Reply With Quote
then you've made the wrong choices. you could see that if you were more liquid.
Shiiiiit, they deserve it!
If I could get the Federal Government to bail my company's ass out to the tune of 100+ billion, Im due a ing bonus you better believe!
I say give them millions upon millions. They just successfully robbed the American taxpayers in the single greatest bailout in American history, all due to their quasi-legal loaning practices and tampered numbers.
Theyre criminals, in effect, who just got bailed out by the Fed.
If thats not a bonus-worthy act, youre a tough sell. Those dudes are going to have gold statues made for them.....the envy of the business world...
Recipe for success:
Create a less-than-ethical loan configuration and hope Americans are dumb enough to bite. Check!
Sell those mortgages to Federally-backed loan operations Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Check!
Freddie's/Fannie's exec will then cook the books to show profit to prolong payouts and potential bankruptcy. Check!
When hits the fan, the Fed will bail us out to the tune of almost a quarter TRILLION, making our scam the largest, most profitable scam in human history! Total- ing-CHECK!
Ca-ching!
then you've made the wrong choices. you could see that if you were more liquid.
If you mean I can opt out of the program entirely, that is I no longer pay any tax, but will receive no benefit when older/disabled....
You got my vote. But the senior citizens of today wont be paid for much longer without my contribution, or at least thats the way I understand it.
there you go again, thinking you know something about me. You are one pretentious little prick. btw, what choices are you talking about?
It just occurred to me, you don't know how to read.
Last edited by 2centsworth; 09-17-2008 at 11:59 AM.
that's exactly what I mean
people who are younger than 40 who opt in to the system will have to commit themselves to recieving no more than they put in plus whatever interest the government earns on their money. People over 40 will receive what was promised and the government will just have to issue bonds to make up any deficit.You got my vote. But the senior citizens of today wont be paid for much longer without my contribution, or at least thats the way I understand it.
this would be pure disaster in 30 years. this would be jakarta.
unless you opt for jakarta.People over 40 will receive what was promised and the government will just have to issue bonds to make up any deficit.
I googled "jakarta". Its in India and densely populated.
Obviously thats not what you meant.....what do you mean?
it's indonesia and thats what i mean. i did some work in jakarta for bechtel many years ago.
greed cares nothing about suffering.
Indonesia..... my bad, I just read the quick little blurbs under all the hits on google.
While I agree "greed cares nothing about suffering", in what way does this idea apply to Social Security?
It was Hoover and FDR that turned what would have been a recession into the Great Depression with all of their federal programs and tax increases...go ahead vote for Obama if you want it to get worse. He'll show us change allright...
http://www.forbes.com/business/forbe.../0901/027.htmlThis brings me to the big question that arises from government activities: What should government do when the economy moves into recession? The lesson history seems to teach is that government should do as little as possible.
The first major recession America experienced as an independent nation was in 1819. There was a clamor to halt immigration, but nothing was done. Within two years the economy was once again booming.
There were further panics in 1837, 1857, 1873, 1883 and 1893; federal activity was minimal, and, in effect, the downturns cured themselves. The 1907 panic was settled by J.P. Morgan, a private individual, who, with fellow financiers, determined which businesses could be saved and which would go to the wall.
The panic of 1920 was cured by the masterly inactivity of President Warren G. Harding: He did nothing at all, and the trouble cured itself.
The same thing might have happened after the big Wall Street crash in October 1929 if President Herbert Hoover had followed the advice of Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury. Mellon remembered 1907 and 1920 and knew that a key to capitalism is allowing badly run businesses to go bust in a down cycle. He told President Hoover that the destructive forces unleashed by the crash should be left free to "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate [and so] purge the rottenness from the economy."
Unfortunately, social engineer Hoover rejected this wise advice and began to do a great deal of fiddling. As the recession deepened and persisted, he fiddled more and more. But all this fiddling did, in effect, was to keep badly run and fundamentally insolvent businesses afloat.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office he didn't change Hoover's policies; he intensified and enlarged them. Hence, the punitive power of natural economic forces, which ultimately serves a constructive purpose by clearing the ground for more efficient businesses, was deadened and restrained. The original recession thus became the Great Depression, which continued throughout the 1930s. Only the advent of the Second World War revived the economy. The Hoover-Roosevelt policies are a textbook example of how not to deal with a major economic downturn.
The golden rule of economics is to go with nature, not against it. I am seriously worried that this rule will be ignored in the current recession, especially if the Democrats win the presidency in November. Barack Obama has been compared with John F. Kennedy. To me, he's beginning to look like a Hoover-FDR hybrid.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up.
The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."
Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.
New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.
Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938.
What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.
For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an in bent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side.
Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937).
Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded an estimated 750,000 acres, an area about the size of Rhode Island, and TVA agents dispossessed thousands of people. Poor black sharecroppers, who didn't own property, got no compensation.
FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions.
2cents is suggesting something that would be a colossal mistake.
jakarta consist of incredible top tier wealth and immense poverty. blow your mind type of poverty. its the model for powerful greed over logic and morals. when will americans take their country back?
DarkReign,
are we going to be a country of personal responsibility that pools our resources together for defense and infrastructure or are we going to put all of the power in the hands of government elites?
As far as solving immense poverty, take a look at what China has done. They are far from perfect, but opening up their markets has made the world of difference.
btw, i did say choice(freedom) didn't I?
So youre saying Social Security somehow prevents a Jakarta-type situation?
This I dont believe to be true at all. SS benefits two kinds of people in this country.....the elderly and disabled (or their beneficiaries).
I imagine Jakarta's poor isnt filled with old people and the handicapped, so....
They wont. Stop hoping. went downhill when televisions were put in every home. America is just ahead in the "idiot curve" in comparison to the other developed countries due to television being developed and perfected here, but theylll get where we are soon enough.when will Americans take their country back?
I think youre in dire need of a some good-old-fashioned pessimism.
The people you drive alongside, the oxygen-consuming masses you stand next to, the weak-willed invertebrates who howl at your workplace are the gold standard of the entire world.
This America we live in is as good as it gets, the world around, the globe over. Todays idiot is tomorrow's scholar. The dumbing down of the masses is not reversible or correctable.
The best you can hope for is World War 3 and by some grace and luck, you survive. The massively ignorant have outnumbered the average intelligent by a wide margin for 2 generations.....and the gap is growing ever wider.
Soon, what with the current crop of political maneuvering we are all bearing witness to now as an epiphany, our grandchildren will be arguing on some forum over the merits of the current Republican Presidential Candidate Nick Jonas versus the Democratic Nominee Ashley Tisdale.
Get ing used to it. Buy some guns, read some books, argue with some peeps at ST and enjoy what is left of this ride. Because we are all going to in a handbasket and no President Obama/McCain is really going to change any of that. But Im sure someone, some time in the future will believe in Presidential Elect Jonas as the next savior as well.....only to be just as disappointed as the rest of us.
We control nothing except our own two hands. To feign ignorance to that fact is putting an undue pressure upon yourself. Have a beer, kiss your kids, love your spouse, smoke one every now and then, laugh with your friends, take this entire existence less seriously and the humor that is inherent in all this will become worth the discussion alone, not any pitiful attempt at actual results.
The days of Great Leaders have looooong since passed.
You get no argument from me. I never agreed with privatizing SS as long as I am mandated to participate and I never will.
But if it becomes something I can opt out of, I dont give a what the other lemmings do. I have my IRAs, my 401k, my investments, etc. And they arent something I inherited. I started them, I am contributing to them and whether they pass or fail is my responsibility.
Besides, Im a smoker, Im not even going to live long enough to retire anwyay.
2cents suggestion of change would accelerate that possibility...the gap between the masses. jakarta wealth was not created by jakarta.
in 30 years, if you cut them out it would mean disaster. jakarta style.This I dont believe to be true at all. SS benefits two kinds of people in this country.....the elderly and disabled (or their beneficiaries).
half the population have no access to clean water, so.......I imagine Jakarta's poor isnt filled with old people and the handicapped, so...
Disaster for whom? If your plan in later life consists of "My SS Benefits" youre ed to begin with.
Again, SS only benefits the elderly and handicapped....it doesnt benefit me (yet), it doesnt benefit my below-average-income brothers (yet) and it doesnt benefit anyone I know except my grandparents.
By the time I am 65, I highly doubt SS will be around anymore anyway. The fact that I am mandated to contribute to a federal fund of which I will never draw from is revolting to me. Social Security may have started out with good intentions, but its been turned into a powerful political tool to garner the support of the over-average voting bloc...the elderly. Those ers turn out in droves (theyre old and bored, I dont blame them) to vote so they had better be appeased.
Back to Jakarta, while Im sure you have a more salient point outside the SS element, you havent stated it.
With no research into Jakarta, I can confidently assume its horrible problems have little to zero to do with their version of SS, or lack thereof.
Im sure it has more to do with political corruption and citizen oppression. But thats just a guess.
Social Security is a misnomer is there ever were one.
...and that has what to do with Social Security?half the population have no access to clean water, so...
"are we going to put all of the power in the hands of government elites"
All of the power (that counts) is already in their hands, and they won't EVER yield any of it.
A key myth that many here and elsewhere believe is that the American citizens have a govt For The People and By The People.
The dumbed-down, TV-narcotized, corporate-scammed, "fat,dumb & happy" Americans vastly outnumber what Jefferson referred to as the informed populace being the best defense against abuse of power by the government he helped create.
are there any disabilities that could be attributed to filthy water?
the real question is that the people who say they will be responsible for their security in 30 years are dreaming. check where you live and notice that americans will be less responsible.
you will be in the middle whether you pass or fail in personal financial responsibility.
Yeah, we are a pretty long way from what we used to be in that department.
It must be nice to be able to construct a pyramid scheme, and then have the masses bail you out when it starts to crumble. If you don't mind being a theif, that is.
They should call them the money non-changers, because they never change.
it's happening here because the big boys are running out of other places in the world to do it.
Yes! I'd opt out of social security yesterday! (22)
When the DOW drops almost 10% in two days, you know the economy is nothing but sound!
Dude...you haven't seen nothing. If Obama gets elected every single person in the stock market knows what a Capital Gains tax increase is and that Obama is intending to tax the out of them...
You haven't seen nothing yet.
He's not Bill Clinton...Bill Clinton(and the Repub Congress) rolled the Cap Gains Tax back...that was the #1 think the Government did to contribute to the stock boom of the 90's...and Obama is so far away from that it's ridiculous.
I am trying to become more involved in accruing knowledge on these two candidates, but I don't feel I have enough sources and information to be confident in thoroughly assessing them. As of now, I'm in McCain's corner but this was a stupid, stupid statement.
The economy couldn't be much more unsound.
I think the nation's economy is better off just letting these huge ins utions fail. If any regulation should be administered it should be on the ceo salaries in the private sector.
Somebody is getting rich and it's the CEO's/higher ups. They take retroactive stock options, gamble on their companies and if the stock goes up they're a hero. If not they call the American gov and claim we're too big to fail. It would hurt the American people/economy if we went under. I say it hurts a of a lot more when the nation is called on to bear the piss poor fiscal management and unethical conduct of the hierarchy of these large companies.
Will it hurt if AIG goes down? Of course. However, I think it hurts more if the US government continues to prop irresponsible gambling and a y expectancy of being bailed out when the horrible decision making ripens.
Am I missing something? Do you agree or disagree?
I'm trying to gain prospective here from fellow interested political minds.
McCain said that the FUNDAMENTALS of the economy were sound...which from your post it looks like you agree.
IMO, Fannie/Freddie/AIG/Bear...none of them should have been bailed out. Let the weak companies die and the stronger, more efficient ones will take their place. Thats the fundamentals of capitalism.
Sure we'd all have to suck it up for a year or two until the markets worked themselves out, but that will be much better than continuing to use taxpayer money to bail them out. If this continues (gov't bailouts) we'll be on a path towards another great depression and not just a recession.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions