Constitution Revolution: 2012

[thegreekdog]

For what it's worth, my firm's analysts are saying that both of these things may happen (the cuts in benefits more likely than the applicabilty of payroll taxes to all earnings).

[BigBallinStalin]

First off, let's make it clear that Social Security makes money for the government. But I disagree with the cap on Social Security taxes from both a numbers and a morality standpoint. To have a cap on it is essentially telling the poor and middle class to aid the poor. Extending Social Security taxes to all Americans would put more money in our government's wallet - which could then be passed on to the taxpayers' wallets, something you would support for sure. On top of that, the 2.5 trillion dollar fund backing Social Security up can be used for better purposes like the debt instead of just sitting there.

Social Security makes money for the government as long as more people are paying into the system then people receiving benefits from the system. As of last year, that was no longer the case, therefore the program is now on a decline.

So the change I proposed is moot? If anything the extra revenue is needed even more now.

need cuts, at least meet half way

and further privatization

[GreecePwns]

Is the above plan not a decent attempt at compromise? Which do you privatize first Social Security or Medicare and why?

Social Security - which is not a ponzi scheme, since every time the Administration has asked for funds previously promised by the government the government has honored their promises - and Medicare are the two biggest reasons poverty of those 65 and older decreased from 35 percent to less than 10 in the last sixty years.

[Phatscotty]

Is the above plan not a decent attempt at compromise? Which do you privatize first Social Security or Medicare and why?

Social Security - which is not a ponzi scheme, since every time the Administration has asked for funds previously promised by the government the government has honored their promises - and Medicare are the two biggest reasons poverty of those 65 and older decreased from 35 percent to less than 10 in the last sixty years.

while simultaneously the reason health insurance, premiums, and costs have risen so high that many people working can't not even afford the 10-20% that is their responsibility.

This is our social security

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTCzSw0loJc

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and it is no coincidence that social security was being set up only a few years after the first Ponzi scheme...

Those big-wigs in the gov't sure were impressed! Heck, what if we made it legal for us to do! Socialist wet-dream to redistribute the wealth.


Charles Ponzi

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases. While the system eventually will collapse under its own weight, the example of Bernard Madoff's investment scandal demonstrates the ability of a Ponzi scheme to delude both individual and institutional investors as well as securities authorities for long periods.

his operation took in so much money that it was the first to become known throughout the United States. Knowingly entering a Ponzi scheme, even at the last round of the scheme, can be rational economically if there is a reasonable expectation that government or other deep pockets will bail out those participating in the Ponzi scheme.

The catch is that at some point one of these things will happen:

1. The promoter will vanish, taking all the remaining investment money (minus the payouts to investors) with him or her. (USA bankruptcy)
2. The scheme will begin to collapse under its own weight as the investment slows and the promoter starts having problems paying the promised returns (the higher the returns, the greater the risk of the Ponzi scheme collapsing). Such liquidity crises often trigger panics, as more people start asking for their money, similar to a bank run. (sound familiar? today 3 workers support each retiree, by 2020 it will be 1.9!)
3. External market forces, such as a sharp decline in the economy (e.g. Madoff and the market downturn of 2008), cause many investors to withdraw part or all of their funds; not necessarily due to loss of confidence in the investment, but simply due to underlying market fundamentals. In the case of Madoff, the fund could no longer appear normal after investors tried to withdraw $7 billion from the firm in late 2008 as part of the major worldwide market downturn affecting all investments. (The economy has caused a sharp decline in SS tax generation)

[GreecePwns]

Is the above plan not a decent attempt at compromise? Which do you privatize first Social Security or Medicare and why?

Social Security - which is not a ponzi scheme, since every time the Administration has asked for funds previously promised by the government the government has honored their promises - and Medicare are the two biggest reasons poverty of those 65 and older decreased from 35 percent to less than 10 in the last sixty years.

while simultaneously the reason health insurance, premiums, and costs have risen so high that many people working can't not even afford the 10-20% that is their responsibility.

This is our social security

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTCzSw0loJc

Why is it that these so-called Ponzi schemes seem to work well in so called "nanny states" where the happiest people in the world reside?

The easier way to lower health insurance costs is to have Medicare for all citizens. In all nations with nationalized health insurance, costs as a % of GDP is just over half of ours. Medicare is by nature a better system for consumers than for-profit insurance because of the significantly lower profit margins (30% for private vs. 4 for Medicare). Medicare costs are higher* than expected when Medicare was formed because people are living longer than expected. It's clear the competition approach has failed to keep costs down in the healthcare industry.

*I've seen the argument on Fox that Medicare's expenses are too high, but doctor's reimbursement rates are too low. Contradiction much?

The simplistic self-mutilating across the board cuts like you proposed or "free market" approach that always seems to get us in these sorts of messes in the first place won't work here. Do you realize the simple "meet halfway solution" I proposed for social security is almost guaranteed to profit for 30 years and break even after 75 years?

[Phatscotty]

Is the above plan not a decent attempt at compromise? Which do you privatize first Social Security or Medicare and why?

Social Security - which is not a ponzi scheme, since every time the Administration has asked for funds previously promised by the government the government has honored their promises - and Medicare are the two biggest reasons poverty of those 65 and older decreased from 35 percent to less than 10 in the last sixty years.

while simultaneously the reason health insurance, premiums, and costs have risen so high that many people working can't not even afford the 10-20% that is their responsibility.

This is our social security

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTCzSw0loJc

The easier way to lower health insurance costs is to have Medicare for all citizens. In all nations with nationalized health insurance, costs as a % of GDP is just over half of ours. Medicare is by nature a better system for consumers than for-profit insurance because of the significantly lower profit margins (30% for private vs. 4 for Medicare). Medicare costs are higher* than expected when Medicare was formed because people are living longer than expected. It's clear the competition approach has failed to keep costs down in the healthcare industry.

*I've seen the argument on Fox that Medicare's expenses are too high, but doctor's reimbursement rates are too low. Contradiction much?

We can't trust our politicians to do the right thing. They spend up all the money and then borrow to pay out what it was supposed to pay in the first place, with interest. There's a better way. It's starts with better gov't and better people. And do not for one minute forget about the consumers ourselves. Abusing the system, frivolous malpractice, malpractice insurance is what kills a lot of doctors, more competition/free-market principles. less gov't intervention in health care.

We create an account with the name "We the people" on it and it cannot be spent. instead we create low interest loans with strict guidelines, and we create businesses, and jobs, and more taxes, even at lower rates..... I just had a utopia moment!

[GreecePwns]

Is the above plan not a decent attempt at compromise? Which do you privatize first Social Security or Medicare and why?

Social Security - which is not a ponzi scheme, since every time the Administration has asked for funds previously promised by the government the government has honored their promises - and Medicare are the two biggest reasons poverty of those 65 and older decreased from 35 percent to less than 10 in the last sixty years.

while simultaneously the reason health insurance, premiums, and costs have risen so high that many people working can't not even afford the 10-20% that is their responsibility.

This is our social security

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTCzSw0loJc

The easier way to lower health insurance costs is to have Medicare for all citizens. In all nations with nationalized health insurance, costs as a % of GDP is just over half of ours. Medicare is by nature a better system for consumers than for-profit insurance because of the significantly lower profit margins (30% for private vs. 4 for Medicare). Medicare costs are higher* than expected when Medicare was formed because people are living longer than expected. It's clear the competition approach has failed to keep costs down in the healthcare industry.

*I've seen the argument on Fox that Medicare's expenses are too high, but doctor's reimbursement rates are too low. Contradiction much?

We can't trust our politicians to do the right thing. They spend up all the money and then borrow to pay out what it was supposed to pay in the first place, with interest. There's a better way. It's starts with better gov't and better people. And do not for one minute forget about the consumers ourselves. Abusing the system, frivolous malpractice, malpractice insurance is what kills a lot of doctors, more competition/free-market principles. less gov't intervention in health care.

We create an account with the name "We the people" on it and it cannot be spent. instead we create low interest loans with strict guidelines, and we create businesses, and jobs, and more taxes, even at lower rates..... I just had a utopia moment!

The key to a trustworthy government is getting the money out of elections with complete public financing of campaigns. Money should not be considered a form of speech as long as one person can outspend the other (and therefore "speak louder" than another). This is the biggest way to get politicians to act on their conscience.

I do believe in tort reform and IIRC it was included in the bill that passed last year. I also believe in earmark bans. If a state/district wants to make something you think would bring more people to your area make it with your own money or don't argue for states' rights so much.

[Falkomagno]

[

We can't trust our politicians to do the right thing....

No, trust in profit seekers entrepreneurs instead.

But hey, you EXPECT that the politicians act according their government plan, ther electoral promises, and therefore, in pro of your benefit as citizen.

You don't expect the same of a private entrepreneur, since there is not legal bonding of private industry to act in benefit of general society, besides the obvious regulations that they have to comply (notice that regulations to private companies are usually aimed to decreased harm to society inflicted by private sector -as poisoning for tobacco, or pollutant emission and so on-, rather that to directly benefice people). Politicians at least have a legal bond with the electorate.

Your argument is failed. GP is right.

[GreecePwns]

The key to a trustworthy government is getting the money out of elections with complete public financing of campaigns. Money should not be considered a form of speech as long as one person can outspend the other (and therefore "speak louder" than another). This is the biggest way to get politicians to act on their conscience.

I really cannot stress this enough without obnoxious caps + bold + underline + italics + and bright colors.

[Aradhus]

The key to a trustworthy government is getting the money out of elections with complete public financing of campaigns. Money should not be considered a form of speech as long as one person can outspend the other (and therefore "speak louder" than another). This is the biggest way to get politicians to act on their conscience.

I really cannot stress this enough without obnoxious caps + bold + underline + italics + and bright colors.

You can stress it all day long pal, some people (around here) are just impervious to facts, logic, and reasoning.

[Phatscotty]

[

We can't trust our politicians to do the right thing....

No, trust in profit seekers entrepreneurs instead.

But hey, you EXPECT that the politicians act according their government plan, ther electoral promises, and therefore, in pro of your benefit as citizen.

You don't expect the same of a private entrepreneur, since there is not legal bonding of private industry to act in benefit of general society, besides the obvious regulations that they have to comply (notice that regulations to private companies are usually aimed to decreased harm to society inflicted by private sector -as poisoning for tobacco, or pollutant emission and so on-, rather that to directly benefice people). Politicians at least have a legal bond with the electorate.

Your argument is failed. GP is right.

Dude, all I stand on with that statement is that our politicians have repeatedly done the wrong thing. Kicking the can down the road for our kids to get stuck with is fucking horrible. Tell me where I am wrong with that how about, rather than go on about my supposed position and why it's supposedly failed....wut? double wut!

Please don't just take the opposite of something I'm saying and define that as my position.

[GreecePwns]

With complete public campaign finance government is more accountable and less (for lack of a better word) bought. Instead you choose to throw your trust behind the businesses that have no legal reasons not to rape you financially in the so-called "free market."

I won't be surprised if this doesn't get an answer. It takes strength to admit you've lost.

[neanderpaul14]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would go a long way toward helping our budget. Not only would the tax revenues be phenomenal, but the money saved on that part of the war on drugs would be tremendous.

Not to mention if this happened I could actually try smoking the stuff for the first time.

[GreecePwns]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would go a long way toward helping our budget. Not only would the tax revenues be phenomenal, but the money saved on that part of the war on drugs would be tremendous.

Not to mention if this happened I could actually try smoking the stuff for the first time.

Add in the lowered expenses when it comes to prisons, which could then be passed onto all of us or used to help maybe bring about a surplus.

[Falkomagno]

[

We can't trust our politicians to do the right thing....

No, trust in profit seekers entrepreneurs instead.

But hey, you EXPECT that the politicians act according their government plan, ther electoral promises, and therefore, in pro of your benefit as citizen.

You don't expect the same of a private entrepreneur, since there is not legal bonding of private industry to act in benefit of general society, besides the obvious regulations that they have to comply (notice that regulations to private companies are usually aimed to decreased harm to society inflicted by private sector -as poisoning for tobacco, or pollutant emission and so on-, rather that to directly benefice people). Politicians at least have a legal bond with the electorate.

Your argument is failed. GP is right.

Dude, all I stand on with that statement is that our politicians have repeatedly done the wrong thing. Kicking the can down the road for our kids to get stuck with is fucking horrible. Tell me where I am wrong with that how about, rather than go on about my supposed position and why it's supposedly failed....wut? double wut!

Please don't just take the opposite of something I'm saying and define that as my position.

Yeah, politicians have been doing wrong. From ancient times from country to country. but replace them in the health administration by private managers is even worst. T

Free market without regulation is unfair. Just think in this. All the healthcare is in private hands, with zero regulation or participation of the public sector. Somebody simply doesn't have the money, so can not afford to get treated nor cured, so, the destiny of that people, even if there is available medical technology, doctors, medicines and so on, is to dead in the street if get seriously sick. That happens in most of the world actually, but to think that it can happen in USA it doesn't' make any sense. USA is the world largest economy of the world undoubtedly. USA is not a third world country to allow such situation.

Is the inner contradiction of the capitalism, when the dog of Rockefeller drinks the milk of a starving child. I'm not saying that public health care is profitable itself (it shouldn't be in first place), it's just the right thing to do

[GreecePwns]

No. This is socialism* and therefore wrong.**

*Protip: no it isn't.
**Protip: no it isn't.

[neanderpaul14]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would go a long way toward helping our budget. Not only would the tax revenues be phenomenal, but the money saved on that part of the war on drugs would be tremendous.

Not to mention if this happened I could actually try smoking the stuff for the first time.

Add in the lowered expenses when it comes to prisons, which could then be passed onto all of us or used to help maybe bring about a surplus.

Okay then pass it this way.

[Phatscotty]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would go a long way toward helping our budget. Not only would the tax revenues be phenomenal, but the money saved on that part of the war on drugs would be tremendous.

Not to mention if this happened I could actually try smoking the stuff for the first time.

I can guarantee you the agency, the building, with employees and full bennies will eat up most of that predicted revenue, or at least a large part. Oh and it would create a lot of jobs too, but not the kind we need.

I propose people should be able to grow it themselves. Tax the seeds or something (as if sales tax isn't enough). Keep the gov't out of it. We don't need to become a country dependent on gambling and drug revenues. If the gov't runs the dope game, expect prices to go up, supply and quality go down. In the end, nothing changes except more power to an already bloated gov't and less money in peoples pockets.

legalization is a lose lose

You can already get it for very cheap pretty much anywhere. Don't fucking ruin it!!!

[Phatscotty]

With complete public campaign finance government is more accountable and less (for lack of a better word) bought. Instead you choose to throw your trust behind the businesses that have no legal reasons not to rape you financially in the so-called "free market."

I won't be surprised if this doesn't get an answer. It takes strength to admit you've lost.

I do not and would not do business with, nor have I ever been raped by any businesses.

I am raped once a week by the gov't, and I'm pretty sure i just drive on the roads...

Don't know how you claim victory with a highly idealistic yet unrealistic scenario of complete public campaign finance. We need better people first. To do it now would be to build a foundation on a pile of sand.

[Juan_Bottom]

I do not and would not do business with, nor have I ever been raped by any businesses.

That doesn't sound right. What about Wal*Mart?
The Cheese Company that I work for charged $86.00 a pound for the "hand crafted" Goat Cheese that I make. I make just over $10 an hour to produce it. Cost after production and material to make the cheese, is about $10.50 a pound. I make about 5,000 lbs a day. And my raise this year has been postponed because of loses at other factories.* The consumer and the employee both get raped. Someone tried to unionize the employees a few years back, but the only people to show up to his "secret meeting" were some thugs from Chicago and he doesn't work here anymore.

And if you ever bought a house through a relater, bank, or broker, you were raped and didn't even know it.


*my factory made a profit of millions

[GreecePwns]

You're the one to claimed to have a utopia moment and claimed your "non-utopia" scenarios as highly unrealistic. The concept of clean elections has the endorsements of several current Senators, House members and the President. The idea has gotten out of committee in House and Senate while private social security has not to the best of my knowledge.

Whether or not these are the right people or not (and we can both agree they are not), their real and true opinions would be revealed with this and our politicians would be more accountable. Then you can see whether they really are the right people or not (which by having their seats being bought they all are not to me, especially the Senate).

If that is passed, choosing to trust those who have no legal obligation to serve you over those who do is rather blind of you.

[Phatscotty]

[

We can't trust our politicians to do the right thing....

No, trust in profit seekers entrepreneurs instead.

But hey, you EXPECT that the politicians act according their government plan, ther electoral promises, and therefore, in pro of your benefit as citizen.

You don't expect the same of a private entrepreneur, since there is not legal bonding of private industry to act in benefit of general society, besides the obvious regulations that they have to comply (notice that regulations to private companies are usually aimed to decreased harm to society inflicted by private sector -as poisoning for tobacco, or pollutant emission and so on-, rather that to directly benefice people). Politicians at least have a legal bond with the electorate.

Your argument is failed. GP is right.

Dude, all I stand on with that statement is that our politicians have repeatedly done the wrong thing. Kicking the can down the road for our kids to get stuck with is fucking horrible. Tell me where I am wrong with that how about, rather than go on about my supposed position and why it's supposedly failed....wut? double wut!

Please don't just take the opposite of something I'm saying and define that as my position.

Yeah, politicians have been doing wrong. From ancient times from country to country. but replace them in the health administration by private managers is even worst. T

Free market without regulation is unfair. Just think in this. All the healthcare is in private hands, with zero regulation or participation of the public sector. Somebody simply doesn't have the money, so can not afford to get treated nor cured, so, the destiny of that people, even if there is available medical technology, doctors, medicines and so on, is to dead in the street if get seriously sick. That happens in most of the world actually, but to think that it can happen in USA it doesn't' make any sense. USA is the world largest economy of the world undoubtedly. USA is not a third world country to allow such situation.

Is the inner contradiction of the capitalism, when the dog of Rockefeller drinks the milk of a starving child. I'm not saying that public health care is profitable itself (it shouldn't be in first place), it's just the right thing to do

If your argument is life isn't fair, I can respect that. However, taking someone elses shit is wrong also. People got along for thousands of years without todays demands. We get the cards we are dealt. Someone who has done better in life should be able to have the right to get the best care their money can buy. Someone who has used drugs all their life and smokes and never excersized and made bad decisions still have to suffer the consequences, not get a bailout, and not at someone elses expense! I understand that there is another level of better drugs or an operation, but that is VERY expensive. Most of the time health care can not cure someone, it only helps them a little bit more. Despite all of our advances, we still rely on a system of burn, cut, and poison. It just seems to me like the results of your demands is going to end up "well, he gets better kinds of cuts than he would have, or he gets a stronger poison than before, etc."

It really doesn't change anything, it only makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. We have a major problem with healthcare, and there are too many reasons as to why. too many people to blame. Too much gov't intervention to reverse course, as twas intended. The answer has always been a gov't takeover. Allow me to stand for free market principles would ya?

I would not support total privitization, only reduced gov't intervention. I do support hospitals and burn centers with my dues which offer state of the art care to children, free of charge. You just need to get here and if you can't we will probably find a way for you. This is only one of many charity hospitals in the USA. We have done better and we can do better.

bottom line is, people are just lazy and want shit handed to them, and they go and take it through the voting process. This is another Looter Society project. I oppose

We the people who carry the water are starting to get pissed that people who are waiting for delivery of the water always drink it all before we can get a sip. And now it seems like the people waiting for the water are getting bolder. They don't even care I haven't had any water to drink, even though I am the one doing the work. They are telling me to run faster, and to get my ass to the river because they are thirsty, calling me names and throwing shit at me! Then when I get back with the second load of water, someone thinks it's cool to dump it over their head because it's a hot day, and with all this water, well he shouldn't have to feel so hot! Oh no though he can not bring his own ass to the river for a swim. He doesn't feel like it. It's too far. He doesnt want to walk to the river even one time, even though I am making my third trip (for the 3 jobs I have)

[GreecePwns]

Oh man, the list of corporations who would looooove you as their PR guy is nearly endless. I will ignore your examples, because it assumes everyone who is rich worked to become rich and everyone who isn't is lazy. How sad that it has become acceptable to assume this.

You act as if liberals only are motivated by taking someones shit. Libertarians like to look to the founding fathers. Well was it Thomas Jefferson proposed the idea that freedom should only be preserved until that freedom infringes that of others?

By making people invest their Social Security money, you are taking away the freedom of economic security by putting their fates in the hands of an out-of-control business cycle and therefore are risking your children's future. I oppose such a choice with no compromise other than to keep the current system solvent. I have presented a way to do that. I met halfway like you asked and that isn't enough for you.

A person's freedom of choice in health care is an obvious drain on the economy of the nation as a whole as evidenced by the costs of our current system compared to those of every developed nation and that which we have had for quite a long time. I oppose such a choice and won't ever waver to a system that treats health care as a commodity. People's ability to be treated for illness are not something to be on the market, especially when those who are most sick (not necessarily by choice) are treated the worst.

I really tried to be civil as much as possible. But when presented with the facts you've retreated to speculation and the party line that the poor are just lazy and just look like a corporate shill now. The free market has throughout history expanded gaps between the rich and the poor, which almost always leads to a recession or depression. Then the solution is to lower taxes on the rich so money could "trickle-down" despite the fact that the lower classes spend much more percent of hteir money while the rich just have it sitting there. This is another drain on the economy and therefore on people's freedom to have that you so champion. It really is no coincedence that the nations with the largest safety net programs run balanced budgets or surpluses and just happen to also have the happiest people on earth.

Don't let your emotions get in the way of facts.

[neanderpaul14]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would go a long way toward helping our budget. Not only would the tax revenues be phenomenal, but the money saved on that part of the war on drugs would be tremendous.

Not to mention if this happened I could actually try smoking the stuff for the first time.

I can guarantee you the agency, the building, with employees and full bennies will eat up most of that predicted revenue, or at least a large part. Oh and it would create a lot of jobs too, but not the kind we need.

I propose people should be able to grow it themselves. Tax the seeds or something (as if sales tax isn't enough). Keep the gov't out of it. We don't need to become a country dependent on gambling and drug revenues. If the gov't runs the dope game, expect prices to go up, supply and quality go down. In the end, nothing changes except more power to an already bloated gov't and less money in peoples pockets.

legalization is a lose lose

You can already get it for very cheap pretty much anywhere. Don't fucking ruin it!!!

I believe the price would go down,.....can anyone from Oakland log in here and tell us how the prices of medicinal ganj compare to the open market???

Also back to what I was saying before..........pass that OVER HERE.........NOW........toke toke give.

[spurgistan]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would go a long way toward helping our budget. Not only would the tax revenues be phenomenal, but the money saved on that part of the war on drugs would be tremendous.

Not to mention if this happened I could actually try smoking the stuff for the first time.

I can guarantee you the agency, the building, with employees and full bennies will eat up most of that predicted revenue, or at least a large part. Oh and it would create a lot of jobs too, but not the kind we need.

I propose people should be able to grow it themselves. Tax the seeds or something (as if sales tax isn't enough). Keep the gov't out of it. We don't need to become a country dependent on gambling and drug revenues. If the gov't runs the dope game, expect prices to go up, supply and quality go down. In the end, nothing changes except more power to an already bloated gov't and less money in peoples pockets.

legalization is a lose lose

You can already get it for very cheap pretty much anywhere. Don't fucking ruin it!!!

So, you like government intervention in the free market in the marijuana industry? Just curious. You think this government intervention leads to higher prices, and better availability> And will eliminate the drug dealing jobs that are a boon to so many patriotic Americans? Was the quality and availability of moonshine crippled by ending prohibition?