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.

(Washington Post)   Three-quarters of all states are run through single-party government, which has led to the establishment of what are essentially 2 Americas. Herpistan and Derpistan, let's call them   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 196
    More: Stupid, red states, Democratic Governors Association, alternative model, National Governors Association, establishments, Republican Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, state governments  
•       •       •

5132 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2013 at 1:43 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-29 07:15:18 PM

Kit Fister: Smackledorfer: HeadLever: glmorrs1: My mom's boyfriend thinks welfare is bankrupting the country and that it's all being wasted on welfare queens, and no matter how many times I show him articles and studies that say the opposite, he just dismisses them and says he knows he's right because he's "seen it with [his] own eyes."

Welfare - if he means medicare and medicaid and SS - is one of the largest financial issues we have going forward as a country.  They need addressed or we will continue to go deeper and deeper into debt.  Being bankrupt and waste on welfare queens are defiantly partisan hyperbole, but there is some merit to part of his argument.

Stop dishonestly discussing ss as welfare.

How should it be more accurately categorized? I am honestly asking.


No you aren't.  You've seen the annual SS statement you get.  You've seen your check stubs.  You know that you pay into that program throughout your working life and how much you can collect out depends on how much and how many years you put in.  Stop lying.
 
2013-12-29 07:15:50 PM

Smackledorfer: HeadLever: Smackledorfer: Stop dishonestly discussing ss as welfare.
 
I was responding to an anecdote and had to make an assumption.  I fully qualified said assumption.

In other words, it is not your place to refute said assumption, but that belongs to  glmorrs1alone.

Horseshiat.

You are consistent in your dishonest characterizing of ss.It isn't limited to this thread. Further, even if this other person was stupid enough to consider ss welfare, then it still shouldn't have been included in your later agreement that it has anything to do with the debt.

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit or the debt. Period. Saying it does is ridiculous. Which is too bad, because everytime an obviously biased person like slips dishonesty into an ss discussion it decreases the chances we reasonably address any real issues that exist with it.


I would honestly like to see a fair report of SS's actual impact and funding, my googling comes up with nothing.

It's probably also worth noting that I have taken a lot of what you guys have said to heart and am at least going to bias more democrat in the future because, yeah, I am starting to get the realities of just what good government does even if I don't agree with all of it.
 
2013-12-29 07:17:04 PM

Smackledorfer: You are consistent in your dishonest characterizing of ss.It isn't limited to this thread.


please elaborate  And please leave the strawmen at home.

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit or the debt.

Then why is the SS trust fund part of the National Debt?  It is about 60% of the total intragovernmental debt according to the GAO.
 
2013-12-29 07:19:20 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: And here we see the rare strawman of a strawman being projected.


And to be called out by someone that has your handle is priceless.

lol
 
2013-12-29 07:19:45 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Kit Fister: Smackledorfer: HeadLever: glmorrs1: My mom's boyfriend thinks welfare is bankrupting the country and that it's all being wasted on welfare queens, and no matter how many times I show him articles and studies that say the opposite, he just dismisses them and says he knows he's right because he's "seen it with [his] own eyes."

Welfare - if he means medicare and medicaid and SS - is one of the largest financial issues we have going forward as a country.  They need addressed or we will continue to go deeper and deeper into debt.  Being bankrupt and waste on welfare queens are defiantly partisan hyperbole, but there is some merit to part of his argument.

Stop dishonestly discussing ss as welfare.

How should it be more accurately categorized? I am honestly asking.

No you aren't.  You've seen the annual SS statement you get.  You've seen your check stubs.  You know that you pay into that program throughout your working life and how much you can collect out depends on how much and how many years you put in.  Stop lying.


I know about the SS withdrawals, but doesn't it accurately classify as a welfare program as, as I understand it, while your benefit is based on contributions, the money you pay in is used to pay out the benefits of others who currently withdraw and your own benefits will be paid by a future working stiff. As such, I'm not sure how you would accurately describe it as if we turned off the contributions today, current collectors would, theoretically, feel it as the program ran out of money.

I suppose it's more like a government run collective insurance policy or annuity, then?

And, nope, not lying, just ignorant. :)
 
2013-12-29 07:20:56 PM

Kit Fister: How should it be more accurately categorized? I am honestly asking.


SS is more accurately characterized as an entitlement.
 
2013-12-29 07:33:38 PM

HeadLever: Don't Troll Me Bro!: And here we see the rare strawman of a strawman being projected.

And to be called out by someone that has your handle is priceless.

lol


I'm pretty sure you won't find anyone around here that thinks I'm a troll.  Most people that have had interactions with me would probably say I contribute worthwhile stuff at least as often as the average farker.  But hey, if saying "no, you're a towel" allows you to deal with the cognitive dissonance of building a strawman to accuse others of building a strawman, then more power to ya. 

HeadLever: Then why is the SS trust fund part of the National Debt?


Because the government owes back the money people paid into the program?  That's called "debt."  You know how you look at your checking account balance and it's an account receivable to you?  To the bank that's debt, much like how the money they owe back to people for paying into ss is also debt.

Kit Fister: I suppose it's more like a government run collective insurance policy or annuity, then?

And, nope, not lying, just ignorant. :)


I'd say annuity is a reasonable way to look at it.  You pay it in a bit at a time, then you take it out later on, again in increments.  In the meantime the money you paid in isn't just sitting there, it's being used by the managers of the program to keep the whole thing going.
 
2013-12-29 07:36:44 PM

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: You are consistent in your dishonest characterizing of ss.It isn't limited to this thread.

please elaborate  And please leave the strawmen at home.

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit or the debt.

Then why is the SS trust fund part of the National Debt?  It is about 60% of the total intragovernmental debt according to the GAO.


Oh, the intragovernmental debt canard again.


Stop being dishonest about this. Social Security does NOT contribute to the debt. Or perhaps you are being honest and simply have no idea what you are talking about. Start with googling what a trust fund is.

And your 'entitlement' follow up? Diaf.
 
2013-12-29 07:38:21 PM

HeadLever: Kit Fister: How should it be more accurately categorized? I am honestly asking.

SS is more accurately characterized as an entitlement.


Entitlement? But an entitlement would be more accurately described as a benefit obtained strictly by existence or some other binary condition.

SS returns are directly affected by input amount and duration. You don't simply get to pay in what you can afford and then take out some arbitrary value, as I understand it.

So, again, shouldn't this be more akin to a government, or more precisely, a public-funded retirement annuity into which you pay now to guarantee funds later, like a special type of savings account without the market volatility risk of something like a 401k?

If anything, if we were being fair about it, and wanted it to be strictly an entitlement, then ideally we should expand the program to include all income levels with the option for those above a certain income to take a tax credit over a payout on retirement or something.

This also, I think, would necessitate a rise in average wages since that increases input and liquid assets being moved around.

But now we're into the concept of tax balances, how best to grow jobs and combat corporate greed, and to favor the individual.

Incidentally, I have come to realize just how evil it is for corporations to destroy unions on one hand while doing everything in their power to destroy personal bargaining rights and employee protections on the other. After all, if the individuals don't have the right to collectively fight for corporate honesty and fair treatment, and the job market and hiring process is kept to where the idea of fair negotiation for wages is problematic at best, then you've god it coming and going.

And don't get me started on the abuse of short term and contract workers to circumvent the long term costs of employment.
 
2013-12-29 07:50:27 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: HeadLever: Don't Troll Me Bro!: And here we see the rare strawman of a strawman being projected.

And to be called out by someone that has your handle is priceless.

lol

I'm pretty sure you won't find anyone around here that thinks I'm a troll.  Most people that have had interactions with me would probably say I contribute worthwhile stuff at least as often as the average farker.  But hey, if saying "no, you're a towel" allows you to deal with the cognitive dissonance of building a strawman to accuse others of building a strawman, then more power to ya.

HeadLever: Then why is the SS trust fund part of the National Debt?

Because the government owes back the money people paid into the program?  That's called "debt."  You know how you look at your checking account balance and it's an account receivable to you?  To the bank that's debt, much like how the money they owe back to people for paying into ss is also debt.

Kit Fister: I suppose it's more like a government run collective insurance policy or annuity, then?

And, nope, not lying, just ignorant. :)

I'd say annuity is a reasonable way to look at it.  You pay it in a bit at a time, then you take it out later on, again in increments.  In the meantime the money you paid in isn't just sitting there, it's being used by the managers of the program to keep the whole thing going.


Canard?  So the intragovernmental debt is not part of the overall debt?

An annuity is probably as close as you can get on the private side, but it is still quite a bit different.   Here is about the best explanation that I have found without doing it myself all over again.

Overall, the past increase in the SS Trust Fund has decreased past deficits (and reduced our total debt), but redeeming those bonds will increase our deficit and public debt (plus interest).
 
2013-12-29 07:52:59 PM

Alphax: TV's Vinnie: Blue states in the year 2050:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]

Red States in the Year 2050:
[www.centives.net image 800x526]

The latter is Wichita, KS, right?



That's nothing like Kansas.  Too many mountains.
 
2013-12-29 07:55:02 PM
^Crap, not sure what happened there.  That was for<a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" smackledorfer"="">Smackledorfer ^

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Because the government owes back the money people paid into the program?  That's called "debt."  You know how you look at your checking account balance and it's an account receivable to you?  To the bank that's debt, much like how the money they owe back to people for paying into ss is also debt.


It is a bit more complicated than that.  Government also spent that money that was paid in and replaced this money with intragovernmental IOUS.  There is not pot of money in the SS trust fund.  Just a bunch of government debt.
 
2013-12-29 07:56:31 PM
I should rephrase: change it so that payout is a set amount for everyone, everyone who is a citizen is entitled to it, and the funds are collected purely as a tax, without any link between input and outflow of cash.

So, government says on retirement they pay you $30k a year or whatever, no matter your employment status or history, and funds are taken as a tax subject to all other tax breaks, levels, rebates, deductions, and rules such that the costs are unevenly split.

Abolishing the whole SS program is one way to do it: let the private citizen invest in his or her retirement in the best way they see fit.

But that is problematic as you then see a wide gap of people: those who save diligently, and those who couldn't save money if their life depended on it.

So, then the question becomes: which is the better option: collecting and setting aside money in an annuity to stem the flow of those who didn't save because they were too poor, never paid in taxes because they were too poor, and now collect welfare in their twilight years because they can neither work nor have funds to cover their end of life costs and whatnot.

While I don't like having to pay for someone else, I can appreciate the humanity of a program that at least ensures that people who qualify aren't broke and don't end up starving on the streets.

I've come also to appreciate the view of single payer, and think I get the problem with how it's presented: often it's compared to a mechanic's shop and basic maintenance, with doctors simply charging a market rate and competing to offer a service. Problem is, where anyone can learn to change their own oil or a flat tire, and service more severe is not going to affect both public health and the overall basic ability of the person to be self sustaining (I know, I know, but they need a car to get to work! Well in this day and age, with busses, bikes, taxis, and so on, you can find a way to get around, it just takes more work) where loss of health both endangers others and potentially costs a great deal of resources to mitigate and treat. Presented as a public service like fire and police, it makes a hell of a lot more sense.

So, yeah, private market all the things only works if you have a balanced labor/employer playing field where there are no outs or cheats inbuilt to subjugate the employee while making the people higher up more money, and you assume that altruism is the guiding force of all business.

/fark you I've got mine is not a viable strategy in a circumstance where you can't do everything yourself.
 
2013-12-29 07:59:24 PM

HeadLever: Canard? So the intragovernmental debt is not part of the overall debt?

An annuity is probably as close as you can get on the private side, but it is still quite a bit different. Here is about the best explanation that I have found without doing it myself all over again.

Overall, the past increase in the SS Trust Fund has decreased past deficits (and reduced our total debt), but redeeming those bonds will increase our deficit and public debt (plus interest).


Canard?  I don't know where you got that from.  I never used that word, or insinuated it.

I was mainly using the annuity analogy because I was trying to help Kit understand a little better, and he/she brought up annuities, which (as you also stated) have some fundamental similarities to the basic concept of the ss program.
 
2013-12-29 08:00:50 PM
Ah, didn't see your next post about the mixup.
 
2013-12-29 08:01:59 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Canard?  I don't know where you got that from.  I never used that word, or insinuated it.


Yeah, I am apparently having some issues here.  That was for Smackledorfer.
 
2013-12-29 08:06:10 PM

HeadLever: ^Crap, not sure what happened there.  That was for<a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" smackledorfer"="">Smackledorfer ^

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Because the government owes back the money people paid into the program?  That's called "debt."  You know how you look at your checking account balance and it's an account receivable to you?  To the bank that's debt, much like how the money they owe back to people for paying into ss is also debt.

It is a bit more complicated than that.  Government also spent that money that was paid in and replaced this money with intragovernmental IOUS.  There is not pot of money in the SS trust fund.  Just a bunch of government debt.


Yeah, because the government has to shiat the money out somewhere to keep operating. I argue frequently from a libertarian mindset, but you can't sit there and tell me that if the government shut down tomorrow like a corp could, that we would not be affected.

I don't often admit I'm wrong, but I have come to appreciate what the govt does do for us:

-guarantee currency so that a buck is a buck and what you make is viable across the country
-guarantees safety and provides for regulation of food supplies so that we don't all starve or get sick
-ensures that businesses can't just wholesale ship in cheap labor from a third world hell hole because it's cheaper (which we got anyway through outsourcing)
-ensures that society has a set of basic ground rules to play by (things like guaranteeing property rights and ensuring contracts and making sure people drive safely...I may be all about self defense and gun ownership in the off chance that I need to use it, but Fark me, I have neither the desire nor the willingness to deal with having to work a job, grow my own food *and* provide for 24/7 watch over my territory to prevent looting and violence...)

We might never get to the level of Somalia, but if you look at a few nations that are derided as hellholes by our standards and then compare their general government operation to what Republicans want to have, well, I guess of I want to remain safe and comfortable, I better get in early on the international drug trade and warlord business.
 
2013-12-29 08:11:42 PM

Kit Fister: I should rephrase: change it so that payout is a set amount for everyone, everyone who is a citizen is entitled to it, and the funds are collected purely as a tax, without any link between input and outflow of cash.

So, government says on retirement they pay you $30k a year or whatever, no matter your employment status or history, and funds are taken as a tax subject to all other tax breaks, levels, rebates, deductions, and rules such that the costs are unevenly split.

Abolishing the whole SS program is one way to do it: let the private citizen invest in his or her retirement in the best way they see fit.

But that is problematic as you then see a wide gap of people: those who save diligently, and those who couldn't save money if their life depended on it.

So, then the question becomes: which is the better option: collecting and setting aside money in an annuity to stem the flow of those who didn't save because they were too poor, never paid in taxes because they were too poor, and now collect welfare in their twilight years because they can neither work nor have funds to cover their end of life costs and whatnot.


Social Security taxes come out of payroll taxes, everyone pays them.  One way to help the system would be to remove the wage cap.  Currently only the first $117K of income is subject to social security tax.  Eliminate that cap so that all income is taxed, and place an additional SS cap on capital gains.  That would create a huge influx of money into the program and resolve any solvency issues for the future.
 
2013-12-29 08:17:37 PM

HeadLever: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Canard?  I don't know where you got that from.  I never used that word, or insinuated it.

Yeah, I am apparently having some issues here.  That was for Smackledorfer.


Your points are unfounded conclusions from your poor understanding of the truth.

I suppose that may not technically be a canard. Withdrawn I suppose, technically correct is the best kind of it afterall.

In the past you yourself have agreed locking the ss trust away in a box would be a stupid idea. What is laughable is that your solution was to decrease the trust to near zero so that it could not be borrowed from. An absurd fix that brings its own problems (like real shortfalls instead of the imagined ones folks keep pretending it has, and a likely result of a future recession necessitating an actual bailout or a reduction in payouts at the worst time possible) and solves nothing (congress will simply continue deficit spending at the same rate and borrow from elsewhere).

You sound like a typical republican politician, "I don't like program x so I will disparage it, mischaracterize it, break it slowly, yell 'haha look I was right' and then repeat until [well I have no idea what the end goal they have is. They might even believe their policies are fixing the world somehow]".
 
2013-12-29 08:19:38 PM
To add to that, the government can either raise taxes to increase its cash flow, or it can borrow money in the form of bonds and so on.

Since a government is generally a stable entity which is unlikely to cease to exist (without major turmoil), it's a lot different than just walking into the nearest payday loan place and getting an advance on tax season.

So yeah, SS becomes part of the debt, because we have an obligation to pay out what people are guaranteed, just like meeting interest payments and bond payments and whatever, whether our economy had a great year and we have lots of tax money coming in or we had a shiat year with a depression and little coming in.

Sure, I guess we can tell the people who got screwed in the downturn to take a pay cut of they can even find a job, or to just suck it up and "oh well I guess you're farked" of they weren't able to save for it, but, do YOU wanna be that guy who has to tell some poor family they can't eat tonight because we can't help, and the shelters and private programs are tapped out?

Sure, I have the option to go total bootstrapped being on a farm and pretty independent already, but unless rat and alleycat are viable game, I don't see many opportunities for the broke to hunt or harvest in New York or LA.

I hate people. I think everyone should be responsible for their own actions and should be held to a standard of behavior without it affecting others. But I can no longer accept the idea that the people who got farked over through no fault of their own should be left to die, even if they made some mistakes.

And you know what? I'd rather have the few who manage to cheat the system make it through than look some family or kid in the eye and say "nope, you're farked because your daddy got farked by off shoring and now no one will hire him because he doesn't meet some ridiculous requirements. Sucks to be you."

If you're that much of a bastard, then I can't help you. In my darkest moments of loathing, only those who truly fark up are deserving of their fates, and even then we have to give them a chance to unfark themselves before we write them off.

/you got one chance at a do over. You fark up a second time, you're on your own.
 
2013-12-29 08:21:36 PM

Kit Fister: To add to that, the government can either raise taxes to increase its cash flow, or it can borrow money in the form of bonds and so on.

Since a government is generally a stable entity which is unlikely to cease to exist (without major turmoil), it's a lot different than just walking into the nearest payday loan place and getting an advance on tax season.

So yeah, SS becomes part of the debt, because we have an obligation to pay out what people are guaranteed, just like meeting interest payments and bond payments and whatever, whether our economy had a great year and we have lots of tax money coming in or we had a shiat year with a depression and little coming in.

Sure, I guess we can tell the people who got screwed in the downturn to take a pay cut of they can even find a job, or to just suck it up and "oh well I guess you're farked" of they weren't able to save for it, but, do YOU wanna be that guy who has to tell some poor family they can't eat tonight because we can't help, and the shelters and private programs are tapped out?

Sure, I have the option to go total bootstrapped being on a farm and pretty independent already, but unless rat and alleycat are viable game, I don't see many opportunities for the broke to hunt or harvest in New York or LA.

I hate people. I think everyone should be responsible for their own actions and should be held to a standard of behavior without it affecting others. But I can no longer accept the idea that the people who got farked over through no fault of their own should be left to die, even if they made some mistakes.

And you know what? I'd rather have the few who manage to cheat the system make it through than look some family or kid in the eye and say "nope, you're farked because your daddy got farked by off shoring and now no one will hire him because he doesn't meet some ridiculous requirements. Sucks to be you."

If you're that much of a bastard, then I can't help you. In my darkest moments of loathing, only those who truly fark up are deserving of their fates, and even then we have to give them a chance to unfark themselves before we write them off.

/you got one chance at a do over. You fark up a second time, you're on your own.


I have misjudged you.
 
2013-12-29 08:25:58 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Kit Fister: I should rephrase: change it so that payout is a set amount for everyone, everyone who is a citizen is entitled to it, and the funds are collected purely as a tax, without any link between input and outflow of cash.

So, government says on retirement they pay you $30k a year or whatever, no matter your employment status or history, and funds are taken as a tax subject to all other tax breaks, levels, rebates, deductions, and rules such that the costs are unevenly split.

Abolishing the whole SS program is one way to do it: let the private citizen invest in his or her retirement in the best way they see fit.

But that is problematic as you then see a wide gap of people: those who save diligently, and those who couldn't save money if their life depended on it.

So, then the question becomes: which is the better option: collecting and setting aside money in an annuity to stem the flow of those who didn't save because they were too poor, never paid in taxes because they were too poor, and now collect welfare in their twilight years because they can neither work nor have funds to cover their end of life costs and whatnot.

Social Security taxes come out of payroll taxes, everyone pays them.  One way to help the system would be to remove the wage cap.  Currently only the first $117K of income is subject to social security tax.  Eliminate that cap so that all income is taxed, and place an additional SS cap on capital gains.  That would create a huge influx of money into the program and resolve any solvency issues for the future.


Right, that's what I was saying. I guess I understood that to mean that they don't tax incomes above a certain level, but now I get it. Yes, though, removing the cap would help.

Just like a tax scheme that fairly taxes everyone by taxing everyone at a percentage rate, on *all* income, rather than variable rates with exemptions on certain types of income.

Paying in 5% of your income, let's say, would be fair, so that the dude making $30k pays his $1500 while the dude making $10mm pays his $500k.

I think that's fair. You pay taxes by a fair percentage. Also, taxing luxury items and so on, but I digress and my poor libertarian heart is about to explode from horror at my logical brain.
 
2013-12-29 08:35:25 PM
Also, I should qualify that...a tax scale that favors the poor is also a decent idea because you can't expect to have them better themselves while their busy blowing their cash on taxes, since $30k stretches less And less every year.

I personally have some ideas that would take the government to leverage that would also force the increase in jobs and pay, but no one likes to hear the idea of the government going full activist by stipulating in all contracts for goods and services with outside vendors that the products be at least some percentage American made and that services be provided by American citizens and not offshored. This also goes hand in hand with reworking the immigration laws to favor the poor schlubb immigrating for a better life for his family getting citizenship than providing more access and higher quotas on visas to import labor from other countries.

/I also have some ideas for civil service, making education and training in fields we need free in exchange for a period of providing service back in the form of civil projects and care and so on.
//use the free market against companies by making the market unfriendly to those who screw over citizens.
 
2013-12-29 08:38:53 PM
One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism basic understanding of reality and civics.

FTFY.

/I suppose bigotry and hatred are traditional values in America...we're not  proud of them, but they are technically  traditional.
 
2013-12-29 08:40:48 PM
Finally, and this might shock some folks, since both the constitution and the US Code call for a militia of all citizens, independent right or not, how about we enact a civil defense program which requires safety training and participation?

Hey, you say you have all those guns for defending yourself, well, why not learn some useful skills while being made available to help in extraordinary circumstances, and gain the benefit of mandatory training and so on?

We stop funding the national guard, the gun owners get to keep their guns, and we offer those who don't want to deal with guns the option to defer in favor of other participation like search and rescue or disaster cleanup etc.
 
2013-12-29 08:42:33 PM

PsiChick: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism basic understanding of reality and civics.

FTFY.

/I suppose bigotry and hatred are traditional values in America...we're not  proud of them, but they are technically  traditional.


I'm bigoted against bleeding heart psychologists who invent new and interesting ways to deflect blame and responsibility onto some kind of illness or behavioral quirk over just demanding that if you knew better, you take responsibility for it and learn to change the behavior, does that count?
 
2013-12-29 08:47:34 PM
I like how they considered NJ non-single party. It amuses me.
 
2013-12-29 08:58:46 PM

Kit Fister: PsiChick: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism basic understanding of reality and civics.

FTFY.

/I suppose bigotry and hatred are traditional values in America...we're not  proud of them, but they are technically  traditional.

I'm bigoted against bleeding heart psychologists who invent new and interesting ways to deflect blame and responsibility onto some kind of illness or behavioral quirk over just demanding that if you knew better, you take responsibility for it and learn to change the behavior, does that count?


...Well, if you want to be  completely ignorant about how psychology works, I suppose that's entirely up to you...

/Seriously, that is not how psychology works, nor is it what I was referring to.
 
2013-12-29 09:13:06 PM

Smackledorfer: Your points are unfounded conclusions from your poor understanding of the truth.


please elaborate

 In the past you yourself have agreed locking the ss trust away in a box would be a stupid idea. What is laughable is that your solution was to decrease the trust to near zero so that it could not be borrowed from.

No I have not.  My idea would be to reduce the SS trust fund to about 1 year worth of funds.  You could still borrow from the fund, but my idea would have it more of a pay-as- you-go type system where it would not rack up as much interest as it does now.  Quit making my point into a strawman.

You sound like a typical republican politician,


and you sound like the typical democratic politician where you need to create a strawman in order to try to make a sentient point - which has nothing to do with reality.
 
2013-12-29 09:16:11 PM
beforeitsnews.com
 
2013-12-29 09:21:06 PM

Lee451: [beforeitsnews.com image 640x593]


Hey look, a strawman!

Seriously. How many liberals are out there supporting NAMBLA? And you're really trying to act like it has no conservative members?
 
2013-12-29 09:25:13 PM

Lee451:


Yes because an organization operating under the color of civil rights to justify criminal behavior is liberal.

Even the most hippie whatever dude radical liberal understands and agrees a child is not able to consent and shouldn't be the object of sexual attention.

There is a huge difference between rights for consenting adults and attempting to justify behavior that damages a person who cannot consent or understand.

If you seriously believe that somehow liberals agree with pedophilia because gay marriage, then you are one ignorant fark.

/I know and consent does not equal he's an adult and says its OK.
 
2013-12-29 09:26:53 PM

grumpfuff: Lee451: [beforeitsnews.com image 640x593]

Hey look, a strawman!

Seriously. How many liberals are out there supporting NAMBLA? And you're really trying to act like it has no conservative members?


The Conservative party is supported by the church. The church has this far hidden or covered up or tacitly condoned pedophilia and abuse. Ergo, the conservatives must rightly believe that pedophilia is right since god says through the church that it's OK right?

/no, it doesn't make sense to me eother
 
2013-12-29 09:28:30 PM

PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism basic understanding of reality and civics.

FTFY.

/I suppose bigotry and hatred are traditional values in America...we're not  proud of them, but they are technically  traditional.

I'm bigoted against bleeding heart psychologists who invent new and interesting ways to deflect blame and responsibility onto some kind of illness or behavioral quirk over just demanding that if you knew better, you take responsibility for it and learn to change the behavior, does that count?

...Well, if you want to be  completely ignorant about how psychology works, I suppose that's entirely up to you...

/Seriously, that is not how psychology works, nor is it what I was referring to.


I know, I was just having a dig at you, since I'm still in awe of you arguing a teenager wasn't responsible for his criminal acts just because he was a teenager and thus wasn't fully capable of grasping right and wrong or some such.

Seriously, I'll never let you love that one down.
 
2013-12-29 09:29:06 PM
Kit Fister:

You are seriously, clinically, mentally ill.
/Good riddance.
 
2013-12-29 09:31:10 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Kit Fister:

You are seriously, clinically, mentally ill.
/Good riddance.


What? And what prompted that?
 
2013-12-29 09:36:57 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Kit Fister:

You are seriously, clinically, mentally ill.
/Good riddance.


Wow, I get called mentally ill because of my thoughts on taxes, really? Of all the things I've said that's what gets your goat?

Whatever. If that's all ya got, then good riddence indeed
 
2013-12-29 09:37:05 PM

Kit Fister: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: One is grounded in principles of lean and limited government and on traditional values; the other is built on a belief in the essential role of government and on tenets of cultural liberalism basic understanding of reality and civics.

FTFY.

/I suppose bigotry and hatred are traditional values in America...we're not  proud of them, but they are technically  traditional.

I'm bigoted against bleeding heart psychologists who invent new and interesting ways to deflect blame and responsibility onto some kind of illness or behavioral quirk over just demanding that if you knew better, you take responsibility for it and learn to change the behavior, does that count?

...Well, if you want to be  completely ignorant about how psychology works, I suppose that's entirely up to you...

/Seriously, that is not how psychology works, nor is it what I was referring to.

I know, I was just having a dig at you, since I'm still in awe of you arguing a teenager wasn't responsible for his criminal acts just because he was a teenager and thus wasn't fully capable of grasping right and wrong or some such.

Seriously, I'll never let you love that one down.


Ah. Well, I  am actually supported by biology on that one--teens  do essentially have brain damage. :p But fair enough. It's Fark. Where else can you rib at people?
 
2013-12-29 09:40:00 PM

Kit Fister: Lee451:

Yes because an organization operating under the color of civil rights to justify criminal behavior is liberal.

Even the most hippie whatever dude radical liberal understands and agrees a child is not able to consent and shouldn't be the object of sexual attention.

There is a huge difference between rights for consenting adults and attempting to justify behavior that damages a person who cannot consent or understand.

If you seriously believe that somehow liberals agree with pedophilia because gay marriage, then you are one ignorant fark.

/I know and consent does not equal he's an adult and says its OK.


Because NAMBLA was founded in San Francisco by homosexuals? I am willing to bet they were not the type to vote conservative.
 
2013-12-29 09:49:01 PM

Lee451: Kit Fister: Lee451:

Yes because an organization operating under the color of civil rights to justify criminal behavior is liberal.

Even the most hippie whatever dude radical liberal understands and agrees a child is not able to consent and shouldn't be the object of sexual attention.

There is a huge difference between rights for consenting adults and attempting to justify behavior that damages a person who cannot consent or understand.

If you seriously believe that somehow liberals agree with pedophilia because gay marriage, then you are one ignorant fark.

/I know and consent does not equal he's an adult and says its OK.

Because NAMBLA was founded in San Francisco by homosexuals? I am willing to bet they were not the type to vote conservative.


Damn and I'm the clinically mentally ill one here?
 
2013-12-29 09:59:51 PM

Lee451: Kit Fister: Lee451:

Yes because an organization operating under the color of civil rights to justify criminal behavior is liberal.

Even the most hippie whatever dude radical liberal understands and agrees a child is not able to consent and shouldn't be the object of sexual attention.

There is a huge difference between rights for consenting adults and attempting to justify behavior that damages a person who cannot consent or understand.

If you seriously believe that somehow liberals agree with pedophilia because gay marriage, then you are one ignorant fark.

/I know and consent does not equal he's an adult and says its OK.

Because NAMBLA was founded in San Francisco by homosexuals? I am willing to bet they were not the type to vote conservative.


It was founded by one gay guy. You are aware that one gay guy does not speak for all gays, right?
 
2013-12-29 10:00:05 PM

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: Your points are unfounded conclusions from your poor understanding of the truth.

please elaborate

 In the past you yourself have agreed locking the ss trust away in a box would be a stupid idea. What is laughable is that your solution was to decrease the trust to near zero so that it could not be borrowed from.

No I have not.  My idea would be to reduce the SS trust fund to about 1 year worth of funds.  You could still borrow from the fund, but my idea would have it more of a pay-as- you-go type system where it would not rack up as much interest as it does now.  Quit making my point into a strawman.

You sound like a typical republican politician,

and you sound like the typical democratic politician where you need to create a strawman in order to try to make a sentient point - which has nothing to do with reality.


It isn't a strawman. That was your solution in a past thread.

No I didn't save a link, becauseI didn't consider tgat you would deny it. You certainly defended it then.

/shrug
 
2013-12-29 10:01:56 PM

Lee451: Kit Fister: Lee451:

Yes because an organization operating under the color of civil rights to justify criminal behavior is liberal.

Even the most hippie whatever dude radical liberal understands and agrees a child is not able to consent and shouldn't be the object of sexual attention.

There is a huge difference between rights for consenting adults and attempting to justify behavior that damages a person who cannot consent or understand.

If you seriously believe that somehow liberals agree with pedophilia because gay marriage, then you are one ignorant fark.

/I know and consent does not equal he's an adult and says its OK.

Because NAMBLA was founded in San Francisco by homosexuals? I am willing to bet they were not the type to vote conservative.


No, but the Catholic Church has diddled more boys than NAMBLA has ever dreamed of and they're a pretty conservative group.
 
2013-12-29 10:08:26 PM

Smackledorfer: It isn't a strawman. That was your solution in a past thread.


No it was not.  You are misrepresenting my argument as a strawman (and a dumb one at that).  I'll let you two fight it out if you want, just know that it has nothing to do with me.

No I didn't save a link,

Of course you didn't as it would show off your strawman's underwear.
 
2013-12-29 10:13:08 PM
ITT: yet another Conservative equates all homosexuals with child molesters, and all Liberals with both.
 
2013-12-29 10:22:09 PM

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: It isn't a strawman. That was your solution in a past thread.

No it was not.  You are misrepresenting my argument as a strawman (and a dumb one at that).  I'll let you two fight it out if you want, just know that it has nothing to do with me.

No I didn't save a link,

Of course you didn't as it would show off your strawman's underwear.


Ok, I'll let you reinvent yourself.

Social Security, what to do?
 
2013-12-29 10:23:34 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: ITT: yet another Conservative equates all homosexuals with child molesters, and all Liberals with both.


Straight people invented incest and pedophilia. It is in the bible iirc.
 
2013-12-29 10:30:28 PM

Smackledorfer: Social Security, what to do?


I have already given you the outline:

HeadLever: My idea would be to reduce the SS trust fund to about 1 year worth of funds.  You could still borrow from the fund, but my idea would have it more of a pay-as- you-go type system where it would not rack up as much interest as it does now.  Quit making my point into a strawman.

That proposal would drop the SS trust fund balance from a current 2.2T to about $700 Billion.  This move would reduce the yearly interest payments due to these non-marketable bond from about $100B/year to about $35B.  After that, you would adjust the SS withholding rates every normal year in order to keep about 1 years worth of bonds in the SS trust fund.  During bad years, you could draw off the trust fund by reducing withholding or increasing benefits (or a combo of both).  Once the bad years are over, you can adjust the withholding rates upward to restock the trust fund.

This way you keep the benefits and withholding tied into the present instead of kicking the can down the road.
 
2013-12-29 10:45:18 PM

Mrtraveler01: No, but the Catholic Church has diddled more boys than NAMBLA has ever dreamed of and they're a pretty conservative group.


In all fairness, if you take sex out of the equation, the Catholic church is pretty farking liberal. More liberal than most people I know.

Simple example, official Catholic dogma is that evolution/old earth is true.
 
2013-12-29 10:47:40 PM

HeadLever: Smackledorfer: Social Security, what to do?

I have already given you the outline:

HeadLever: My idea would be to reduce the SS trust fund to about 1 year worth of funds.  You could still borrow from the fund, but my idea would have it more of a pay-as- you-go type system where it would not rack up as much interest as it does now.  Quit making my point into a strawman.

That proposal would drop the SS trust fund balance from a current 2.2T to about $700 Billion.  This move would reduce the yearly interest payments due to these non-marketable bond from about $100B/year to about $35B.  After that, you would adjust the SS withholding rates every normal year in order to keep about 1 years worth of bonds in the SS trust fund.  During bad years, you could draw off the trust fund by reducing withholding or increasing benefits (or a combo of both).  Once the bad years are over, you can adjust the withholding rates upward to restock the trust fund.

This way you keep the benefits and withholding tied into the present instead of kicking the can down the road.


It wouldn't reduce any payments because it wouldn't reduce spending. Borrowing could and would occur elsewhere.

So nothing solved on that end.

But I love the recomendation that the folks who play debt ceiling and government shutdown games keep a maintenence over things.

Oh well, at least you want a year's surplus now so we MIGHT not see constant brinksmanship.
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report