. Giving Back


Our current government takes from people by force, and gives to other people. This should not be the place of government.

If people want to give, that's fine. In fact people should give.

The goernment should not be in the robin hood business.

The goernment should not be in the robin hood business.

Could be worse, Bush could be wearing tights :)

Under Republicans, our government is Robin Hood for the Rich (http://www.amazon.com/George-Bush-Robin-Hood-Rich/dp/1425929427).

People who don't believe in government are incapable of governing. They see government as a trough for their friends to feed at and grow fat and rich. (http://www.amazon.com/Blackwater-Rise-Worlds-Powerful-Mercenary/dp/1560259795/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199292656&sr=1-1)

Dharm,

You always love to spew the same old party line stuff don't you?
Hope you have a Great New Year!!

Under Republicans, our government is Robin Hood for the Rich (http://www.amazon.com/George-Bush-Robin-Hood-Rich/dp/1425929427).

People who don't believe in government are incapable of governing. They see government as a trough for their friends to feed at and grow fat and rich. (http://www.amazon.com/Blackwater-Rise-Worlds-Powerful-Mercenary/dp/1560259795/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199292656&sr=1-1)

First of all, I don't think the government should be "Robin Hood" for the benefit of the rich OR the poor. I think there's too much of both at the moment.


People who don't believe in government are incapable of governing. They see government as a trough for their friends to feed at and grow fat and rich. (http://www.amazon.com/Blackwater-Rise-Worlds-Powerful-Mercenary/dp/1560259795/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199292656&sr=1-1)
Maybe some of them do, but I believe in small government and I ABSOLUTELY am NOT ok with the government becoming the servant of the rich and the large corporations.

Maybe some of them do, but I believe in small government and I ABSOLUTELY am NOT ok with the government becoming the servant of the rich and the large corporations.

That sounds nice, but I do not see any way for you to get around it.

The ideology of "smaller government" has never led to anything besides massive privatization. (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-30.htm)

That sounds nice, but I do not see any way for you to get around it.

The ideology of "smaller government" has never led to anything besides massive privatization. (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-30.htm)
And how does privatization lead to the government favoring the rich, exactly?

And how does privatization lead to the government favoring the rich, exactly?

The rich are the ones who profit from private government contracts.

Eric Prince, for example, has built a multi-Billion empire around government contracts for Blackwater, just since the invasion of Iraq.

The rich are the ones who profit from private government contracts.

Eric Prince, for example, has built a multi-Billion empire around government contracts for Blackwater, just since the invasion of Iraq.
so have their employees.

The rich are the ones who profit from private government contracts.

Eric Prince, for example, has built a multi-Billion empire around government contracts for Blackwater, just since the invasion of Iraq.
Then why don't we, rather than privatizing them, simply abolish the Social Security Administration, etc? That's what I'd do (though not without finding some way of returning the money paid in by workers).

Then why don't we, rather than privatizing them, simply abolish the Social Security Administration, etc?

Because it would be political suicide to try.

Most people recognize that social security insurance is necessary.

Most people recognize that social security insurance is necessary.
Fuck it. It's gonna be near empty by the time I get to it anyways.

Because it would be political suicide to try.

Most people recognize that social security insurance is necessary.
Only if you're a complete idiot with money.

Fuck it. It's gonna be near empty by the time I get to it anyways.

Nah, thats just scare mongering. There are simple steps we can take to make SS solvent, like removing the income cap and having everyone pay their fair share into the insurance program.

Nah, thats just scare mongering.
Really? Odd that you could call something that often comes from the liberal side of the media "scare mongering"...

Really? Odd that you could call something that often comes from the liberal side of the media "scare mongering"...

what, praytell, is the "liberal side of the media"?

what, praytell, is the "liberal side of the media"?
I dunno, I've just heard that "scare mongering" about Social Security from people like my mom (VERY liberal), and she showed me an article in a liberal newspaper she reads (she called it liberal) about it.

I dunno, I've just heard that "scare mongering" about Social Security from people like my mom (VERY liberal), and she showed me an article in a liberal newspaper she reads (she called it liberal) about it.

Well, I would submit to you that scare mongering about society security is VERY MUCH a Conservative talking point and always has been since the New Deal. It speaks to the fact that Conservatives control so much of our media that your "liberal" mother would repeat such a conservative talking point.

Conservatives like to put forward the false idea that SS is in "danger" because they have been doing everything they can to undermine it since it was created.
As I said, all we have to do is lift the income cap and SS would be solvent.

Well, I would submit to you that scare mongering about society security is VERY MUCH a Conservative talking point and always has been since the New Deal. It speaks to the fact that Conservatives control so much of our media that your "liberal" mother would repeat such a conservative talking point.
All I know is that I read that SS is in danger and it's George Bush's fault. Hardly sounds like a "conservative talking point" to me.

All I know is that I read that SS is in danger and it's George Bush's fault. Hardly sounds like a "conservative talking point" to me.

It sounds like you didn't read any more than a headline.

SS has been heading down this path long before Bush took office.

All I know is that I read that SS is in danger and it's George Bush's fault. Hardly sounds like a "conservative talking point" to me.

It sounds like you didn't read any more than a headline.
Well, you can think that if you want, but you'd be wrong. :)

SS has been heading down this path long before Bush took office.
Well, Dharma says we can fix it by lifting the income cap. The article I read mentioned this as one of the possible solutions as well. I haven't looked into it further since then though.

What do you think we should do with Social Security?

We sould take SS out of the hands of government. We should make it private.
There is no SS bank. That is part of the problem. The wonderful government spends it as fast as they get it.

All Dharm wants to do is punnish people who have money. He doesn't give any thought to the simple fact that rich people start jobs for other people.

One thing is almost for sure: If we don't do somthing to fix SS, it will not be there when I am of age to collect. (And I have been paing for years!)

Another thing is true aswell: The government does a bad job at almost everything it attempts. (Except the Postal Service and the Armed Forces)

The fair tax law would probably help SS.

Well, Dharma says we can fix it by lifting the income cap. The article I read mentioned this as one of the possible solutions as well. I haven't looked into it further since then though.

What do you think we should do with Social Security?

We sould take SS out of the hands of government. We should make it private.

That would only make the costs skyrocket because then you would be at the mercy of ever-increasing corporate profits. Just like we already see with our sub-par health care industry.

SS is insurance, not a retirement fund. That is a very common conservative misconception.

I read an interesting article in the latest issue of Time... I found it online (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1699875,00.html), but unfortunately it doesn't include the graph that was in the magazine. The graph showed that the amount paid into SS will soon be eclipsed by the amount given out of it, and that by 2041 there will be more than a one trillion dollar difference (in estimated 2041 dollars).

Here is a similar graph that I found.... It comes from seniorjournal.com.
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SocialSecurity/2007/7-09-25-SocSecGraph-1.gif

The graph showed that the amount paid into SS will soon be eclipsed by the amount given out of it, and that by 2041 there will be more than a one trillion dollar difference (in estimated 2041 dollars).
A trillion?

Heck, that's only one useless and unnecessary war for us.

If we can avoid another between now and 2041 we should be all right.

The problem with SS is that it is not being treated like the Insurance program that it is. With the SS income cap in place, it is like having an Auto Insurance program that only people who actually make a claim have to pay into. You cannot cover your costs that way. The whole idea behind insurance is to spread the risk out among as many people as possible. By limiting yourself to only those people who will use the insurance, you are almost guarenteeing that it cannot be solvent.

The problem with SS is that it is not being treated like the Insurance program that it is. With the SS income cap in place, it is like having an Auto Insurance program that only people who actually make a claim have to pay into. You cannot cover your costs that way. The whole idea behind insurance is to spread the risk out among as many people as possible. By limiting yourself to only those people who will use the insurance, you are almost guarenteeing that it cannot be solvent.
Sounds pretty logical, Dharm.

I don't think you can take the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in the same text with dharma as you can with most other people.. same with FT.

It seems with them.. anything that is extreme left is liberal, and ANYTHING to the right is conservative... ANYTHING.