Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

cincybearcat

Indifference wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

Or just let people plan their own retirement...

But what happens to them when they don't?

We buy them iphones and cigarettes just like today!

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

At risk of derailing the thread, that is cool. I've started thinking about a vacation to Iceland...hopefully in 5-10 years.

i've already derailed it ... :oops:

let me know when you go and i will give you whatever info you may want ...

Prince Of Dorkness

cincybearcat wrote:

Both sides have gone to exclusively using scare tactics.

Yeah, I was actually thinking about. It's not really a "right" and "left" argument. What it IS is the financial sector... banks and the money launderers, the hedge funders, the stock brokers and pump-and-dumpers and the mega-rich who have managed to play both sides of the game.

The ones who still buy the big bag of bullshit that one day they're doing to strike it rich if they work hard enough want to speed up that process by making to poor poorer.

The ones who realize it's all just a game and want to just live with a modicum of happiness and peace who are told that they'll be tossed away once they're past their usefulness.

And meanwhile, the banks have conned people into buying houses they couldn't afford, encouraged them to rack up massive amounts of debt, bet against their own customers at every turn and we're so busy arguing about gay marriage and your sister's uterus and whose fault it is that you make $20,000 per year and owe $10,000 on your credit cards that you'll never pay off.

RW81233

For all this talk of free handouts and people leeching off the system and paying nothing back i call bullshit. I'm the oldest of 8. When it was just my two sisters and myself my mother stayed at home with us and my dad got laid off from a Union job (yeah that shit is possible despite what republicans might have you believe). So we had nothing, my dad worked on a neighbors farm to keep paying off our mortgage and we went on welfare. He would bounce back and forth at the Union job, until the company decided to outsource its labor effectively destroying its local labor force. He eventually landed a non-union job 2 hours south in a more expensive area to live. By that point there were 6 kids and my 2 parents living in a 2 bedroom 1 bath rental, we were on WiC, got free and reduced lunches, (though my parents refused to stay on food stamps after he got his job my mom started daycare for teachers to make ends meet on the food front), and got reduction on tuition to college. Just to let you know how glorious this leaching felt, we would often wear hand-me-downs from other kids at our high school (or for my younger sibs from older sibs) so that everyone knew we were relatively poor. Did we let that hold us down? Fuck no. Did it really fucking suck not only knowing that other people had it much more comfortable but also that they knew we were poor? Yes.

Regardless, for the oldest 6, 4 of us went to community college, and went on to earn our 2 and 4 year degrees. The other two went straight to state school and graduated in 4 years. 3 of us have gone on to earn our Masters, and I have a PhD. None of this would have happened without those government handouts some of you are bitching about. Where would we be without it? I don't even want to know, but we are all able to provide things for our children that our parents (leaches to some of you here) couldn't provide to us financially - even though they tried their best. Did some people at the welfare and wic office take from the system and give nothing back? Probably, but the type of living someone in that situation is going through for "free" isn't some fucking paradise island. All I know is that without welfare I probably wouldn't be here and I'll be damed if I take that option away from another human being because it's not my problem to worry about.

pandora

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Social Security Disability is very difficult to qualify for. I don't think it's known to have any meaningful level of fraud, except random cases that probably show up on Fox News. There are people with "diseases" who qualify for it who ought to be able to work (someone in my family has "diabetes" and receives SS disability, which is ridiculous). But it's not fraud, just a weird definition of "disability."

Disability fraud is much more prevalent in things like union and public pension plans.

And, I am a retirement plans actuary, and no, Social Security is not going bankrupt. This is right wing scare talk. When they say the "money will run out" that simply means a percentage of benefits (say 75%) could be paid as opposed to all the benefits. The problem is far from insurmountable and could easily be solved by a bipartisan commission, if such a thing existed. I would suggest a slight reduction in the COLA (cost of living allowance) and an increase in the Wage Base (pain from both sides).

Medicare is a different kind of monster, but I don't think handing a voucher to an old lady and saying "Go find your own insurance Grandma" is the way to fix it.

It's not as hard as you think... I know some people who have "qualified"
mostly due to mental illness issues. Can even be anxiety.

Did I say fail? I meant failing, sorry. In my opinion if Social Security can not maintain
a country full of those who need it and they must continue to raise taxes to sustain it
that is failing in my eyes.

I think Grandma might want to find her own insurance especially if that means
what doctor she can see.

RW81233

polaris_x wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

Polaris why isn't Iceland ahead of the U.S.?

i'm guessing because they are still recovering from the shambles of 2007 ... they deregulated the banking industry and they all failed ... if you go to the HDI scale ... they are ahead of the US when you factor in inequality ...

having just gotten back from iceland - the place is awesome ... everyone is friendly and smart ... yeah, there's only 300,000 people there and jobs are hard to find for some but everyone has food and access to education ... much easier when you aren't spending all that money bombing other countries ...

wait what was that? deregulating markets failed spectacularly and the president at the time resigned sighting his mistake in doing so? any of you randian's getting this?

Jason P

cincybearcat wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

having just gotten back from iceland - the place is awesome ...

At risk of derailing the thread, that is cool. I've started thinking about a vacation to Iceland...hopefully in 5-10 years.

I did a college project once where you have to pick a city and figure out an engineering project that would improve it. For whatever reason, I picked Reykjavic, Iceland. Pre-internet, it was very hard to find any info on Iceland other then they have volcanoes and special horses that have two extra gaits.

I figured the best project would be a giant ark that could take them somewhere warm to live.

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

I did a college project once where you have to pick a city and figure out an engineering project that would improve it. For whatever reason, I picked Reykjavic, Iceland. Pre-internet, it was very hard to find any info on Iceland other then they have volcanoes and special horses that have two extra gaits.

I figured the best project would be a giant ark that could take them somewhere warm to live.

college you say!? ... that sounds about right ...

it's actually not as cold as people think there ... the gulf stream moderates the climate ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

... why would the gov't have a goal of maximizing profits? ... that makes no sense ... sure, if you nationalize something like say oil or the rail system - maybe driving revenues is important but for the most part - gov't is supposed to deliver services efficiently ... again - i can see how you can look at the US gov't and say it's inefficient but you've got nothing to say that gov't is inherently inefficient ...

You aren't trying to understand the point, clearly.

Government is inherently inefficient. Name one "efficient" government? Just one.

I'm not saying government can't get things right on occasion. I'm also not saying government serves no purpose. What I am saying is they government tends to get stuck in the mud when they stretch, and government always tries to stretch if unconstrained. So, my main point is the larger the government gets, the more inefficient it becomes. I'd point to the terms bureaucracy, red-tape, etc.

polaris_x wrote:

GDP!?? ... well ... obviously, you know I wouldn't agree with that ... but even so ... looking at the gdp per capita statistics and you see similar countries at the top of the list ... look at all the countries ahead of the US ... all of scandinavia except iceland ...

Uh oh - here comes the "!??" nonsense again. Every time I read that I envision this guy slamming keys on his computer saying "oh really, eh...." all frustrated and whatnot. Might as well go all CAPS.

Well, I guess first we'd need to ensure we're looking at the correct numbers - which I don't think you are - you're probably looking at nominal. Most people would know you'd need to look at PPP. It's not perfect, but that's the only way to truly compare. If you do look at GDP per capita PPP - US is always in the top 10, regardless of who publishes the report. Smaller countries tend to dominate the top spots. These countries typically include - oil rich countries (Norway, Quatar, United Arab Emerits, Kuwait), tax havens (Luxembourg, Bermuda), and countries who lean free-market (Singapore, Hong Kong). But, US has the largest population by far of all the above. Yet, they're still in the top 10.

Not that I'm touting the US' horn. They used to be higher in these areas, and are falling fast.... as we move towards more big government.

mikepegg44

RW81233 wrote:

wait what was that? deregulating markets failed spectacularly and the president at the time resigned sighting his mistake in doing so? any of you randian's getting this?

:roll:

it was probably just that simple.

RW81233

it kinda was that simple...and this is what Paul Ryan will fight for just to stay on track.
http://www.econ.tcu.edu/quinn/crisis/De ... Crisis.pdf
Recent Economic Activity
A combination of economic factors over the early to mid-2000s led to Iceland’s
current economic and banking distress. In particular, access to easy credit, a boom in
domestic construction that fueled rapid economic growth, and a broad deregulation of
Iceland’s financial sector spurred the banks to expand rapidly abroad and eventually
played a role in the eventual financial collapse. Iceland benefitted from favorable global
financial conditions that reduced the cost of credit and a sweeping liberalization of its
domestic financial sector that spurred rapid growth and encouraged Iceland’s banks to
spread quickly throughout Europe.
In 2004, Iceland’s commercial banks increased their activity in the country’s
mortgage market by competing directly with the state-run Housing Financing Fund (HFF),
which had been the major provider of mortgage loans. In contrast to the Housing
Financing Fund, the commercial banks began offering loans with lower interest rates,
longer maturities, and a higher loan to value ratio. Also, the banks did not require a real
estate purchase as a precondition for a loan, which made it possible for homeowners to
refinance existing mortgages and to access the equity in their homes for consumption or
investment purposes. These measures spurred an expansion in credit and caused real
estate prices to soar. In addition, the improving economic conditions led to an expansion
in consumer spending which resulted in rising inflation and a larger trade deficit. As a
further stimulus to the economy, the Icelandic government reduced both direct and
indirect taxes, which provided further impetus to consumer spending.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

You aren't trying to understand the point, clearly.

Government is inherently inefficient. Name one "efficient" government? Just one.

I'm not saying government can't get things right on occasion. I'm also not saying government serves no purpose. What I am saying is they government tends to get stuck in the mud when they stretch, and government always tries to stretch if unconstrained. So, my main point is the larger the government gets, the more inefficient it becomes. I'd point to the terms bureaucracy, red-tape, etc.

norway

the size of gov't should have nothing to do with efficiency ... size should be related to services ... if the gov't is responsible for many services - then it will naturally grow ... same thing if they decide to nationalize something like oil or the banking sector ...

inlet13 wrote:

Uh oh - here comes the "!??" nonsense again. Every time I read that I envision this guy slamming keys on his computer saying "oh really, eh...." all frustrated and whatnot. Might as well go all CAPS.

Well, I guess first we'd need to ensure we're looking at the correct numbers - which I don't think you are - you're probably looking at nominal. Most people would know you'd need to look at PPP. It's not perfect, but that's the only way to truly compare. If you do look at GDP per capita PPP - US is always in the top 10, regardless of who publishes the report. Smaller countries tend to dominate the top spots. These countries typically include - oil rich countries (Norway, Quatar, United Arab Emerits, Kuwait), tax havens (Luxembourg, Bermuda), and countries who lean free-market (Singapore, Hong Kong). But, US has the largest population by far of all the above. Yet, they're still in the top 10.

Not that I'm touting the US' horn. They used to be higher in these areas, and are falling fast.... as we move towards more big government.

... sorry - i forgot you had a thing against this ... i didn't know it was poor forum etiquette - i don't really see it being brought up anywhere ... but hey ... whatever ... i'll try to remember this when discussing things with you ...

this is the list i looked at ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

glad you think tho that a list that has Qatar and UAE is the best to describe standard of living ... just must suck if you are a gay woman tho ...

Johnny Abruzzo

cincybearcat wrote:

I have a question about SS...

Does anyone really believe that a program enacted in 1935 will really serve the people of today? It seems to me that changes to these types of programs should occur, hell, should be mandated after a period of time. Instead we scare the bejesus out of people so they don;t want anything to change. All we do is increase the age when you can start receiving it.

It's needed today for the same reason it was needed in 1935. When people are too old to work they need help. Before Social Security old people worked until they collapsed or starved or just killed themselves.

Also, SS has been modified several times since 1935, last done under Reagan to solve the budget at the time (bipartisan). This is when the SSNRA was pushed back to 67 for my generation. It needs further moderation, obviously, as the projections show. But it does not need an extreme makeover, just a couple of tweaks that wouldn't be all that bad for anyone (see my suggestions from before in this thread).

pandora wrote:

I think Grandma might want to find her own insurance especially if that means what doctor she can see.

Who's trying to dictate Grandma's doctor? More Right Wing scare tactics. Show me where Grandma's choice of doctor is restricted, if you will.

My grandma doesn't even know what day of the week it is. How the hell is she going to pick an insurance plan?

Cliffy6745

RW81233 wrote:

For all this talk of free handouts and people leeching off the system and paying nothing back i call bullshit. I'm the oldest of 8. When it was just my two sisters and myself my mother stayed at home with us and my dad got laid off from a Union job (yeah that shit is possible despite what republicans might have you believe). So we had nothing, my dad worked on a neighbors farm to keep paying off our mortgage and we went on welfare. He would bounce back and forth at the Union job, until the company decided to outsource its labor effectively destroying its local labor force. He eventually landed a non-union job 2 hours south in a more expensive area to live. By that point there were 6 kids and my 2 parents living in a 2 bedroom 1 bath rental, we were on WiC, got free and reduced lunches, (though my parents refused to stay on food stamps after he got his job my mom started daycare for teachers to make ends meet on the food front), and got reduction on tuition to college. Just to let you know how glorious this leaching felt, we would often wear hand-me-downs from other kids at our high school (or for my younger sibs from older sibs) so that everyone knew we were relatively poor. Did we let that hold us down? Fuck no. Did it really fucking suck not only knowing that other people had it much more comfortable but also that they knew we were poor? Yes.

Regardless, for the oldest 6, 4 of us went to community college, and went on to earn our 2 and 4 year degrees. The other two went straight to state school and graduated in 4 years. 3 of us have gone on to earn our Masters, and I have a PhD. None of this would have happened without those government handouts some of you are bitching about. Where would we be without it? I don't even want to know, but we are all able to provide things for our children that our parents (leaches to some of you here) couldn't provide to us financially - even though they tried their best. Did some people at the welfare and wic office take from the system and give nothing back? Probably, but the type of living someone in that situation is going through for "free" isn't some fucking paradise island. All I know is that without welfare I probably wouldn't be here and I'll be damed if I take that option away from another human being because it's not my problem to worry about.

Wow. :thumbup:

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

glad you think tho that a list that has Qatar and UAE is the best to describe standard of living ... just must suck if you are a gay woman tho ...

It's a different culture and tradition, polaris_x. As Americans, we cannot judge.

edit:

Oops. I forgot you were Canadian! :oops: Judge away! :thumbup:

pandora

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

I beg to differ but I guess we can just keep raising taxes on the working class to cover
it anyways right?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/14/ ... e-thought/

a perfect example of right-wing scare tactics. That article was written by guys from The Motley Fool. They're a company that convinced people with little or no economic understanding that they could make a fortune on the stock market. They're kinda "pump and dumpers," if I understand... people who make money by convincing you that you're going to be broke at 60 if you don't buy their expensive service where they suggest which stocks you should buy.

The user Johnny Abruzzo here actually works with it every day and made a post that sums it up... the scare tactics you've fallen for are made up.

You need to stop being so gullible.

And you clueless tag of "keep raising taxes on the working class to cover it anyways right?" just shows that you weren't and aren't paying attention. We've been talking about lowering the tax burden on the middle class and making the mage-rich pay their fair share.

Please try to keep up.

pandora

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

I beg to differ but I guess we can just keep raising taxes on the working class to cover
it anyways right?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/14/ ... e-thought/

a perfect example of right-wing scare tactics. That article was written by guys from The Motley Fool. They're a company that convinced people with little or no economic understanding that they could make a fortune on the stock market. They're kinda "pump and dumpers," if I understand... people who make money by convincing you that you're going to be broke at 60 if you don't buy their expensive service where they suggest which stocks you should buy.

The user Johnny Abruzzo here actually works with it every day and made a post that sums it up... the scare tactics you've fallen for are made up.

You need to stop being so gullible.

And you clueless tag of "keep raising taxes on the working class to cover it anyways right?" just shows that you weren't and aren't paying attention. We've been talking about lowering the tax burden on the middle class and making the mage-rich pay their fair share.

Please try to keep up.

:P

I know what we are talking about ...
I am more inclined towards corporation receiving tax breaks
to help with unemployment issues.
This more so then lowering taxes on the middle class.
To continue to raise taxes on the working class though for years to come could be avoided by
just employing more people ...
and the govt doesn't have to pay unemployment benefits out either... win win.
And my unemployment insurance premium as an employer goes down. Less money
out of my pocket, more money to help business grow, helping the economy,
helping all people, providing more jobs.

As far as gullible there is two sides to every story.
I'm going with the one from the Budget Administration from last February.
It says more tax will be needed with less money benefits coming to those eligible.
Maybe I'm wrong but that sounds like a failure there to me.

RW81233

Cliffy6745 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

For all this talk of free handouts and people leeching off the system and paying nothing back i call bullshit. I'm the oldest of 8. When it was just my two sisters and myself my mother stayed at home with us and my dad got laid off from a Union job (yeah that shit is possible despite what republicans might have you believe). So we had nothing, my dad worked on a neighbors farm to keep paying off our mortgage and we went on welfare. He would bounce back and forth at the Union job, until the company decided to outsource its labor effectively destroying its local labor force. He eventually landed a non-union job 2 hours south in a more expensive area to live. By that point there were 6 kids and my 2 parents living in a 2 bedroom 1 bath rental, we were on WiC, got free and reduced lunches, (though my parents refused to stay on food stamps after he got his job my mom started daycare for teachers to make ends meet on the food front), and got reduction on tuition to college. Just to let you know how glorious this leaching felt, we would often wear hand-me-downs from other kids at our high school (or for my younger sibs from older sibs) so that everyone knew we were relatively poor. Did we let that hold us down? Fuck no. Did it really fucking suck not only knowing that other people had it much more comfortable but also that they knew we were poor? Yes.

Regardless, for the oldest 6, 4 of us went to community college, and went on to earn our 2 and 4 year degrees. The other two went straight to state school and graduated in 4 years. 3 of us have gone on to earn our Masters, and I have a PhD. None of this would have happened without those government handouts some of you are bitching about. Where would we be without it? I don't even want to know, but we are all able to provide things for our children that our parents (leaches to some of you here) couldn't provide to us financially - even though they tried their best. Did some people at the welfare and wic office take from the system and give nothing back? Probably, but the type of living someone in that situation is going through for "free" isn't some fucking paradise island. All I know is that without welfare I probably wouldn't be here and I'll be damed if I take that option away from another human being because it's not my problem to worry about.

Wow. :thumbup:

also thanks to everyone and their parents and grandparents for paying taxes so that I could get through school with no financial burden...oh wait after all those handouts for my leach parents I still owed 72k in school loans. Some free handout leach I turned out to be.

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

norway

Ha ha ha... they are the third highest oil exporter on earth. lol. Aren't you all against that stuff? Kinda seem hypocritical, eh?

polaris_x wrote:

the size of gov't should have nothing to do with efficiency ... size should be related to services ... if the gov't is responsible for many services - then it will naturally grow ... same thing if they decide to nationalize something like oil or the banking sector ...

Of course the size of a government has to do with efficiency, just like the size of a company would. Your latter point makes no sense. Like I said previously, government always grows unless there's constraints placed upon it.

polaris_x wrote:

... sorry - i forgot you had a thing against this ... i didn't know it was poor forum etiquette - i don't really see it being brought up anywhere ... but hey ... whatever ... i'll try to remember this when discussing things with you ...

this is the list i looked at ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

Yeh, like I said, you were looking at the wrong one - nominal. You should probably look at the one that comes up 1st in google, not the other one that comes up 2nd that fits your story better. Look at this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

polaris_x wrote:

glad you think tho that a list that has Qatar and UAE is the best to describe standard of living ... just must suck if you are a gay woman tho ...

The truth is the truth. They are very wealthy places, whether you like it or not. I know they are oil producers and muslim - which you seemingly don't like and I know they don't fit your vision of what the world should be like, but that holds absolutely no water in our discussion. That's kinda the point. They are oil producers/exporters - just like your beloved Norway.

pandora

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I have a question about SS...

Does anyone really believe that a program enacted in 1935 will really serve the people of today? It seems to me that changes to these types of programs should occur, hell, should be mandated after a period of time. Instead we scare the bejesus out of people so they don;t want anything to change. All we do is increase the age when you can start receiving it.

It's needed today for the same reason it was needed in 1935. When people are too old to work they need help. Before Social Security old people worked until they collapsed or starved or just killed themselves.

Also, SS has been modified several times since 1935, last done under Reagan to solve the budget at the time (bipartisan). This is when the SSNRA was pushed back to 67 for my generation. It needs further moderation, obviously, as the projections show. But it does not need an extreme makeover, just a couple of tweaks that wouldn't be all that bad for anyone (see my suggestions from before in this thread).

pandora wrote:

I think Grandma might want to find her own insurance especially if that means what doctor she can see.

Who's trying to dictate Grandma's doctor? More Right Wing scare tactics. Show me where Grandma's choice of doctor is restricted, if you will.

My grandma doesn't even know what day of the week it is. How the hell is she going to pick an insurance plan?

As you know Soc Security covers people of all ages not just our elderly.
I wonder what the stats are on that?

Maybe you could help her...