies beyond you maaan?



I am not willing to go to the ends of socialism, which is tyranny and bloodshed.



I think you have spent too much time cross legged passing the bong around at the commune to really even understand what is going on in the world... Maaan..

and who cares about being humane anyway....i know i don't...matter fact, i want to live in that mad max world yea!!!

It depends on your definition of humane.

naturally

Oh, is that what that was....hmmm...damn, that was clever. (I don't know, maybe that will make him chill a bit???)

You do realize you had a couple of Rick Perry moments there. It's cool, just delete them...you know...nobody will ever know....(SHHHHHH)

Ok Ginsberg, pointless response as usual..

Didn't somebody explain to him how the "entitlement programs" we are talking about work? No? OK, look at your pay stub. There is an FICA portion of untaxed income that goes into the entitlements. That pays the entitlements. The problem is that in the late 90's (Democratic President-Republican Congress) it was decided that the excess money in the program could be used somewhere else (breaking all the rules of the entitlement program). So yes, the money was spent somewhere else. We all agree you give Congress access to money they will probably spend it. To date, the program is still generating income sufficient to pay for itself (well pretty close). So yes, the entitlements are costing America about 40% of the budget but those FICA payments are hanging around 40% of the income. So, it is still paying for itself and has been. The problem is the reserves have disappeared. Now as we move into the future and those damn rebellious bong smoking baby boomers who have paid into this system all their lives age, the projection for the future is that there will be insufficient income in the FICA system to cover the costs. IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. So, the entitlement programs have nothing to do with the debt. The debt came because that same President-Republican government told the credit industry, "you guys are a competent responsible lot, go ahead and put the world into as much debt as you can and suck every ounce of wealth and savings out of the common humans that you can. Teach them to live on plastic credit way beyond their means and sale them houses they really can't afford. But do it responsibly." So, they proceeded to do that in their own self interest. In the mean time George Bush was elected to "preserve America for the pure christians" and funnel as much of the public money into the oil industry as possible. well, he struck pay dirt on a day that is now commonly referred to as 9-11. He got to be a warrior President and in the spirit of the times he charged it all on America's great plastic card.However, even before his warrior days were over, the credit bubble burst and financial ruin and unemployment spewed all over everybody. Sure he charged more money and threw it in the fire and then Obama charged more money and threw it in the fire, but it was just a bitch to control. Well, all that unemployment also means America was no longer generating enough revenue to do more than pay the minimum payment on the debt. So that interest just keeps accruing. It's not a pleasant little story and I am not so clever with the analogies and things but I do know yelling "save the rich" is probably not the best of all solutions. By the way, none of that involved the entitlement program (even though it did take a hit in revenue due to unemployment).

Or maybe I am wrong? Ya, you are probably right. I'll join in with you "SAVE THE RICH!"

Oh, and on the application of Darwinism to politics, economics and society. It used to be quite the psat time with the Rich from about 1870 to 1930 or so. They even brought this philosopher fellow to come over from England named Herbert Spencer to lecture on it. I know Wiki not the best of all sources but if you actually care to learn about things you bring up out of context and in passing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

(I do believe in evolution and that it can be applied to societies and communities, I just warn against have baked self serving applications of evolution, kind of the way I look at the economic rhetoric you are so found of)

Oh and one more thing. Surely, Surely you are not suggesting we keep paying the FICA and give up the entitlement programs? Maybe you are, that would make the RICH very happy. The Oil Companies could keep their big tax breaks (not socialism, socialism only applies when the poor free loaders benefit, right...See I have been paying attention).

Oh Oh I got an analogy

Shrinking the government the way you want to do it is like deciding I am tired of my fat belly and big ass and getting a ginsu knife and hacking them off!