Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Des Moines Register)   Hillary wants to introduce American workers to "the miracle of compound interest" by using government money in 401(k) plans, because such a miracle can only come when the government gives you money for retirement   (desmoinesregister.com) divider line 262
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

347 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2007 at 4:46 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



262 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-10-10 06:34:07 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy --
It's not really an 'investment' when the buyer and seller of the debt are the same entity. In this case, the government borrows money from the "trust fund", spends it all on other programs -- thus slightly delaying tax increases or spending cuts -- and promises to pay it back later. It's not really an investment in the conventional sense.


If a company were selling goods and services to itself and booking the 'sales' as 'revenue' in order to distort how healthy the company looked, neither investors nor auditors would be entirely amused.

 
2007-10-10 06:34:09 PM  
FlashLV


Most people pay around 12% anyways. I paid 8%.

You are twisting yourargument even further and it's amusing.


This has nothing to do with what Saiga410 and I are discussing.
 
2007-10-10 06:35:27 PM  
boomaze: No prob. I'm not saying the base rates were not pretty much the same on your 1040, try looking at capital gains and such. Taxed less than labor income, which should be criminal. You like equal across the board tax rates? Why do capital gains get 15%? That is the real pisser for me.

The cap gains rate is equal for everyone. Me personally, I would like to see it edged up a little, lets try 16% and see if there is any slowdown in the economy/return and try to edge around the laffer curve. But the theory behind taxing it less is that a large majority of investors made that money to invest from income. That income was taxed, so why excrusiatingly tax them a second time for putting money away and doing the thing that Hillary wants to reward?
 
2007-10-10 06:36:30 PM  
boomaze: In my case, and the case of anybody else paying $1000 or more in taxes, my pocket asshole. Just can't back a Clinton tax cut huh? Your head asplode. What does this have to do with it not being forced.

This is not the way it works. Let's say that your tax bill is $500 and you sock away $1000. The "tax cut" will actually be a net $500 taken from someone and given to you.

I wonder what will happen to those that "can't" save money.

Just to round it out here are the answers to my quiz:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Now go back and read the questions again and tell me that she doesn't believe in government force to do what's best for you...ooops, I mean society. There is no you in her view.
 
2007-10-10 06:37:41 PM  
hitchking: So you were saying the government would not be *encouraging* retirement savings, but FORCING retirement savings through Clinton's plan

See 2007-10-10 06:36:30 PM
 
2007-10-10 06:41:42 PM  
Saiga410

The cap gains rate is equal for everyone. Me personally, I would like to see it edged up a little, lets try 16% and see if there is any slowdown in the economy/return and try to edge around the laffer curve. But the theory behind taxing it less is that a large majority of investors made that money to invest from income. That income was taxed, so why excrusiatingly tax them a second time for putting money away and doing the thing that Hillary wants to reward?

Because everybody else's investments get taxed a second time. I hate this argument. If I reinvest money into my business so it makes me more money, it's taxed again. Everybody is doubly taxed.
 
2007-10-10 06:42:57 PM  
Dancin_in_Anson just to round it out here are the answers to my quiz:

You might have got a better response if someone hadn't already posted the Snopes article on your quotes
 
2007-10-10 06:43:59 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson:

Just to round it out here are the answers to my quiz:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 9/2/2005


Fixed that for you.
 
2007-10-10 06:45:04 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson

This is not the way it works. Let's say that your tax bill is $500 and you sock away $1000. The "tax cut" will actually be a net $500 taken from someone and given to you.

If they can afford to save 1000 paying 500, good for them. Just like the EIC. Most won't. You are pointing to the exception. Think of all the middle class and poor getting a 1000 tax cut! Admit it! Thats awesome! Oh wait, doesn't give more money to the rich.

I wonder what will happen to those that "can't" save money.

They wont get any back. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
 
2007-10-10 06:45:10 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Now go back and read the questions again and tell me that she doesn't believe in government force to do what's best for you...ooops, I mean society. There is no you in her view.

I'm not actually sure you read my post. You said Hillary Clinton wants to force you to save for retirement with this plan. I said this plan only encourages you to save for retirement. You replied that for the extremely small number of people whose tax bill is lower than the amount they save for retirement, their rebate will be funded through taxes paid by others.

Do you see how you totally ignored my point that no one is being forced to save for their retirement with this plan?
 
2007-10-10 06:48:10 PM  
hitchking

I'm not actually sure you read my post. You said Hillary Clinton wants to force you to save for retirement with this plan. I said this plan only encourages you to save for retirement. You replied that for the extremely small number of people whose tax bill is lower than the amount they save for retirement, their rebate will be funded through taxes paid by others.

Do you see how you totally ignored my point that no one is being forced to save for their retirement with this plan?


He is honestly incapable of rational thought involving a Clinton.
 
2007-10-10 06:55:15 PM  
Somebody finally wastes the time to debunk DIA's Hitlery quotes and he's gone?
 
2007-10-10 06:57:16 PM  
hitchking: You said Hillary Clinton wants to force you to save for retirement with this plan

Hillary Clinton DOES want to force you to save. Just as she wants to force you into a government run health program. But that won't play well until after the election...
 
2007-10-10 06:57:54 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson

You honestly have a disorder.
 
2007-10-10 06:59:52 PM  

boomaze --
Sen. Clinton strikes me as too politically careful to propose a plan that dangles non-refundable tax credits that won't necessarily be available, and to call them 'matching funds'. Far too easy to attack, if the benefit is minimal to those who are receiving the largest promises.


A more plausible way to do this via a 'tax credit' instead of, say, a direct deposit to the account would be --
(1) individual or couple contributes to account -- in an amount that *includes* the match; only the base amount is subject to the $5K cap (the match is limited as well, as per AGI and contribution)
(2) the match then gets reimbursed via refundable tax credit


This is slightly harsh, because the contributor needs to contribute more upfront to benefit. The other method would be to have direct payments, and screw the 'tax credit' nonsense. A 'contribute up to $5K' policy that results in a tax 'credit' that either may not reach the promised match, or may be spent on hookers 'n blow, would be fairly strange given her alleged aims.

 
2007-10-10 07:00:55 PM  
boomaze: Somebody finally wastes the time to debunk DIA's Hitlery quotes and he's gone?

Debunk?


They are all accurate quotes.
 
2007-10-10 07:02:42 PM  
Tax credits are used to encourage all kinds of behaviors.

How is using a tax credit to encourage investment in the stock market a bad thing?

This strikes me as one of those issues that is exactly the kind of middle ground between simply giving money to people and doing nothing.

/i'm guessing the real "issue" is that its Hillary.
 
2007-10-10 07:03:13 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Hillary Clinton DOES want to force you to save. Just as she wants to force you into a government run health program. But that won't play well until after the election...

Well, again you change the topic and ignore my points.

On the one hand, you come out of this exchange thoroughly defeated and exposed (again) as a silly troll who talks out of his ass.

But on the other hand, I come out of this exchange as a guy who has spent a good chunk of a pleasant autumn afternoon at my keyboard kicking you up and down this thread.

I'm not sure which one of us should be more ashamed.
 
2007-10-10 07:04:02 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson


Debunk?


They are all accurate quotes.


Unless you care about context, which i'm sure you don't.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

Dude, I dont even like Clinton, but you are an idiot when it comes to her.
 
2007-10-10 07:05:08 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: boomaze: Somebody finally wastes the time to debunk DIA's Hitlery quotes and he's gone?

Debunk?


They are all accurate quotes.


No, they are not accurate. They are taken out of context. Saying they are accurate is disingenuous.
 
2007-10-10 07:14:40 PM  
Correction to my previous theorizing. Sen. Clinton indicated a belief that there would be companies competing to run those plans. They could provide the 'match' up-front, and then be reimbursed for the total match via tax credits; unlike low-income individuals or couples, it's common for financial services companies to make rather large amounts of taxable income and to be able to fully benefit from even non-refundable tax credits.
 
2007-10-10 07:17:03 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: That we are freer than any other nation on the planet...

*headshake*

Man, that kool-aid must be good. You keep drinking it.
 
2007-10-10 07:17:46 PM  
Korovyov

Newsletter...subscribe.
 
2007-10-10 07:26:31 PM  
img237.imageshack.us

If the government want to help me they should stop taking my money and giving it away. Is it to hard for them to stop giving money to other countries, corporate welfare, stupid social programs and so on? I am far from being rich and it sickens me hearing Hillary telling people how she will give them more of my money!
 
2007-10-10 07:33:18 PM  
Korovyov: Evil Twin Skippy --
It's not really an 'investment' when the buyer and seller of the debt are the same entity. In this case, the government borrows money from the "trust fund", spends it all on other programs -- thus slightly delaying tax increases or spending cuts -- and promises to pay it back later. It's not really an investment in the conventional sense.

If a company were selling goods and services to itself and booking the 'sales' as 'revenue' in order to distort how healthy the company looked, neither investors nor auditors would be entirely amused.


Hey, I didn't say it wasn't batshiat crazy, and beyond corrupt. I was just describing the situation at present.
 
2007-10-10 07:34:57 PM  
Mmm_Soylent_Green: If the government want to help me they should stop taking my money and giving it away. Is it to hard for them to stop giving money to other countries, corporate welfare, stupid social programs and so on? I am far from being rich and it sickens me hearing Hillary telling people how she will give them more of my money!

That's it. I'm going to vote for her just to freak you and Anson out when she wins.

Yes, "when."
 
2007-10-10 07:43:14 PM  
scseth: I understand what you are saying, and perhaps we can get to that. But from my understanding Hillary is just trying to create an incentive for people who aren't using a 401K to save money for later. It seems your plan would help those who are already would be using a 401K.

True, I forgot 401(k)s have to be sponsored by an employer.

I'm not sure what the details of Clinton's plan are, but if it allows investment firms (or whomever) freely set up these 401(k) like accounts, and let employees choose (and the 401(k)-like companies compete), I'm cool with it. I just don't think another big government agency, especially one investing so many tax-free dollars into private corporations, is a good idea.

Mmm_Soylent_Green: If the government want to help me they should stop taking my money and giving it away. Is it to hard for them to stop giving money to other countries, corporate welfare, stupid social programs and so on? I am far from being rich and it sickens me hearing Hillary telling people how she will give them more of my money!

She's talking about giving people tax credits on their own taxes. Not your money. Maybe you should stick to arguing with cartoons that you find on the web, and avoid using those cumbersome words.
 
2007-10-10 07:44:12 PM  
hitchking: Well, again you change the topic and ignore my points.

Your point being that THIS paln does not force one to save. Correct. However, Hillary Clinton truly believes that government is the only real provider. Where were you in 1993? Do you really think that her belief system has changed? Or maybe the presentation...

Doc Lee: No, they are not accurate. They are taken out of context. Saying they are accurate is disingenuous.

I read the Snopes link. The words are hers. Context? Let's take a look at one of the quotes:

It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.

Sounds a lot like: "All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." (Look it up)

Doesn't it?

Want to cover a few of the others?
whidbey: Man, that kool-aid must be good. You keep drinking it

Just pissed that I'm not drinking your flavor aren't you?
 
2007-10-10 07:45:01 PM  
whidbey: I'm going to vote for her just to freak you and Anson out when she wins.

Yes, "when.


I am resigned to it. She will win hands down.
 
2007-10-10 07:45:34 PM  
whidbey: Mmm_Soylent_Green: If the government want to help me they should stop taking my money and giving it away. Is it to hard for them to stop giving money to other countries, corporate welfare, stupid social programs and so on? I am far from being rich and it sickens me hearing Hillary telling people how she will give them more of my money!

That's it. I'm going to vote for her just to freak you and Anson out when she wins.

Yes, "when."


Just don't biatch when she continues to drive the country down the shiathole. Don't you people want a (good) change in office? Continued war in Iraq, possible war in Iran, giving money to anyone that will buy her a vote? I don't make much money and there is no way in hell I'd vote for her.
/vote Ron Paul
//I know....
 
2007-10-10 07:57:27 PM  
Mmm_Soylent_Green: Just don't biatch when she continues to drive the country down the shiathole.

No, I'll leave you to hang on to that fear. That's part of the reason I'm doing my part to make sure she's elected.

Dancin_In_Anson: Just pissed that I'm not drinking your flavor aren't you?

But see, that's the difference. I'm not drinking anything.

You, on the other hand....

You must be.
 
2007-10-10 07:59:32 PM  
whidbey: But see, that's the difference. I'm not drinking anything.

My friend...anyone who was conscious in te 90's and would vote to put her back in the White House is mainlining it...
 
2007-10-10 08:04:21 PM  
Assuming there is no change to the way they work now.......

In 100 years Reagan may very well be more known as the father of ther 401k than for bringing down communism.

The dems fear wealth accumulation by the masses; it would be the end of the party as we know it.
 
2007-10-10 08:13:05 PM  
Its as true now as when it was first said. Democracy can only exist till the people figure out they can vote themselves money from the public coffers. Oh well it was great while it lasted :)

//I'm not specifically talking about this plan, which isn't horrible, but Hillary's whole campaign has been built around give aways.
 
2007-10-10 09:16:25 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson:
I read the Snopes link. The words are hers. Context? Let's take a look at one of the quotes:

It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.


Yet even you choose to ignore the next two sentences.

"Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers, and give all people a chance to succeed.

When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well."

Do you not understand the whole concept of "context" at all?


Sounds a lot like: "All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." (Look it up)


Do you not understand that Hillary does not call for an end to capitalism nor the individual? She calls for regulation against capitalism gutting the core of American values. I don't understand why you right wing extremists equate democracy with capitalism. Do you not realize that capitalism and democracy are not mutually inclusive ideas? Capitalism may have defeated Communism, but there is no reason why it cannot defeat democracy (or a federal constitutional republic). The United States was never intended to be a plutocracy. (Look it up...hurrr)


Doesn't it?


Taken out of context, sure. That was my original point, though.


Want to cover a few of the others?


Go ahead.


whidbey: Man, that kool-aid must be good. You keep drinking it

Just pissed that I'm not drinking your flavor aren't you?


You're not just drinking it. You're mainlining it. And it's all bottom Kool-Aid...thick, rich, sugary...rots you to the core.
 
2007-10-10 09:21:41 PM  
Doc Lee: Dancin_In_Anson:

Just to round it out here are the answers to my quiz:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was taken out of context by the far right wing on 9/2/2005


Fixed that for you.


When the U.S. was founded the intent wasn't for the government to play Robin Hood. Every porgram that Hillary wants is simply resdistributing income. If that is what the founding fathers really wanted then they should have spelled it out better in the Constitution.
 
2007-10-10 09:47:28 PM  
All2morrowsparTs: The constitution does not disallow this.

Please review Article I, Section 8 and then the Tenth Amendment.
 
2007-10-10 09:54:10 PM  
FTA: Married couples earning up to $60,000 a year would receive a dollar-for-dollar match

Couples earning between $60,000 and $100,000 a year would receive a match of 50 cents for every dollar



Vote for Clinton so you can drop out of school and buy (insert some useless luxury item)!
 
2007-10-10 10:01:43 PM  
Also FTA: These tax cuts for middle-class working Americans would cost as much as $25 billion a year, and Clinton said she would pay for them by using a portion of taxes on estates worth $7 million or more.

That completely applies to every single person in this thread. And that is just a portion being used!
 
2007-10-10 10:13:56 PM  
Go Go Chinchilla!: All2morrowsparTs: The constitution does not disallow this.

Please review Article I, Section 8 and then the Tenth Amendment.


They can do this in DC only?
 
2007-10-10 10:14:18 PM  
chaos35:
When the U.S. was founded the intent wasn't for the government to play Robin Hood. Every porgram that Hillary wants is simply resdistributing income. If that is what the founding fathers really wanted then they should have spelled it out better in the Constitution.


The founding fathers never intended our society to be a plutocracy either. We are not a society intended to be ruled by the few, a ruling class. That is spelled out in the Constitution; "'We' the 'People' of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect 'Union,' establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general 'Welfare,' and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 'ourselves' and 'our' Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It isn't all about "me, me, me." In terms of income redistribution, the Constitution makes no reference to it. The Constitution itself is far from a capitalistic doctrine.
 
2007-10-10 10:16:52 PM  
FlashLV: Anyone with a 401(k)-type account would be eligible for the credits if his or her income is $100,000 or less, she said.


Screw anyone who makes over $100K!


If this happens, I'll have to make sure that my income doesn't exceed 100k so I can get that critical G-note from the gubmint.

I can just see the droves of people begging their bosses to not pay them over 100 grand.
 
2007-10-10 10:45:28 PM  
Doc Lee: chaos35:
When the U.S. was founded the intent wasn't for the government to play Robin Hood. Every porgram that Hillary wants is simply resdistributing income. If that is what the founding fathers really wanted then they should have spelled it out better in the Constitution.

The founding fathers never intended our society to be a plutocracy either. We are not a society intended to be ruled by the few, a ruling class. That is spelled out in the Constitution; "'We' the 'People' of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect 'Union,' establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general 'Welfare,' and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 'ourselves' and 'our' Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It isn't all about "me, me, me." In terms of income redistribution, the Constitution makes no reference to it. The Constitution itself is far from a capitalistic doctrine.


The only reason people think that the government is controlled by the few is becuase they have expected too much from the government and given it too much power. If people stopped expecting the government to provide for everything maybe it would get smaller. However, the only Presidental canidate who wants to do that is Ron Paul and he won't get many votes becuase he isn't advocating new government spending programs to give money to everyone. Hillary wants to give money to lots of people with this program. Sounds like buys votes.

The only things the national government should do is what the states individually cannot do themselves. That was how it was supposed to be. One person can have a much greater impact at the local/state level than they can at the national level.

When the Constitution was written there was about 1 represenatative for every 6000 citizens. Imagine that. You could actually know who was representing you in Congress.
 
2007-10-10 11:06:10 PM  
promote the general 'Welfare,' and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 'ourselves' and 'our' Posterity,

Promote, not provide. When the Constitution was written people did not expect the newly formed government to provide for their needs. If they fell on hard times, got sick, etc they looked towards their family, friends, neighbors, church, etc. Not some guy hundreds of miles away that they didn't know.

This is why the family has broken down. You don't need your family, friends, or anything else becuase the government will provide for you when you are in need.
 
2007-10-10 11:43:45 PM  
chaos35:
The only reason people think that the government is controlled by the few is becuase they have expected too much from the government and given it too much power.


Control is taken, not given. Yet, the plans proposed by Hillary are not simply grab schemes for power. They are a redistribution of power from the ruling class elite back to the people. A truly capitalistic society is a society ruled by the ruling class elite, where everybody else falls into place as the common worker. Without protection for the common place worker, we are no better than a Communist (big C) society, where there truly is a working class and a ruling class. Take North Korea, for instance, where everybody in society with the exception of the few are the working class with equal wealth...a very very poor working class. As we see the gap widen in the US between the elite and powerful versus the working class, we're heading for essentially the same destiny. We've already seen the dismantling of the middle class in the US. There's no reason the government shouldn't step in to rectify the situation in order to prevent the continuous widening of that gap. The ends are the same, a huge gap between the working and the elitists, yet they have evolved under two different systems.


If people stopped expecting the government to provide for everything maybe it would get smaller.


People are not expecting the government to provide for them. People are expecting the government to provide an environment that is suitable for their prosperity.


However, the only Presidental canidate who wants to do that is Ron Paul and he won't get many votes becuase he isn't advocating new government spending programs to give money to everyone.


He won't get the nod because he is not the elite. Elections have less and less to do with advocating government spending programs to give people money. If they were, Gravel and Kucinich would be the top contenders in the US because they actually do fall within a subset of the democratic party that are liberals. Ask your average American who Kucinich and Gravel are...they won't have a damn clue. It's all about who the media, the propagandists, and the elite give the nod to; all of the rest, you hardly ever hear from.


Hillary wants to give money to lots of people with this program. Sounds like buys votes.


Sounds like shoring up social security to me in preparation for the retirement of the baby boomers, who will soon be entering retirement age and sucking social security dry. This should have been done years ago and no matter how idealistically capitalistic the idea is, not all of these baby boomers are going to be able to support themselves in retirement based on their own investments. They are going to need help from the government.


The only things the national government should do is what the states individually cannot do themselves. That was how it was supposed to be. One person can have a much greater impact at the local/state level than they can at the national level.


There are always going to be rich states and poor states. The role of the federal government needs to be in controlling wealth distribution to the states in order to ensure prosperity for the entire nation as a whole. You can't just have a massive migration of middle America to the wealthier states. You can't abandon agriculture. You can't abandon goods produced in middle America. Economically, socially, and nationally that would be a disaster. Do you expect a largely agricultural state, for instance, Alabama, to be able to provide for their own without the support of the federal government and help from other states? Sorry, it's not going to happen. Furthermore, other states depend on that agriculture for their own well-being. It's the United States for a reason.


When the Constitution was written there was about 1 represenatative for every 6000 citizens. Imagine that. You could actually know who was representing you in Congress.


I personally know my representative because I make it a point to go meet them. Heck, I've known all of the people who have represented me as well as those seeking to represent me not only at the local, state, and congressional level, but also presidents and hopefuls. Maybe it's just my job position but I guarantee you, they won't soon forget a discussion with me. If they don't give a shiat about you and won't take the time to get to know you, they don't deserve to be in the office. That is elitism.
 
2007-10-10 11:58:22 PM  
chaos35: promote the general 'Welfare,' and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 'ourselves' and 'our' Posterity,

Promote, not provide. When the Constitution was written people did not expect the newly formed government to provide for their needs. If they fell on hard times, got sick, etc they looked towards their family, friends, neighbors, church, etc. Not some guy hundreds of miles away that they didn't know.


That argument doesn't make sense. The communal structure didn't break down due to Communism or even socialism. The family and communal structure continues to remain very high in communist and socialist societies. Look at China for Christ sake, where not only the family but the community cares for the elderly and more importantly cares for each other. It doesn't have to do with the government providing for the people that cause the collapse of the communal structure. I keep on hearing that over and over again, but it just...does...not...make...sense. Have you ever thought for a minute that maybe the collapse of the communal structure came at the cost of competition? Your neighbor, your brother, your fellow church members...they are not your equals...they are your competition. We are not an open society, but rather a closed society. We have been taught to internalize, to not share our financial problems with the neighbors, we teach our children not to talk about problems in the home, "It's none of your business!" Do you think that came about because the government started making hand outs or do you think that came about as a result of "Keeping up with the Joneses?"


This is why the family has broken down. You don't need your family, friends, or anything else becuase the government will provide for you when you are in need.


I don't think your argument holds much water at all. Competition has caused the collapse of the family; not the government.
 
2007-10-11 12:35:17 AM  
Doc Lee: chaos35:
If people stopped expecting the government to provide for everything maybe it would get smaller.

People are not expecting the government to provide for them. People are expecting the government to provide an environment that is suitable for their prosperity.

I see lots of people demanding a national healthcare system that is paid for by the minority.

However, the only Presidental canidate who wants to do that is Ron Paul and he won't get many votes becuase he isn't advocating new government spending programs to give money to everyone.

He won't get the nod because he is not the elite. Elections have less and less to do with advocating government spending programs to give people money. If they were, Gravel and Kucinich would be the top contenders in the US because they actually do fall within a subset of the democratic party that are liberals. Ask your average American who Kucinich and Gravel are...they won't have a damn clue. It's all about who the media, the propagandists, and the elite give the nod to; all of the rest, you hardly ever hear from.

The "elites" love Hillary. If she said she was going to cut social spending and double taxes no one would vote for her.

Hillary wants to give money to lots of people with this program. Sounds like buying votes.

Sounds like shoring up social security to me in preparation for the retirement of the baby boomers, who will soon be entering retirement age and sucking social security dry. This should have been done years ago and no matter how idealistically capitalistic the idea is, not all of these baby boomers are going to be able to support themselves in retirement based on their own investments. They are going to need help from the government.

Social Security is a joke? It should be phased out? If it is such a good deal let me decide that and I'll sign right up.

So the people that spent all of their money on wants rather than needs will get gov't help, those that saved money to retire will get nothing. Then it will be ok for people to hate me becuase I retired early becuase I saved for it. Sounds like a great idea. Just spend every dime as it comes in becuase the gov't will bail you out when you get old.

 
2007-10-11 12:48:50 AM  
Doc Lee: chaos35:
Have you ever thought for a minute that maybe the collapse of the communal structure came at the cost of competition? Your neighbor, your brother, your fellow church members...they are not your equals...they are your competition. We are not an open society, but rather a closed society. We have been taught to internalize, to not share our financial problems with the neighbors, we teach our children not to talk about problems in the home, "It's none of your business!" Do you think that came about because the government started making hand outs or do you think that came about as a result of "Keeping up with the Joneses?"

Except for the last hundred years you needed to have a family to take care of you when you got old. Now that is not necessary. Get married if you want and then spend all of your money. Have no kids becuase in the end the gov't will help you when you are old and poor.

If people were told the handouts would stop and you better save for retirement they may stop comparing each other with how big their new truck is and by how soon they are going to retire.
 
2007-10-11 01:32:01 AM  
chaos35:
I see lots of people demanding a national healthcare system that is paid for by the minority.


None of the major candidates support a national health care system paid for by the minority, even though actual cost/benefit analysis would tell you that even at 10% payroll tax increase for the top 10% of people, they would still be spending less on health care costs than in a private insurance system, but that's beside the point. The only candidate that is pushing a national health care system of this type if Kucinich, and again, he is not a top tier candidate. Secondly, the backlash against the private insurance industry comes extensively from capitalism and corporatism gone wild, not so much from people saying, "We're lazy...we need the government to pay for us." It's more like, "We're sick of being railroaded."


The "elites" love Hillary. If she said she was going to cut social spending and double taxes no one would vote for her.


I think you just agreed with my point. The elites love Hillary, therefore, she is a top tier candidate. She's not a top tier candidate because of her proposed social programs, as it's clearly not based all on social programs, but rather who the elitists are pushing for.


Social Security is a joke? It should be phased out?


Did I say that? Where did I say that? Is there a communication barrier here?


If it is such a good deal let me decide that and I'll sign right up.


You've got a lot to learn about social security.


So the people that spent all of their money on wants rather than needs will get gov't help, those that saved money to retire will get nothing. Then it will be ok for people to hate me becuase I retired early becuase I saved for it. Sounds like a great idea. Just spend every dime as it comes in becuase the gov't will bail you out when you get old.


Do you know what the baby boomer generation is? Do you have any idea how many people are going to be entering retirement soon? It's not necessarily about spending every red cent you earn. Social security serves as a supplement to your retirement, not as the primary provider of income for your retirement. It also serves to provide medicare benefits which are crucial with sky rocketing costs in health care, something that nobody could have planned for. It's economic security for retirement, essential in the face of a fluctuating market. Furthermore, you need to understand that people are putting money into social security their entire working lives. It's a form of forced savings. The "government" isn't necessarily bailing you out. The worker is paying into a pot his or her working life, and at retirement, they are collecting on that investment. Is that really hard to understand?

Furthermore, there are a lot of people out there that are living pay check to pay check with very limited dispensable income. Not everybody has additional income to put away into a healthy retirement. In addition, medical costs increase with age. That's a fact of life. Even with insurance, you could easily be wiped out if faced with a catastrophic illness, as is more common in old age. It is at this point in time when social security benefits are crucial to the well being of the US's elderly population.

Also, good luck with retiring early. I don't think you have any idea how much it's going to cost you.
 
2007-10-11 01:51:11 AM  
Doc Lee: chaos35:
The "elites" love Hillary. If she said she was going to cut social spending and double taxes no one would vote for her.

I think you just agreed with my point. The elites love Hillary, therefore, she is a top tier candidate. She's not a top tier candidate because of her proposed social programs, as it's clearly not based all on social programs, but rather who the elitists are pushing for.

Just becuse some people like her doesn't make everyone vote for her. People vote for her becuase they think she will give them the most at the least cost to them.

Social Security is a joke? It should be phased out?

Did I say that? Where did I say that? Is there a communication barrier here?

Sorry. Should have used the !

If it is such a good deal let me decide that and I'll sign right up.

You've got a lot to learn about social security.

People got by just fine before it was implemented. Lets go back to that. I know what it is. You pay now for an undefined benefit later.

So the people that spent all of their money on wants rather than needs will get gov't help, those that saved money to retire will get nothing. Then it will be ok for people to hate me becuase I retired early becuase I saved for it. Sounds like a great idea. Just spend every dime as it comes in becuase the gov't will bail you out when you get old.

Do you know what the baby boomer generation is? Do you have any idea how many people are going to be entering retirement soon? It's not necessarily about spending every red cent you earn. Social security serves as a supplement to your retirement, not as the primary provider of income for your retirement. It also serves to provide medicare benefits which are crucial with sky rocketing costs in health care, something that nobody could have planned for. It's economic security for retirement, essential in the face of a fluctuating market. Furthermore, you need to understand that people are putting money into social security their entire working lives. It's a form of forced savings. The "government" isn't necessarily bailing you out. The worker is paying into a pot his or her working life, and at retirement, they are collecting on that investment. Is that really hard to understand?

The gov't made everyone think that Social Security would be enough, but it is not because of the horrible rate of return. The gov't should have said he is the basic program you will need more to actually stop working.

Furthermore, there are a lot of people out there that are living pay check to pay check with very limited dispensable income. Not everybody has additional income to put away into a healthy retirement. In addition, medical costs increase with age. That's a fact of life. Even with insurance, you could easily be wiped out if faced with a catastrophic illness, as is more common in old age. It is at this point in time when social security benefits are crucial to the well being of the US's elderly population.

Also, good luck with retiring early. I don't think you have any idea how much it's going to cost you.


I think I have a good idea what the costs will be. Lets see... in 10 years I will make $85,000 a year in retirement with conservative investments, with medical benefits, and without touching the capital so it grows with inflation. Sounds good to me since I live on about $60,000 a year right now. I don't have a fancy job and came from a blue collar family. Just an old car with the stuff I need and the motivation to depend on myself. Not the gov't.
 
Displayed 50 of 262 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report