Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

leftcider · Feb 10, 2005, 11:57 pm

Privitization will cost at least $700 billion dollars to implement, because young workers who choose savings accounts will no longer be able to pay for the people taking from the system. Where is the government going to get the money? There are far cheaper and easier ways of solving this problem. Supporters of this measure: Where are you going to get this money and why spend $700 billion when there are far easier solutions (raise retirement age, tax wages after $90,000, etc.)? Our economic future is far more threatened by our massive debt than it is by minor problems in Social Security, and we should not worsen the debt problem when there is no real reason to.

The Dunedan · Feb 11, 2005, 01:20 am

I agree: That's why I favor getting the FedGov out of the retirement buisiness alltogether. Bush's so-called "reforms" are nothing but another variety of Socialized, legalized theft with good PR.

Mr.Vicchio · Feb 11, 2005, 01:22 am

Drop all welfare by the government. That would remove half the debt you worry about.

leftcider · Feb 11, 2005, 02:27 am

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

Drop all welfare by the government. That would remove half the debt you worry about.

Would you like to see poor mothers and their children starving without the help of food stamps? Or a downsized employ forced to live on the streets without the help of unemployment insurance? There are far better ways of improving our fiscal situation.

The Dunedan · Feb 11, 2005, 02:53 am

No, we want the end of Government-based theft.

Private charities operate with far less overhead, are much more efficiant and responsive, and they manage all this without STEALING anyone's money. If I was a burn victim, send my happy ass to a Shriner hospital or Duke Medical; keep me away from those assembly-line Gov-run hospitals, with which I have far more insurance.

As for unemployed Gov-o-crats: sounds good to me. They've been leeches living off of stolen money for too long. Let them have a taste of what they've inflicted upon others: poverty and ruin.

And as for your "better ways," let me guess: higher taxes, increased Socialization of everything, and more Gov. involvement, right? No thank you. I already lose 35% of my paycheck off the top to this sort of beurocratic banditry; no more.

Mr.Vicchio · Feb 11, 2005, 09:41 am

Quote:

Quote by: leftcider

Would you like to see poor mothers and their children starving without the help of food stamps? Or a downsized employ forced to live on the streets without the help of unemployment insurance? There are far better ways of improving our fiscal situation.

Yes. Make them starve, Show young people what happens when you don't take care of yourself.

You know there are no private charites that would help these people. No private organizations that would step up and assisst all those "mothers and children starving. Maybe if we have a few years of people dying in the streets because they no longer could leech off society instead of going out and becoming productive members, many of those problems would go away.

OR we could keep handing out money to people and stealing from those willling to work and BE productive members of society.

(see if you can note all the sarcasm in this post)

kingjust · Feb 11, 2005, 10:17 am

Start taxing churches, there is alot of money to gain from them. Paying tythes, what a crock. All they do is put a down payment for a maybach that you will see deliver the "pastor" in to the congregation. Bullshit, and we need support for the poor. IMO if not that means you are against every soldier, marine, navy, and airforce who come back from,... let's say IRAQ with missing limbs and wounds trying to get by or assistance or just getting back up on their feet. Please think before you speak, the poor isn't just single mothers who open their legs to much, the poor is much more diverse of a society then what you think.

castille · Feb 11, 2005, 10:32 am

Simple solution: Cut all benefits we give to politicians (ie. free house, free car, free telephone calls, free utilities, free travel, free vacations, free...well, everything).

We'll probably raise $10 billion. I remember, this Australia politician recently spent $50,000 taxpayers money on a social telephone call.

Of course the politicians will complain, but who cares? They complain all the time.

leftcider · Feb 11, 2005, 01:40 pm

Poor people aren't just people who don't work. There aren't enough jobs to go around in many areas, including mine. In my area, a friend of mine posted an online ad for a low-paying ticket taker job and got 100 responses, including Harvard grads. I have a roomate who moved to my city with a job lined up. The company decided to fill the job with someone else earlier without notifying him. He searched everyday all day for jobs for three weeks for anything he could find. He has skills and experience as well, but he could find nothing. He is still looking, but he got some food stamps to prevent from starving.

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

Yes. Make them starve, Show young people what happens when you don't take care of yourself.

You know there are no private charites that would help these people. No private organizations that would step up and assisst all those "mothers and children starving. Maybe if we have a few years of people dying in the streets because they no longer could leech off society instead of going out and becoming productive members, many of those problems would go away.

OR we could keep handing out money to people and stealing from those willling to work and BE productive members of society.

(see if you can note all the sarcasm in this post)

bishop · Feb 11, 2005, 02:03 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

Drop all welfare by the government. That would remove half the debt you worry about.

how about cutting foreign aid, since we should focus on AMERICA FIRST...

G. Adams · Feb 11, 2005, 02:36 pm

Try cutting welfare to the military-industrial complex.

caspian88 · Feb 11, 2005, 04:22 pm

Cut all welfare. Federal welfare is unconstitutional. Also, eliminate foreign aid (unconstitutional), stop messing around with other countries (stupid and costly), stop buggering about with education (unconstitutional), etc etc etc.

castille · Feb 11, 2005, 08:21 pm

I used to remember the US never gave welfare, never gave foreign aid, never gave corporate welfare.

In those days, aside from the tech problems (no computers, telephones, toilets), everything seemed fine.

donkrabbit · Feb 11, 2005, 11:15 pm

Quote:

Quote by: leftcider

Privitization will cost at least $700 billion dollars to implement, because young workers who choose savings accounts will no longer be able to pay for the people taking from the system. Where is the government going to get the money?

Oh, so now liberals are concerned about increases in Federal spending?

Anyway, refering to these transition costs as "costs" is misleading. They should be thought of as "opporunity costs," if anything;

"'Transition Costs' of Partially Privatizing Social Security" by Harry Binswanger.

bishop · Feb 11, 2005, 11:40 pm

transition costs, opportunity costs.. makes no difference - they're all costs. one way or another, you either have to pay for the reform, or pay for the system as-is... the question is HOW do you pay those costs? do you borrow today so that future generations can pay it back through their noses, or do you do something like raise the tax cap?

the reality is that it costs money to reform huge institutions like social security. bush wants to pretend that he can purchase everything on credit, and he's apparently getting away with it. a majority voted for him after all, they must not mind all that much.

btw... do you know anything about the people in his administration that are the driving forces behind his social security agenda?

donkrabbit · Feb 12, 2005, 12:07 am

Quote:

Quote by: bishop

transition costs, opportunity costs.. makes no difference - they're all costs.

No, there's a big difference between costs and opportunity costs. In this case, the opportunity costs involved in the transition (the only costs involved) involve the government bringing in less revenue than they would have if Social Security were not partially-privatized. This isn't a bad thing. It doesn't mean that the government owes anybody money.

Did you read the article that I linked to? I can't help but feel that I'm merely repeating what was written in that article.

bishop · Feb 12, 2005, 12:35 am

yes, i read it and it wasn't persuasive imo since it's clearly biased against touching taxes. it advocates that some $2 trillion in new debt is better than $30+ trillion... while numerically better, $2 trillion in new debt is still unacceptable, and is an unnecessary burden to have to pay - especially when you don't need to borrow anything to reform the system. i want the system reformed, actually i want it abolished. but if you're going to keep it and try to fix it, do it in a fiscally responsible manner.

Scribbler1 · Feb 12, 2005, 11:05 am

Quote:

Quote by: castille

I used to remember the US never gave welfare, never gave foreign aid, never gave corporate welfare.

In those days, aside from the tech problems (no computers, telephones, toilets), everything seemed fine.

Problems with toilets? How far back does your memory GO anyway?

Scribbler1 · Feb 12, 2005, 11:25 am

As for the constant drone of "end SS", "end SS" I keep hearing, I can't believe there are stiil intelligent Americans with that knee-jerk "all or nothing" mindset. It always seems that pork is not a problem with right-wingers, only "liberal" pork.

After a lifetime of hearing the term "christian charity" I can't hear the word "charity" without automatically associating it with the usually unspoken "christian" as well. Now it seems the right-wing, which wants us to think they have an exclusive franchise on Christianity and morality, wants to eliminate SS because it is a government sponsored "charity". Aside from the fact that it is NOT a charity, their attitude is decidedly unchristian in the extreme. I can picture the so-called Christians standing at the pearly gates watching St. Peter go over the old clipboard and ask, "hey Bud, didn't you say 'let them starve' a few years back?"
"Well, yeah I did but...er...um"
"Next!"

And for those why do not profess to be Christians but want to completely drop SS on the grounds that it is welfare, while you may not directly pay for your own benefits it is still NOT welfare. You don't pay for your own because you are not retired. But the next guy pays for you and the one after pays for him. It's a FUND and not a savings account. When you whine about your tax money going to anyone, just TRY and figure where YOUR part of the fund went.
We MUST clean uo SS and take out some of these unnecessary add-ons, but if the right-wing is so outraged about THEIR hard-earned tax dollars going to welfare they might want to focus on other government giveaways that benefit only a few instead of a necessary and fixable program which benefits a LOT of people.

bishop · Feb 12, 2005, 12:29 pm

that's what happens when you get scum like pat robertson and george bush talking christian morals... in 1985-86, robertson attacked social security with his "700 club".

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/wri...1228_ss_05.htm

and around that time, george schultz, the fascist that he is (and ardent pinochet supporter), seemed to join forces with the "christian" right, since he wanted to do things like eliminate the minimum wage and privatize social security. schultz also had a close relationship to a certain jose pinera, bush's architect of the "ownership society", who served as pinochet's labor minister then mining minister for about 20 years. schultz liked him and wanted to know how he got those policies passed (hint: they killed the dissidents).

talk about dealing with the devil.

Feb 10, 2005, 11:57 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
leftcider Lord Teh Location: Seattlul, WA Posts: 486	To Social Security Privatization Supporters Privitization will cost at least $700 billion dollars to implement, because young workers who choose savings accounts will no longer be able to pay for the people taking from the system. Where is the government going to get the money? There are far cheaper and easier ways of solving this problem. Supporters of this measure: Where are you going to get this money and why spend $700 billion when there are far easier solutions (raise retirement age, tax wages after $90,000, etc.)? Our economic future is far more threatened by our massive debt than it is by minor problems in Social Security, and we should not worsen the debt problem when there is no real reason to.

Feb 11, 2005, 01:22 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	Drop all welfare by the government. That would remove half the debt you worry about. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Feb 11, 2005, 10:32 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Simple solution: Cut all benefits we give to politicians (ie. free house, free car, free telephone calls, free utilities, free travel, free vacations, free...well, everything). We'll probably raise $10 billion. I remember, this Australia politician recently spent $50,000 taxpayers money on a social telephone call. Of course the politicians will complain, but who cares? They complain all the time. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 11, 2005, 02:36 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Try cutting welfare to the military-industrial complex. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Feb 11, 2005, 08:21 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	I used to remember the US never gave welfare, never gave foreign aid, never gave corporate welfare. In those days, aside from the tech problems (no computers, telephones, toilets), everything seemed fine. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 11, 2005, 01:20 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 925	I agree: That's why I favor getting the FedGov out of the retirement buisiness alltogether. Bush's so-called "reforms" are nothing but another variety of Socialized, legalized theft with good PR.

Feb 11, 2005, 02:53 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 925	No, we want the end of Government-based theft. Private charities operate with far less overhead, are much more efficiant and responsive, and they manage all this without STEALING anyone's money. If I was a burn victim, send my happy ass to a Shriner hospital or Duke Medical; keep me away from those assembly-line Gov-run hospitals, with which I have far more insurance. As for unemployed Gov-o-crats: sounds good to me. They've been leeches living off of stolen money for too long. Let them have a taste of what they've inflicted upon others: poverty and ruin. And as for your "better ways," let me guess: higher taxes, increased Socialization of everything, and more Gov. involvement, right? No thank you. I already lose 35% of my paycheck off the top to this sort of beurocratic banditry; no more.

Feb 11, 2005, 10:17 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
kingjust Igneous Magma Posts: 336	Start taxing churches, there is alot of money to gain from them. Paying tythes, what a crock. All they do is put a down payment for a maybach that you will see deliver the "pastor" in to the congregation. Bullshit, and we need support for the poor. IMO if not that means you are against every soldier, marine, navy, and airforce who come back from,... let's say IRAQ with missing limbs and wounds trying to get by or assistance or just getting back up on their feet. Please think before you speak, the poor isn't just single mothers who open their legs to much, the poor is much more diverse of a society then what you think.

Feb 11, 2005, 04:22 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
caspian88 Molten Ash Posts: 85	Cut all welfare. Federal welfare is unconstitutional. Also, eliminate foreign aid (unconstitutional), stop messing around with other countries (stupid and costly), stop buggering about with education (unconstitutional), etc etc etc.

Feb 11, 2005, 11:40 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	transition costs, opportunity costs.. makes no difference - they're all costs. one way or another, you either have to pay for the reform, or pay for the system as-is... the question is HOW do you pay those costs? do you borrow today so that future generations can pay it back through their noses, or do you do something like raise the tax cap? the reality is that it costs money to reform huge institutions like social security. bush wants to pretend that he can purchase everything on credit, and he's apparently getting away with it. a majority voted for him after all, they must not mind all that much. btw... do you know anything about the people in his administration that are the driving forces behind his social security agenda?

Feb 12, 2005, 12:35 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	yes, i read it and it wasn't persuasive imo since it's clearly biased against touching taxes. it advocates that some $2 trillion in new debt is better than $30+ trillion... while numerically better, $2 trillion in new debt is still unacceptable, and is an unnecessary burden to have to pay - especially when you don't need to borrow anything to reform the system. i want the system reformed, actually i want it abolished. but if you're going to keep it and try to fix it, do it in a fiscally responsible manner.

Feb 12, 2005, 11:25 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	As for the constant drone of "end SS", "end SS" I keep hearing, I can't believe there are stiil intelligent Americans with that knee-jerk "all or nothing" mindset. It always seems that pork is not a problem with right-wingers, only "liberal" pork. After a lifetime of hearing the term "christian charity" I can't hear the word "charity" without automatically associating it with the usually unspoken "christian" as well. Now it seems the right-wing, which wants us to think they have an exclusive franchise on Christianity and morality, wants to eliminate SS because it is a government sponsored "charity". Aside from the fact that it is NOT a charity, their attitude is decidedly unchristian in the extreme. I can picture the so-called Christians standing at the pearly gates watching St. Peter go over the old clipboard and ask, "hey Bud, didn't you say 'let them starve' a few years back?" "Well, yeah I did but...er...um" "Next!" And for those why do not profess to be Christians but want to completely drop SS on the grounds that it is welfare, while you may not directly pay for your own benefits it is still NOT welfare. You don't pay for your own because you are not retired. But the next guy pays for you and the one after pays for him. It's a FUND and not a savings account. When you whine about your tax money going to anyone, just TRY and figure where YOUR part of the fund went. We MUST clean uo SS and take out some of these unnecessary add-ons, but if the right-wing is so outraged about THEIR hard-earned tax dollars going to welfare they might want to focus on other government giveaways that benefit only a few instead of a necessary and fixable program which benefits a LOT of people.

Feb 12, 2005, 12:29 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	that's what happens when you get scum like pat robertson and george bush talking christian morals... in 1985-86, robertson attacked social security with his "700 club". http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/wri...1228_ss_05.htm and around that time, george schultz, the fascist that he is (and ardent pinochet supporter), seemed to join forces with the "christian" right, since he wanted to do things like eliminate the minimum wage and privatize social security. schultz also had a close relationship to a certain jose pinera, bush's architect of the "ownership society", who served as pinochet's labor minister then mining minister for about 20 years. schultz liked him and wanted to know how he got those policies passed (hint: they killed the dissidents). talk about dealing with the devil.