I am not sure how your household works, but when I don't have enough money for my bills, I begin to eliminate those services I am paying bills on. I don't demand money from my neighbors as an alternative.

Look, the fact is, these social programs are not only way too expensive, but the future expenditures are set to grow exponentially.. They are not sustainable. There comes a point where there just are not enough producers anymore. We are reaching levels where nearly 50% of the population pays basically 0% of the federal income tax, yet are receiving the largest portion of benefits from the system.

I don't think it is a left or right thing to understand that the government is a pretty lousy place to park capital. We see so much waste and abuse in military spending, entitlement spending, [insert department here] spending that would never work in a free market system. There is no way you could run an average business buying thousand dollar toilet seats. It just baffles me that the same people who would agree with that, somehow would die to defend other institutions like Social Security and Medicare. It's OK to say it: FDR was wrong. That doesn't mean there are not other ways to ensure people retire with dignity or other ways to ensure the elderly receive health care.

We allow politicians to "negotiate" contracts with their political supporters (public unions) and then are somehow surprised when a toll booth operator makes $100,000 a year. Do you see any people working in private toll booths, say at parking garages, making this kind of money? Well, of course not, because the owners of those garages have a vested interest in negotiating the best contracts they can. The public unions however, they negotiate with the same people they send their political donations to and yet nobody acknowledges the conflict of interest here. They will march until their feet are blue over the bogeyman "Big Oil" but never over "Big Union". Then when someone like me comes along and says "Hey, we can't afford this shit," the demagoguery begins and all of a sudden I want to throw people out on the street and not pay my bills.

I am sorry, but the government is the worst tool to use to help people. Waste, fraud, corruption and abuse eventually are so rampant in the system it no longer works. In a free market system, these kind of things eventually take care of themselves because businesses cannot remain profitable when their employees partake in the same behavior as politicians. There is an equalizer called competition (or as you call it: Darwinism) that does not exist public sector.

I said bullshit and C'mon Man because your facts often distort the truth. The fact is to date the entitlement systems have not contributed to the debt of this country because it has been solvent (the amount of loans back to the treasury have certainly covered any short falls of the past few years). If the program was magically stopped today then it has had neutral impact on the debt because it has paid for itself as we have been going along. THAT IS NOT HOW YOU PRESENTED IT HERE SO, BULLSHIT AND C'MON MAN!. It is true that the projections are not good because the generations following the baby boomer have not been as big and life expectancy is increasing. It is true there has been corruption and inefficiency in the system. However, to say a privatized system would be immune to such things is fantasy. Also, to suggest we go back to the good old days where the family takes care of itself is bullshit so C'mon man.. How many families do you know that could suddenly start taking care of retired parents and grandparent housing and medical needs. SO, BULLSHIT AND C'MON MAN!

To suggest the tea party / libertarians are the first to attempt to get rid of one bit of socialism that plagues America is bullshit as well. There are a lot of people of all different persuasions that have believed for a long time that Politicians stopped depending on that 1% of the wealthy to support their careers.

My problem with your free market and protect the rich and they will be benevolent crapola is this, The 1% always, always, always use their power and wealth to change the playing field. In fact isn't that what paying for politicians in this day and age all about? I said it before, the only thing I expect from them is to act in their own self interest. History shows that it is in their self interest to always under value the common man or as you would say, freeloaders. The people who currently are making that median salary around 30K this year will be undervalued. They are worth more than what you will claim to be market value. I say market value is bullshit and manipulated and is calculated simplistically and does not include valuing the persons whole life. The entitlement programs were created for a reason, the reason is, YOUR SO CALLED FREE MARKET CAPITALISM WAS A HORRENDOUS FAILURE AND LEFT A LOT OF AMERICANS DESTITUTE!

So, as far as I am concerned you have got a huge credibility gap! Other people are certainly welcome to their own opinions but I just see you as the boss man's thug spewing his propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

When entitlements take up over 40% of the federal spending, where we have to borrow almost $2 trillion a fiscal year, then NOTHING IS SOLVENT. Get it MAAAN? What does it take to get that into your head. If you make $10 dollars a day and spend $4 of it on food, then spend $28 on everything else: you are still insolvent! WTF maaan?

If these entitlements were stopped today, 40% of federal spending is GONE. Magically it would seem.



Oh there we go ladies and gentlemen! The REASON why privatization does not work is because of "bullshit and c'mon man". WOW, the facts you spew are amazing!!!! I love your scientific reasoning.. Is the earth flat too?

The FACT is, private companies that run like the federal government generally end up bankrupt and people go to jail. When it happens in government, they just get re-elected with slogans like "Bullshit, c'mon man!"



I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you wrote this early in the morning, possibly hungover like me..



How do they change the playing field? You my be using corrupt politicians? So you mean through GOVERNMENT? Listen, look at Obama today, his policies are enriching Soros and Buffet and nobody barely reports it. When Bush's policies lined the pockets of Haliburton, you STILL hear about it today. The problem my friend IS GOVERNMENT! To blame business for taking advantage of crony capitalism is like beating your dog for eating your steak, after you left it in his bowl.



Their objective is to earn a profit, just like every person who collects a paycheck or dividends. Nothing less, nothing more. There is no evil conspiracy to hold down the poor, that is just populist BULLSHIT.




Who cares what you think someones value is? If that is your belief, then YOU pay them that value. Stop trying to dictate what others should pay.

what part of your credibility is questionable did you not get? You have distorted the facts for your own personal agenda (and got caught at it to boot).

That equals ....(da da da daaaa) NO CREDIBILITY!

(yep, no doubt...it is a credibility gap)

The facts seem distorted to you because you are looking at them through your own prejudices.. But, at least I present facts..

The only real fact I can see in what you say is that because you don't need them, you don't want to pay for them. I resent your attitude. I have presented nothing that wasn't a fact. A little research on some of your facts shows that you are definitely not hitting the 100% mark. I see these programs as my obligation. I also see them as yours or my salvation should life whip our ass. It can happen.

Edited for grammar.

You see government as your salvation... That is sad, truly sad.

where is that trombone and that plunger when you need them?

Who said they see government as our salvation? I didn't!

Ideally, our government is a means of voicing our concerns and dealing with our problems. It is a democracy! The government is us and belongs to us (or at least it should). Returning to the gilded age when the wealthy 1% actually had more power and control over events does not sound like a good plan to me! That is how capitalism failed, letting the wealthy set the rules. (Oh ya, I recall, to you the great depression is a myth created by a bunch of freeloaders who were not strong enough to survive the changes in "their environment". Say, people like Woody Guthrie as an example.)

(for those of you who just tuned in, our hero Jafo brought up Social Darwinism in support of his"fact based" arguments before he was called on his credibility gap issue)

It is now time for the credibility gap recap.

Our hero Jafo came around carrying on and on about the freeloaders getting away with socialism because they use the benefits of the Federal Insurance Programs.He insisted these socialists did not pay for these benefits and that the whole system is just a scam to destroy the hard working true survivors that at one time in the good old days represented the "true American". This is, of course, one of the foundations of his argument that America should return to the "Free Market Economy" that strictly adheres to the true "Constitutional" principles of the founding of this country.

When it was pointed out to him that the Federal Insurance Program was created because the visions of the good old days were not what they were cracked up to be he went to denial. Insisting over and over again that the Federal Insurance Programs were saddling us with debt and interest. When it was pointed out to him that these programs are debt neutral he immediately demonstrated that they are budgeted for (well it is capitalism and you do have to pay for them, do, duh, they are going to be in the budget). When it was pointed out that wars and a double dip recession caused by the financial failure brought on by a 10 year experiment of a return to an unregulated free market economy he went on and on about his facts being the real facts.

OK Fact:

The FICA budget has been solvent since its existence and would never have been a contributor to the debt (or subsequent interest incurred) had its funds not been redirected to pay for the other government budgeted fund (the budget based on all other funds other than the funds collected as part of the Federal Insurance programs).

Note: it was modified a few times to adjust to things like increased longevity. Also, I wrongly stated that it was a Democratic President and Republican Congress that authorized redirecting the excess funds in the program. That occurred in 1983 when Ronnie was Pres and the Congress was split.

Now that other Federal Budget based on income tax, has well, had some issues. Interestingly, the two most dramatic increases in debt on that budget have been associated with war. Ronnie did it it when he was defending us from the Evil Empire (that debt sky rocketed when Ronnie was in charge). However, the greatest increase in the National Debt since World War II, you guessed it, GWBush to fight a war. Oddly enough, as a result of both these huge increases in debt a man named Cheney had a lot of friends that got very rich (so rich in fact, they don't even need a Federal Insurance program).

Interesting, isn't it? Now either Jafo is misrepresenting the facts or he actually has not a clue what he is talking about. Either way, I say there is a credibility issue!



http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/07/unequal-america-html

(Have you noticed how those people who don't buy the boss mans side of the story have become a little less accommodating to those spouting the boss mans propaganda!)

Yes, Heraclitis, so many facts. In Jafo's world, those that got take care of those that ain't got voluntarily, out of the goodness of their hearts. So, we don't need regulations or safety nets. And if they choose not to share, we shouldn't forcibly make them share their over-abundance. When confronted with the FACT that this isn't the case in the real world, he exclaims 'too bad for the poor bastards, it's their fault they don't have anyone to take care of them.' That's one of the main reasons to have a government (bad word)........especially a democracy (the meaning of which has been obscured; it's not so much about 'majority rules' but 'protection of the minorities from majority rule.) The ruling class of the wealthiest 1% (wait - a democracy's not supposed to have a ruling class - that's an oligarchy or plutacracy) have had and still have their chance to be good neighbors, but they just aren't gonna do it. Hence: government. Government helps fill the gap to protect our most vulnerable and disenfranchised citizens when the going gets tough and the invisible hands of the ultra-rich can't bring themselves to step in and lend a hand or a dollar. Our nation has a rather proud history of making the rich contribute to the pot from which their own success has been drawn. The estate tax was enacted during WWI to make the rich contribute to the war effort, because they sure weren't contributing their sons to to go and fight. Money instead of blood? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
I'll go back to a point brought up earlier: in order to maintain their status quo, the ruling class has devised a cunning and brilliant plan to get a significant number of those who are not and will never be a member of their class to defend their greed, and even blame poor peoples' problems on the poor people. I wish I could understand how this works. Perhaps Jafo could explain..........

I don't see government as my salvation, and you may want to reconsider being so cocky about your good fortune.

I participate in the world around me and try to make it better.

I don't cry about doing my fair share.

I like that line!

Other people post here besides you Heraclitis.. Try reading the thread..



So you are saying the wealthy 1% don't exist anymore in your utopian US then? Why OWS then? Saying capitalism failed is like saying someone with cancer failed life. Capitalism runs fine; socialism is its cancer.



Please enlighten me then why the showerless masses are protesting this wonderful system you are championing? Before FDR, the only real protests out there were from communists. Well, at least some things haven't changed.



I have cable TV. Every month I pay my cable TV bill. I then go on to spend more money than I have on every other little thing I want. Using your logic, my cable bill is revenue neutral. No wonder why those who believe as you do applaud entitlements, your logic forces you to need them. Hey everyone, we are almost $16 trillion in debt, but our entitlements are revenue neutral!

Oh well, if we are going to play the word game, let's turn to the facts shall we?

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

"The Social Security trust funds are required by law to be invested in securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. Thus, the trust funds are intra-governmental debt. These securities can be redeemed as needed to make benefit payments when contributions derived from payroll taxes and self-employment contributions are no longer are sufficient to fully fund benefit payments. (The controversy over whether the U.S. government is capable of redeeming the trust fund assets is a topic of the sustainability of the unified Federal budget.)

Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt. The portion of the national debt that is not considered "publicly held" represents the obligations incurred by the government to itself, the bulk of which consists of the government's obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund."

....

"From an economic standpoint, the question of whether the trust fund is a fact or fiction comes down to whether the trust fund contributes to national savings or not.[17] If $1 added to the fund increases national savings, or replaces borrowing from other lenders, by $1, the trust fund is real. If $1 added to the fund does not replace other borrowing or otherwise increase national savings, the trust fund is not "real." Some economic research argues that the trust funds have led to only a small to modest increase in national savings and that the bulk of the trust fund has been "spent."[17][18][19][20] "



Show me the Social Security lock box and I will show you a container full of IOU's.



Are we missing something here? Who held the purse strings during these administrations? Who? I am so sorry your communist buddies went down under Reagan; still hurts doesn't it?




Oh yes! Under your system, the rich are getting richer richer richer.. Way to go! Almost 100 years of FDR type bullshit government and it has done nothing but spread misery from sea to shining sea. If I were the rich boss man bogeyman you always refer to, I would love YOUR system.

Note: Heraclitis, not replying to you here buddy.

I am sorry, how did I misinterpret this line then?

"I also see them as yours or my salvation should life whip our ass. It can happen." - Goofus

Perhaps my cockiness is affecting my vision?

I never said you cry about doing "your fair share" (whoever defines that), my problem is everyone crying about and defining other peoples fair share.

I look around at those around me.. I don't tell them this, but I know for a fact that when it comes to giving, some of them do very little, if any at all (similar to our President and VP). But you know what? I would not have it that other people would force them to. That is their decision. What I object to is people demanding others pay their perceived fair share completely based on the size of their paycheck and nothing else. It is unwise, illogical, and tyrannical.

Over-abundance? I suppose you Kevin should be the judge of what is over-abundance? Yes, you have too much, so Kevin says redistribute it. Is that really what you believe?

Safety nets sound like such a great idea, unfortunately as we all see, they tend to become hammocks. The main reason to have a government is not to be a cradle to grave overseeing mother, and that is the crux of the entire argument I think. I think you have confused a republic with a democracy. Democracy is mob rule.

The government should only be concerned about protecting the rights of the individual (the ultimate minority), not trying to forge some kind of living for him/her.

If we cannot depend on each other to take care of those in need, then I definitely do not want these same non-caring people in the seat of some kind of power over others (ala government).



I suppose Obama is a 1 percenter? How about Jimmy Carter? Or Reagan? If you are right, all of these people should have been the offspring of billionaires groomed to protect the oligarchy.



And after all these years, the left has put forward all of these institutions you favor to combat all of what you just described. 2012, we still have your hated 1%, almost half the population in a dependency cycle, poor kids going to war and "disenfranchised" citizens. So what are you championing again? More of this? Am I wrong to think this is insanity?



This sounds so great coming out of a loud speaker at some kind of rally but when you say it calmly, it sounds like a conspiracy theory akin to Elvis sightings. Here I am, brainwashed by a secret society of the ruling class, out doing battle with the serfs and peasants. Gee, must be some Illuminati mind control...