START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
Why the Democrats are Favored ....
2 years ago

http://www.uticaod.com/blogs/rcil/x1177024411/Were-All-In-This-Together-Bill-Clintons-speech

 

Donna Gillette, Policy Analyst

“We’re all in this together is a far better philosophy than “you’re on your own.”

(Bill Clinton, DNC, September 5, 2012)

As philanthropist and past President Bill Clinton brought Democratic Convention attendees to their feet in applause this week, it was the above statement perhaps more than any other that clarified the competing values of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Democratic candidate/President Barack Obama.

 

One vision of an America that values all citizens is seen in President Obama’s 2013 Budget Proposal[i] seeking a gradual approach to bringing down our federal deficit while maintaining and improving critical services.   Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan’s (and by association Republican Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney) budget proposes to severely cut or eliminate services to a level that goes much deeper than was recommended by the deficit super-committee last year and would eventually phase out programs we’ve come to count on.  Ryan’s proposal makes no plans for gradually transitioning people or programs to other ways of doing things guaranteeing human desperation and turmoil.  The values here scream, “You’re on your own.”

 

Paul Ryan’s and the Republican House proposal will gut Medicaid, Medicare, housing, state aid, education,  food and other critical social programs while continuing billions of dollars in tax breaks for the already wealthy.[ii] The Urban Institute estimated that a similar Ryan proposal would cause 14 to 27 million low-income Americans to lose healthcare coverage in addition to 17 million through promised repeal of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

 

Your vote this November will be a vote that determines which value system you believe should guide our nation.  None of us succeeds without the sweat of others that came before us and with whom we toil today.  A value system that undermines this ideal cannot build a future for our nation or serve as a rallying cry to other nations and takes us down a path of greediness and despotism unlikely to be the stuff of good character we demand from our own children.

 

We encourage you to visit the U.S. Congressional Budget Office on-line for more information as well as the Urban Institute Report on Paul Ryan’s Medicaid Plan and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities for commentary on the impact the Ryan proposal will have on already struggling Americans.   Be informed; give voice to the issues you care about and vote like your life depended on it.

 



[i] Congressional Budget Office, “An Analysis of the President’s 2013 Budget,” March 16, 2012.

[ii] Congressional Budget Office, “The Long-Term Impact of Paths for Federal Revenues and spending Specified by Chairman Ryan,” March 2012.



 



This post was modified from its original form on 30 Dec, 6:43
2 years ago

Unless conservatives can start convincing the rest of this country that their intent on Libertarian principles will be better for everyone; this kind of manipulation will succeed.

 

Bill Clinton's line was memorable and it is being singled out as the leading moment in 2012 by CNN and MSM.  You are not in it alone is a theme that people in trouble want to hear.

There are too many on government handout programs, we all know that  and the incentive to work and be individually productive is getting diminished and weakened by a government which promotes socialism.

 

How do you change this? 

2 years ago


No one is promoting socialism. You either don't know the meaning of socialism, or you've been lied to.

My guess is both.

Anyway, there exist other parties than just the Democrats and Republicans. By not supporting or voting for those other parties, you lose the right to complain about the Democrats and Republicans.
 

2 years ago


The only real "handout" programs are TANF and SNAP, and they do not pay out anywhere near enough to live on. They are a necessary suppliment to the piss-poor wages being paid by Walmart and similar companies who also collude in keeping their employees' work hours to just under full-time so that they do not qualify for any benefits. They are paid so little, they have no choice but to apply for assistance in an effort to survive. As well, Walmart and similar companies outsource most of their manufacturing jobs to India and China, leaving many Americans without manufacturing jobs, the very jobs which help grow economies. 

One doesn't even qualify for TANF unless they have children, so in the case of childless couples or single people, that just leaves SNAP, which, on average, only pays out less than $3 a day in food benefits, not enough to eat properly.


On top of that, most American cities are not structured with bicycle or public transportation in mind, so most people have to drive cars. This results in too much of people's income being spent on their car and not on food, bills, rent and other necessities. 

The problem is far more complex than your simplistic assumption that the poor live solely on "handouts" and that they have no incentive to work anymore. It's an intellectually bankrupt right-wing fantasy that has little-to-no basis in fact, a fantasy you insist is reality, despite all evidence to the contrary.
 

Milton Friedman differs with Christian
2 years ago

2 years ago


And Milton Friedman had a nice home, car, money in the bank, health insurance, lots of investment income and absolutely no problem getting food whenever he needed some.

What's your point?
 

2 years ago

I see.......... A person who started from humble beginnings, educates himself on scholarships based on outstanding academic achievement, becomes a major figure in the field of economics, publishes multiple books, develops a school of economics gets a (deserved) Nobel Price in economics "got a nice home, a car, money in the bank, health insurance, lots of investment income" etc......

Wow........... Just C-R-A-Z-Y!  

Of course the video was about "our" government and American socialism.  

2 years ago

Of course this has EVERYTHING to do with US government and American socialism!!!

"...the president has had ample opportunity over the past four years to arrive at a compromise solution to our immediate fiscal problem and then to make headway toward dealing with our longer-term fiscal issues, but he has failed miserably.

If the president had taken some of the advice of his own National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, we wouldn't be counting the minutes before we fall off the fiscal cliff, but he didn't heed their warning two years ago. Even worse, he has given us no indication that he ever intends to take our nation's spending problem seriously.

The word "compromise" must not appear in Obama's dictionary. That fact has been obvious since Day One of his presidency. His first major initiative, Obamacare, was figuratively shoved down the throats of members of Congress, even members of his own party. It has been Obama's way or the highway since the beginning, and it's still his way. This time there will be a high price to pay.

Yesterday on "Meet the Press", the president told David Gregory that he cut spending by more than a trillion dollars in 2011. That's pure nonsense, but he got away with it because Gregory was too busy licking the president's shoes to do his job.

Anyone who believes that President Obama cut spending in 2011 needs to have his head examined, and spending continues to be the most serious fiscal problem that we face. That's what the Fiscal Responsibility Commission told the president. There is no way to solve our nation's fiscal problem without cutting spending, period. Stated another way, we can't tax our way out of this mess.

Pretending that increasing tax rates for millionaires and billionaires will do anything significant to solve our long-term fiscal problem is ridiculous. If millionaires and billionaires in the U.S. gave everything they own to the government and paid a 100% tax on their earnings, our spending problem would still be an imminent threat to our nation's fiscal solvency. In essence, that's what Chris Cox and Bill Archer said in an article for The Wall Street Journal in November:

As a result, fiscal policy discussions generally focus on current-year budget deficits, the accumulated national debt, and the relationships between these two items and gross domestic product. We most often hear about the alarming $15.96 trillion national debt (more than 100% of GDP), and the 2012 budget deficit of $1.1 trillion (6.97% of GDP). As dangerous as those numbers are, they do not begin to tell the story of the federal government's true liabilities.

The actual liabilities of the federal government-including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits-already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

If President Obama were serious about solving our fiscal problem, he would give lots of ground on spending, but as I said, he's not serious. Instead of dealing with the problem, he's playing politics as though he was running for re-election. And it's the worst kind of politics because he's playing the class warfare card and stoking a fire that has the potential to explode across the nation and produce results that I don't want to imagine.

According to a recent Gallup poll, the president's disapproval rating has climbed 5 points since Christmas. Maybe people are beginning to catch on, but doubt it. I fear that most of our fellow citizens believe that we can continue spending money we don't have on things we don't need and that everything will work out in the end. If I'm right, then responsible people should read Jon Hall's article in today's American Thinker carefully and begin to acquire precious metals.

Gold and other precious metals are hedges against inflation, but they are more than that. In times of emergency, they may be among the few currencies that have real purchasing power. I think that buying precious metals at this juncture is like buying insurance, because I'm fearful that we are moving headlong toward cataclysmic economic conditions brought on by pandering politicians like Barack Obama.

As the president likes to say, "Let me be perfectly clear," I hope we get a deal on the fiscal cliff mess by the end of the day, but even if we do, we still spend too much. Overspending and more specifically deficit spending threaten to bankrupt this nation. The result of loading more debt on top of an already debt-laden economy can be devastating. As far as I know, there is not a single example in history of a country abusing debt and not having to pay the price. Will we escape the inevitable this time and rewrite history? Don't bet on it.


Neil Snyder is the Ralph A. Beeton Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia. His blog, Snydertalk.com, is posted daily.

2 years ago


There's no such thing as "American socialism" Angry Jim. You've been into the Kool-Aid again, I see.
 

2 years ago

American socialism is where our income taxes are collected to contribute to the continued production of military industrial complex. We are now all entitled to a fair share in the guilt and shame of war whether we agree or not.

2 years ago

Given the massive failures and associated disasters of socialism around the world, it isn't surprise that you would pretend it doesn't exist in the USA Christian. It's also pretty clear you are a advocate of that system. The video I posted by Friedman shows that he thought the US economy had become saturated with socialism. He used public education as another example.

Of course, the political class loves the idea of socialism with the resultant power it gives them. The political class, in a effort to retain their power, have taken even Keynesian economic theories to a extreme. Many US economics warned this would lead to socialism and they were correct.

It is a shame that Keynes came to understand his errors but the damage had been done. In his final year, Keynes, at last, began to understand and said: "I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand which I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago." ........ I'm not sure you will understand the reference Christian.






This post was modified from its original form on 01 Jan, 17:30
And also,
2 years ago

the Democrats aren't batshiit crazy.......

2 years ago

Actually, I know quite a few batshit crazy "democrats" .... and I know of 10s of millions more who voted for that lying POS again because they were too batshit crazy to fire a few weeks ago.

Speaking of lying, Chile.... What say you about the habitual liar that you voted for in '08 and, if I am not mistaken, AGAIN in '12?   Seriously, how do you rationalsize voting for someone who the whole world knows, including yourself, has lied right to your face? I don't mean little lies, I mean lies that have cost 168 children their lives in Obama ordered drone strikes, has cost thousands of of our troops lives (weather they are still breathing or not), and $Trillions in national wealth. 

How do you Obama voters square all that with your conscience?  Or are Middle Eastern children fodder to you?  I must ask because the "progressive" reaction to 20 American children being murdered was outrage (and rightly so, it was a horrid, heartbreaking tragedy), but I don't see ANY outrage from Obamabots - EVER - about theTHOUSANDS of NON-American children that are murdered with "assault weapons" in far away lands.  Is it only because your CNN doesn't do 'stories' with names and faces? Out of sight out of mind kind of thing? Racist thing? What is it?

2 years ago

Jim, Christian doesn't believe in ambition and the rewards it can EARN somebody.

2 years ago

I don't know that Milton needed handouts to get started. What a socialist!

2 years ago

What's the matter, Chile? Afraid to answer to my questions on the record? Are you a coward?

What about the CHILDREN YOUR LEADER HAS MURDERED IN DRONE STRIKES?  Where is your outrage over that? 

2 years ago

The MSM refuses to talk about the drone strikes hitting innocents. 

 

The MSM is totally aligned with the teflon leader where nothing bad ever sticks.

 

The teflon president and the MSM will manipulate the dumb people as long as they can.

People who never read, never research, never analyze will always fall for the dung.  

Wrong again Chile. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
2 years ago
  • Those were private scholarships Chile.  Given for academic excellence.  For example, Friedman graduated from high school at 15.  And yes he went to a public high school when  didn't cost the public 2X what it does now thanks to centrally planned  education by the political class. 
2 years ago
  • Katii, the 167 children that you cited is a older number. And that number were just the Pakistani children droned bombed by "death from above Obama".
  • Add Yemen, Libya and others that the progressive hero Obama has slaughtered with no constitutional authorization and the number of children killed has been in the thousands. Number of tears shed by Obama for all those children= ZERO.
  • He does the killing by decree like any other despot.
  • No photo op or political advantage, so no fake tears.
  • Don't even bother with the "he isn't a progressive" BS. Chile (and company). Progressives idolize him. 

2 years ago

Honestly, I do think that everyone posting on this list DOES believe in ambition and the government is certainly not trying to take it away.

I think we all try our darnedest to work hard and take care of ourselves. 

Good points though about the military complex (and contractors!) Rebecca.  I am not sure I would call that socialism though.  Could you explain why it is socialism?

2 years ago

Well, it was a bit of black humor.

Anyhow, in the government ownership of the military, the government takes from the people and spreads the wealth to the military, and other things, the tax payers don't necessarily agree upon, but the government believes is for the greater good.

...

Definition of socialism:

"1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

 b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism



This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 9:31
2 years ago

OK, black humor. I just didn't/don't see the spreading around of military spedning really spreading to everyone in the way we usually think of socialism. 

 

"3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done""

 

Well, ins't THAT interesting. 



This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 9:42
2 years ago

Yeah, well that would fall into those other things most tax payers don't agree with...like spreading the wealth to the pockets of politicians, central bankers, corporate cronies...in addition to the military complex.

...

2 years ago


"2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property"



That's communism, not socialism.

2 years ago

IN any case Christian, we clearly do not have that here.

2 years ago

Well, that's what Merriam Webster said.

...

Let's consult with Britannica...

..

"socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism

2 years ago

What about all those articles we read about, it may have been over a year ago, on the government taking over people's properties...i think it was government going after those living off the grid...?

And, in essance, the central banks really own all properties, until you pay it off your mortgage.

And, if you don't pay your property tax, the banks reposses.

That's still not quite socialism, but it's something to think about.

2 years ago

So Nancy, what do we have under Obama?

 

   A republic?   He loves to decree those executive orders way too much!

 

He does want to redistribute wealth and he made many promises.  I guess you don't listen to his rhetoric, esp. during campaign where he was particularly avid about class distinctions.

Just about everyone now gets food stamps who are in need and that number is growing daily.

He offered food stamps or EBT cards to everyone.   You don't need to be a U.S. citizen either. 

2 years ago

It is contractual and I understand that.  Pya your bills and you don't have that problem.  (Yes, I do have a family member in a mess).

2 years ago

For example, education is a "good" or "service" 1-12 education is 90% controlled by the State. It is centrally planned. It is paid for by expropriation of private wealth. It is a semi monopoly by the State. Therefore, US public education is socialist. As Friedman pointed out.

Well Nancy....
2 years ago
  • Is the government "trying to take" ambition "away"? That's an irrelevant question. Government does take away ambition. Government also takes away innovation and competition. It does that by a number of means Through regulation for example.
  • Most don't know that the vast majority of regulations that are passed are requested by powerful corporations to give them an advantage over their potential competitors. And those powerful corporations control the regulatory agencies through lobby's and the (rewarding) revolving door. Then there are subsidizes, tax advantages, and lucrative government contracts. Which brings us back to "ambition".
  •  If you know the game is rigged in favor of those that have political power, are you as motivated to compete with those that are so advantaged? This is one of the major reasons why there are fewer jobs being created. Most jobs are created by small and medium sized businesses. Those are disadvantaged. By government power. For the powerful. At the expense of the general population.  And it harms the economy.
  • In addition, many that are ambitious take the easiest path and work for lobby's or government. The question derived? Is this productive? Or is it parasitical to the economy and society?
  • Notice that the giant corporations that have government advantages are usually the first to ship their jobs overseas. So, the US is sending both jobs and "ambition" overseas.
2 years ago

Plutocracy, Sheila.

2 years ago

I would agree that the public education system is socialist.

Definations
2 years ago

Definitions are a slippery thing, no? http://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z has "socialism" as: "The exact meaning of socialism is much debated, but in theory it includes some collective ownership of the means of production and a strong emphasis on equality, of some sort."

2 years ago

"For example, education is a "good" or "service" 1-12 education is 90% controlled by the State. It is centrally planned. It is paid for by expropriation of private wealth. It is a semi monopoly by the State. Therefore, US public education is socialist. As Friedman pointed out."

Got your point Jim.  Don't know where this came up.  In any cse, we have had public schools for a long time and they have traditionally been goods thing.  Not going defend the current status of our schools.  If that is the only thing "socialistic" about the US, then I am glad it is socialized. 

2 years ago

I suppose that one could say our roads are also socialized. 

 

Or our telecommunications.

 

Or the internet.

2 years ago

And you missed the biggest one Nancy M -- only about half of Americans work, the other half is dependent on welfare (47% if I'm not mistaken).

2 years ago
  • My own figures show the governments "share" of the GDP is about 44%. Friedman said it was 50% my figures show it was about 33% (in 1980), so I'm guessing Friedman thought the government had a bigger share than I did. I'll check into that.
  • Then there is there is fascist economics. That is what I was referring to above. The economic system where there is an alliance between the State and corporations. In theory is , there is privately owned businesses and the State guarantees the profits of those privately owned corporations. The State tells the corporations what to produce, how much and how to produce it. That is the closest example of what we have where "our" government is involved. The difference is the melding of the State and the corporations is so tight, it is increasingly difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends..... and which has the upper hand.
2 years ago

The banking system and the money in the USA is an example of fascist economics.  The most powerful monopoly in the USA is the Federal Reserve/Central Bank.  Fasciam is a version of Socialism. 

2 years ago


Dependent on welfare?
 



This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 12:11
2 years ago

Definition of Welfare:

Noun
  1. Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.

2 years ago

"And you missed the biggest one Nancy M -- only about half of Americans work, the other half is dependent on welfare (47% if I'm not mistaken).

That is not true Alexandra.  47% includes people who do work but have earned income credit.  They DO WORK.  It also includes retirees who did work but no longer do.  Hardly socialism. 

2 years ago

"..both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent many of the ill effects that are sometimes associated with capitalism, such as economic inequality"

In a purely capitalistic system, a retired or medically unfit person is dependent on their own private provision they made while working or on their family/children, not of social security.



This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 12:38



This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 12:39
The working poor are also victims
2 years ago
  • Most of those that are on government assistance are there because government policies impoverished them. I don't blame them. They are being robbed just like most of us. I blame the government, the Fed, the fake two party's, the political class
  • This is powered by Keynesian economics and dividing the people against each other while the elites rip us all off by inflating the money supply which they use leverage and speculate on.  They get wealthy, we get xcrewed
  • The latest target by the elites is the upper middle class and professionals.  They are the most productive in our society.  Since the rest have been robbed so much, these are the only source of wealth left to take. 
  • The war on terror is mostly a hoax designed to keep the population confused.
  • Class warfare is a tool by the powerful. Some are forced into dependency and support government for that reason. 
  • The main parasites in "our" system are not the working poor, but those in the finance sector that game the system.
  • The media is essentially the mouthpiece of the elites and used for propaganda purposes. They only tell the truth when it suits the purpose of the rulers or when the truth becomes so obvious they would lose all creditability if they kept on lying.






This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 12:52
2 years ago

Jim- there is much in your post immediately above this that I agree with.  Kudos to you. 

Agreed ..
2 years ago
  • The working poor are also victims. I don't blame them. They are being robbed just like most of us. I blame the government, the Fed, the fake two party's, the political class.
  • Class warfare is a tool used by the powerful. Some are forced into dependency and support government for that reason.
  • The media is essentially the mouthpiece of the elites and used for propaganda purposes. They only tell the truth when it suits the purpose of the rulers or when the truth becomes so obvious they would lose all creditability if they kept on lying.
2 years ago

Nancy, regardless of which definition of "socialism" you choose to go with, the fact - and the problem is, by whatever you label it with - is that about half of the population is working to support about half of everyone else. And I don't think that includes the public employee population  or the employees who work for private corporations that are "dependent" upon the state for its income/profits, which are GIANT and paid for by working class people like you (someone correct me if I'm wrong).  Considering the number of people collecting tax payer funded benefits grows not shrinks (as funding is already being monetized) how long do you see that I lasting before the "needy" out number the tax payers? And, given the state's history if grossly mis-managing OUR money, what do you logically see happening then?  A call for state ownership of means of production perhaps?

2 years ago

("of grossly"not, not if grossly)

2 years ago

Send a Green Star to Katii L.

Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to Katii because you have done so within the last week.

Katii, I agree with all you said above. This is what I'm wondering also:

"how long do you see that lasting before the "needy" out number the tax payers? And, given the state's history of grossly mis-managing US money, what do you logically see happening then?"



This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 13:25
2 years ago

"Nancy, regardless of which definition of "socialism" you choose to go with, the fact - and the problem is, by whatever you label it with - is that about half of the population is working to support about half of everyone else."

Personally, I veiw it is working to support the compnaies who aren't paying enough. 

" Considering the number of people collecting tax payer funded benefits grows not shrinks (as funding is already being monetized) how long do you see that I lasting before the "needy" out number the tax payers?"

I was aware of that long ago.  And personally, I know plenty of people who should be getting some type of help and aren't.  I have been viewing it as a short term problem these past few years. 

Good point Nancy
2 years ago

..one of the great problems with social security (other than the looming problem of more people dependent on it that what contribute to it) is the fact that so many who are truly in need, are not getting any. In the UK there's been a retired couple who committed suicide because they did not have enough to live on and did not get any help. Yet there are those in the UK that brazenly admit they've not worked a single day in their lives, but simply parent another illegitimate child so they can have a better standard of living. When the number of parasites together with the truly needy finally outdoes the number of working individuals, what will happen then? This day is not far off in the future ..

2 years ago

"Personally, I veiw it is working to support the compnaies who aren't paying enough." - Nancy

What do you mean, Nancy?  That people who work get welfare too?  Do you really think public employees and the thousands who are employed by the MIC aren't getting paid enough ?

2 years ago

" That people who work get welfare too? "

I was referring to all those 47% that are part of that half you claim are getting benefit from the rest of us.  They do work and their companies aren't paying them enough.

I am would not be upset over really working to support those truly in need.  I do not like the idea that companies can pay so low that their employees are eligible for food stamps.  We are subsidizng Wal-mart and the like. 

Perhpas I misinterpreted what you meant.  Perhpas I was influenced by the previous remarks from Alexandra.

2010 data (worse now)
2 years ago

More than a third of Americans live in households receiving government assistance.

2 years ago

One in three as of 2010 census data. Estimates now are 38%.  Excludes Social Security and Medicare.  Some receive  more than one program.  Does not include mortgage programs either. 

But no, Nancy, raising taxes on businesses does nothing but hide the taxes and end up being regressive taxes which the poor and middle class pay the most via consumption spending  Businesses just raise their prices.  Which we pay.  The only answer is to increase the efficiency of the system.  That requires innovation and competition.  The government stops that from happening on behalf of the powerful corporations.  There is however a new tax:  the Federal Reserve has reduced interest rates on savings.  The decrease in the cost of money benefits the financial service sector and the government.  In fact, we have had the largest tax increase in history via a negative return on savings.  It is around $500 Billion/year.  Payed by the middle class and it enriches Wall Street and the banks. 



This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 14:45
2 years ago

Who receives government benefits, in six charts

I agree with our statement Jim S: The only answer is to increase the efficiency of the system.  That requires innovation and competition.



This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 14:50
2 years ago

Nancy, nobody puts a gun to someone's head to force them to work for poverty wages. And why would you be comfy subsidizing companies that qualify employees for welfare? Really? I'd be more apt to encourage an 'employee strike' than to reward cheap ass employers. One has to wonder how many employees Walmart could get away with screwing if their emoyees didn't know youwould make up thedifference.

2 years ago

"And why would you be comfy subsidizing companies that qualify employees for welfare?"

I am really not.  But I would rather think of it as helping the poor (as many of you have indicated).

"Nancy, nobody puts a gun to someone's head to force them to work for poverty wages."

Well, I am sure that many of them ARE looking for something esle.  Let's see- 7-8% unemployment?  Poverty wages are better than nothing at times. 

"But no, Nancy, raising taxes on businesses does nothing but hide the taxes"

I didn't say that we should raise taxes on businesses.  I DO believe, however, that many companies could pay a whole lot more then they do. 

2 years ago

I was awarded a competitive scholarship to Rutgers University (then a relatively small and predominantly private university receiving limited financial assistance from the State of New Jersey, mostly in the form of such scholarship awards


Jim is WRONG

MF also got work from the New Deal and Depression recovery measures.

What a socialist.

2 years ago

MF was also real good for Chile... But hey, who cares about Coup's the support of dictators and the massacres of thousands. Not Jim and Katii... No...

2 years ago

Personally, I don't consider someone who has 1. a job, 2. shelter and clothing, and 3. are not starving, as "poor." Far from it. POOR are those who have NO shelter, clothes, and/or food, no potable water, no medicine, no medical professionals or facilities, etc. There is not a single American who needs medical care that can not get it. There are kitchens and shelters for the TRULY poor everywhere (if they want it). In the big picture, there are very very very few Americans who fit the global definition of "poor." I think a lot of Americans need to get over this sense of entitlement they develop (be it for others or themselves) simply because there is an entity that exists that takes, well more like 'steals' money from others (under threat of violence = morally bankrupt idea) so they or someone else can have 'free money'. And no, I'm not saying we should not be charitable and caring. Quite the opposite. I think Americans should be far more charitable than they are today compared to just 50 or 60 years ago, before they allowed the state to all but take it (charity) over. Charity of old, I think, did a much better job (in efficiency and cost) than the state ever could. Charities got "donations" of goods and services = cost the charity nada. The Feds 'pay pay pay' top dollar for everything it gives away, which means you, the individual working stiff, are paying top dollar for a terrible job of helping the poor. top dollar for everything it gives away.

2 years ago

Chile, didn't you just get done VOTING for a dictator? If you voted for the liar Obama you did (you did). I never have done that. Chile, how do you square voting again for a known liar who has the blood of hundreds of little dead-by-Obama-drone children on his hands? Please explain that to us? Or are you too chickenshit to even think about it? I mean, if you have any compassion AT ALL for innocent children, I can understand how you might like to pretend it's not happening since you sanctioned it.

2 years ago

Rutgers was a PRIVATE University until the 1940's Chile.  Some of the funding for scholarships came from the State of NJ.  So what?  I agree it would have been better to have had none.  Friedman would have done well regardless.  This is typical of your progressive thought Chile.  People can pay taxes, social security, fees and such forced by the government to do so, but if they collect a small portion of it back in any way, progressives claim "foul" if those people disagree with the government.  Those that disagree are  slaves to the State, Iguess.   

As for working for the New Deal:  Since you are claiming that this is "socialism"  then you agree the New Deal was socialism.  Thank's for comming clean.



This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 19:09
Guilt by association? Progressive myopia.
2 years ago
  • Yes, it’s true—Friedman gave advice to Pinochet. But it wasn’t about how to find the best place at sea to dump the bodies of murdered political enemies. Despite the angry mobs of students who hounded Friedman everywhere from Stockholm (his Nobel acceptance ceremony in 1976 was marred by their presence) to Chicago because they held him to be some sort of puppet master for sinister Chilean policies, the reality of Friedman’s “links” with Pinochet is far less dramatic.
  • For years, the University of Chicago had a program in partnership with the Catholic University of Chile providing scholarships to Chileans to study at Chicago. Pinochet’s economic advisers were thus University of Chicago-trained, and known as the “Chicago Boys.” But Friedman’s only direct connection was when he was invited by fellow Chicago professor Arnold Harberger--who was most closely involved with the Chilean program--to give a week of lectures and public talks in Chile in 1975.
  • While there, Friedman did have one meeting with Pinochet, for less than an hour. Pinochet asked Friedman to write him a letter about his judgments on what Chilean economic policy should be, which Friedman did . He advocated quick and severe cuts in government spending and inflation, as well as instituting more open international trade policies—and to &ldquorovide for the relief of any cases of real hardship and severe distress among the poorest classes.” He did not choose this as an opportunity to upbraid Pinochet for any of his repressive policies, and many of Friedman’s admirers, including me, would have felt better if he had.
  • But that was the extent of his involvement with the Chilean regime—and it fit with a recurring pattern in Friedman’s career of advising with an even hand all who would listen to him. It was not a sign of approval of military authoritarianism. Friedman, in defending himself against accusations of complicity with or approval of Pinochet, noted in a 1975 letter to the University of Chicago school newspaper that he “has never heard complaints” about giving aid and comfort to the communist governments to which he had spoken, and that “I approve of none of these authoritarian regimes—neither the Communist regimes of Russia and Yugoslavia nor the military juntas of Chile and Brazil. But I believe I can learn from observing them and that, insofar as my personal analysis of their economic situation enables them to improve their economic performance, that is likely to promote not retard a movement toward greater liberalism and freedom.”
  • If you believe it is a moral duty to boycott government criminals without reservation, then Friedman did the wrong thing in talking to Pinochet and writing him a letter. But if any Chilean had a better life because of any free-market reform that Friedman or Chicago-trained Pinochet advisors helped push through, that’s a small price to pay for any damage to Friedman’s reputation.
  • But did any Chilean indeed have that better life because of free-market policies? It is a matter of faith among the left that Chile in fact had its economy destroyed by rampant Friedmanism. In an excellent article (not available online) that appeared in the August 1983 issue of Inquiry magazine in the midst of Chile’s first severe recession after some early market reforms, called “Did Milton Friedman Really Ruin Chile?” Jonathan Marshall pointed out that both Friedman, who was too quick to declare permanent victory for free-market reform in Chile, and his detractors, who thought his policies had brought the nation to ruination, were missing some important details: “Friedman’s own protégés abandoned laissez-faire economics at certain critical junctures, and these departures, not any maniacal monetarism, produced Chile’s suffering.”

http://reason.com/archives/2006/12/15/the-economist-and-the-dictator

2 years ago
    • What is clearly illustrated here is the hypocrisy of the left. While they are quick to condemn people like Friedman for a distant association with such as Pinochet, they are curiously silent when their own heroes and leaders use taxpayer funds to support tyrants and the acts of these leaders caused the deaths in the millions.
    • Friedman as a PRIVATE individual gave no support to Chile's dictator. Clinton on the other hand, gave US government financial and military aid to Kagame who use that aid to murder hundreds of thousands in the Congo.
    • Friedman expressed regret, Clinton, on the other hand, was seen partying with Kagame this summer (2012) long after it was know that Kagame, once again, was implicated in the murder of hundreds of thousands more women and children in the Congo.
    • Clinton also refused to lift economic sanctions after the UN inspection teams had confirmed WMD in Iraq had been destroyed. This resulted in the deaths of several hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
    • Speaking of Kagame, Obama continued supporting that tyrant and even went to the effort to try to get Kagame immunity from prosecution for his actions.!
    • Of course we know of Obama's other actions that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocients. Or do we? Quite a lot of secrecy and few on the left are looking.  Especially Chile. 



This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 19:50
2 years ago

Re: Private property (as in real estate)... No such thing when the state can take it from you, which of course it can, and does. For "the better good" of course (they have another official name for this type of theft: imminent domain.)

2 years ago

Just curious Chile...... Is your job related to the government, created by government policies,  subsidized or funded  by the government?............Never mind.  I think we know the answer to that question.  



This post was modified from its original form on 02 Jan, 19:56
2 years ago

Yes, Jim, I think we do know the answer to that

Just a note
2 years ago

Friedman was a economist of the Monetarist school of economics. I, myself subscribe to the Austrian school of economics. Friedman started as a economist of the Keynesian school of economics (associated with progressive ideology). Although he was never able to quite make the complete transition to real free market economics, he made great strides and had rejected Keynesian doctrine in the 1950's, long before the US economic debacle caused by the Keynesians in the 1970's through 1982.  

2 years ago


The level of ignorance and insanity in this group is beyond measure.
 

2 years ago

unfortuately, we are living in times now when jobs no longer offer benefits, many do NOT have pension plans at all and are dependent upon social security.  SS is not a hand-out as people paid for it from their paychecks.  Check it out, there is a ss and medicare deduction taken from the paycheck.  So, they are not freebies to seniors who worked for years and paid into the sytem.

 

The problem is the new acts which enabled far too many to get medicare, soc sec. disability.

A child diagnosed with psych. illness can get ssdI and medicare now.  Alcoholism, mental health issues are all under ssdI and medicare also.

 

Of course, the psych. hosp. closed in the 70s - 80s and inlieu of hospitalization; they put them on the rolls.  There is far too much abuse in the system.  If they cleaned up the FRAUD which is massive; that would be a start.   They allow the fraud to continue and these people gaming the system are stealing millions.

 

What do you expect with Obamacare now,  ..... more fraud and corruption.  A real mess will be in the horizons.  Too big a government always creates massive problems.

We are heading towards European socialism and anyone here denying that is pure stupid.   

repost
2 years ago

Chile, didn't you just get done VOTING for a dictator? If you voted for the liar Obama you did (you did). I never have done that. Chile, how do you square voting again for a known liar who has the blood of hundreds of little dead-by-Obama-drone children on his hands? Please explain that to us? Or are you too chickenshit to even think about it? I mean, if you have any compassion AT ALL for innocent children, I can understand how you might like to pretend it's not happening since you sanctioned it.

2 years ago

Katii, I am pretty sure Chile is a third party voter both times.  At least that is what I recall from conversation of past times.  Not that I am speaking for him, but I do recall that.  I also have seen him start numerous conversations on the children caught up in the bullshyte of it all.

I like to be fair so I think that tree is the wrong one to climb when it comes to Chile.

2 years ago

Well, Suzanne, you are more forthcoming about that (here, the only group I where I encounter Chile) than I have seen Chile be himself, but he's been asked many times (here) and refuses to respond.

2 years ago
  • Suzanne, Actually I recall Chile stated he voted for Obama the first time, but claims he wasn't going to in 2012.
  •  If Chile made comments on the children killed in drone attacks, the women and children I missed that. I do not think he commented about those murdered women and children by Kagame in using US aid under Clinton or Obama. Or the deaths of the Iraqi children due to US led sanctions on that country.
  • I do recall MANY attacks on those that oppose expansion of government power. IMO, the core belief that Chile, Christian, Archie and Bryan have is expansion of the State.
  • Chile and those mentioned had ample opportuntity to refute my claims on their positions.  They didn't. 
SL L (and some others on this thread)
2 years ago

Wow, so wonderful to realise that there are some Americans who can see the socialist woods from the trees. A socialist system, even a hybrid like social security and welfare had bankrupted so many EU countries, eg Greece (I'm an ex-European citizen), and is still crippling many other EU countries as we speak as the number of dependents keep rising together with fraud and corruption.

As Jim S suggested: big ineffective governmental management is the other equally big problem.

Only attacking both these with zero tolerance, competition and innovation will things change for the better financially in USA.

This together with war and arming rebels for war is another issue that will bring USA to its knees.

2 years ago

Jim and Katii, Chile may be many things but I honestly can say he has many times, maybe not in this group, discussed many of the issues with regard to innocents, especially children.

I also am pretty damn sure he voted for Kinney (sp).


I should not speak for him however.  So I am almost sorry I mentioned it, just thought I should.

2 years ago
  • Actually I voted for Cynthia McKinney. Suzanne. I think I would have remembered if Chile had. As for innocents/children? Chile may very well have done that. I don't recall any time he initiated a conversation on that subject.
  • I stand by my opinion that Chile and company have a core belief of empowering and expanding government. That belief supersedes anything else. Regardless of the positions that they claim they have as far as corruption, free speech, corporate dominance, anti war etc, these people are in a constant attack mode on those that differ on one thing: the power of the State.
  • Katii, David, Rebecca, I and others often post articles and support the people  that oppose the wars, interventions, corruption and such, regardless on our differences.  Chile and company have a litmus test.
  •  I don't recall  if I have ever,seen them start a thread or make positive comments about any figure that does not share their pro Statist views.   The opposite is true.  Anyone that does not agree is disparaged, ridiculed, called:  "insane", "loony', "kooky", "dangerous" and more. 
  • Honestly, if their freedom was threatened by the government, I would support them.  If mine were threatened, I believe that they would stand aside, rationalize that I was an "crazy" and should be incarcerated and/or my freedoms taken. 



This post was modified from its original form on 03 Jan, 9:13
2 years ago

Jim, I should have stayed out of it.  While Chile and I agree on very little most of the time.  I just know some of the things being said are not right.

I don't know Archie at all and Christian is Christian.

I will not put further input here as I really do not wish to speak for or about others.

Be well all...

2 years ago

"There is not a single American who needs medical care that can not get it. There are kitchens and shelters for the TRULY poor everywhere (if they want it). In the big picture, there are very very very few Americans who fit the global definition of "poor.""

 

I don't understand why we have to drive every American back to lsightly above the global poverty level.  We are supposed to let Americans live in cockroach infested hovels just because their standard of living is higher?

 

And yet at the same time, we enoucrage them to not work for starvation wages?

 

And YES, there are Americans how need medical care and cannot get it.



This post was modified from its original form on 03 Jan, 10:10
2 years ago

Nancy: I do not agree that is right to take from some by force to give to others regardless of the good intentions.  I do not ascribe to the concept that the State should take political  power at the expense of social power.   You might understand if you read Albert Nock for example:  The following is from the introduction of one of his books. 


Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression, and by aggression. -- Herbert Spencer, 1850.

This is the gravest danger that today threatens civilization: State intervention, the absorption of all spontaneous social effort by the State; that is to say, of spontaneous historical action, which in the long-run sustains, nourishes and impels human destinies. -- Jose Ortega y Gasset, 1922.

It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men. -- Henry L. Mencken, 1926.



On Liberty by Lord Acton
2 years ago

"Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought."
Lord Acton

2 years ago

Hey- if he is in the public domain- I might be able to get him for free on my Kindle.  I have been trying to go back and read things like Adam Smith and Toqueville (sorry I I spelled them wrong).

I do see what you mean about that.  I think if all people acted nobly, there would be no need for government.  But I do see that those that need it are the ones who go into it (or become CEOs).

2 years ago

And I think I like Lord Acton.

2 years ago

Nancy, it is not society or the citcitizenry who are driving anyone anywhere 'backward' or into poverty.  When you boil it all down to the root cause of most Americans who are truly needy or in distress, the driver is one thing: the state, and it's power to tax.  It's a long 'boil' but that's what's left after reduction.  In fact, besides Nature herself, what other entity CAN do that but the state?  The state is actively driving me and you into poverty right now, slit by slit drip by drip. I just hope me and my loved ones are long passed before the process is complete.

2 years ago

Lord Acton was the originator of the phrase:  "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."             
                                                                                   

He also wrote:  "Property is not the sacred right. When a rich man becomes poor it is a misfortune, it is not a moral evil. When a poor man becomes destitute, it is a moral evil, teeming with consequences and injurious to society and morality."             

                                                                               

Proto Libertarian of his times. 


2 years ago

Amen Katii.

2 years ago

Katii, I do understand what youa re saying BUT, minimum wage is not a living wage in many parts.  It is MORE than JUST government that is "driving anyone anywhere". 

2 years ago

What, who, and how, Nancy? 

2 years ago

All the things we have talked about over and over Katii.  Not enough wages, lack of affordable food, really no- healthcare if you have a health issue.  Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  Rent, clothing. etc.

2 years ago
  • Nock is a great essayist and an easy read. Also available on YouTube as a reading. or available in eBook and Pdf for free @ http://mises.org/document/4685/Our-Enemy-The-State

    Other interesting books by Nock and others available free at that site. Some analysis of the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville. Books by interesting personages like Herman-Hans Hoppe too. This last is contemporary and interesting as he was at one time a leading scholar on Marxism and after reading Boehm-Bawerk became a libertarian. Perhaps even more than me! His examination of Socialism is fascinating http://mises.org/document/431

2 years ago

Question: would you rather have 1964 minimum wage (paid in silver backed currency) today, or today;s minimum wage as set by the government in todays fiat currency?    

                        

Would you rather have the average American wage (2012)  in todays fiat currency, or be paid in the average wage of 1964 paid in silver? 

2 years ago

Good question. For years I wondered about the gold standard and silver standard.  Right now they are both fairly volatile as I understand.  Hey- would you pay me in platinum?

Yes, it is amazing what you can find now for free via public domain on Kindle and at other sites. 

2 years ago
  • Answer: Using the 5 year average price in silver. The $1.25/hr would yield about $22/hr in buying power now.

  • Average pay in 1964 was $6100. Paid in silver backed dollars. 5year average price in silver would yield a bit over $103,000 in buying power.

  • Why 1964 as a date? That was the year the USA went off silver backing for the dollar. And the year the US began the Great Society program. And the beginnings of Keynesian control of the US economy.

  • Other factors: Worker productivity is up by 270%. How come they get less buying power now? Why does it take two workers per household to live well?

  • The price of a new 1700 sq ft house in 1964 was about $16,000. A loaf of bread was 21 cents. A gallon of gas was 23 cents. Average price increases on what we must have to live is up by over $1,200%.

  • Where did the wealth go? Where did the productivity gains go?  And to whom?

  •  Answers: In 1964, the financial service sector was under 5% of the GDP. Now above 20%. Total government spending all levels? 26%. Now 44% (adjusted by subtracting deficit spending from the GDP and dividing calculated GDP by the result).

  • Who gained? In 1964 the top .1% (point 1%) was made up of mostly business people, shop owners and professionals etc. Now this demographic is dominated by Wall Street, Finance, and those associated with lobby's and government.

  • Who lost? Most Americans now need two incomes to cover taxes, debt services, higher education, living expenses etc. Many commute and work long hours depriving their families of quality time. This has resulted in children being in the hands of strangers. who regardless how well meaning are not family. Most American families lost.

  • Winners by political and economic sections: The political class, including lobby's and government crony's made huge gains. Their allies, the financial class made huge gains. The military industrial security complex made huge gains. The propagandists (media) made huge gains. Technology sectors made huge gains, largely deserved and unrelated except despite productivity gains due to technology improved the unrewarded general population, government productivity did not. Neither did the associated education sector make much progress.

  • But are the ones that have taken the lions share of this nations increased productivity satisfied? No. The finance sector wants a bigger piece. The political class wants more power. The military gets more every year. The security establishment wants more restrictions on liberty. We are told we must sacrifice our standard of living. Work longer. Ger less. And the media pundits in $5,000 suits tell us they feel our pain.

.



This post was modified from its original form on 03 Jan, 14:19
2 years ago

Excellently said, Jim. Thank you.

2 years ago

MF said his scholarships were funded by the state. MF had to get a leg up by New deal programs. You said he didn't. You were wrong.

MF certianly lended support to a mass mudering dictator at a level that most could not even hope to acheive. You think quoting Reason, a magazine, dedicated to him, is a legit source. 

Give it up.

OBama a dictator? Jesus ... you are insane

2 years ago

Chile, what do you call a President that signs and uses "executive orders" to circumvent the law of the land if not a dictator? Jesus, you are a a loone.

2 years ago
  • If Friedman was behind the curve on Keynesian economic failures in the 1930's and into the 1940's .he got it right by the late 40's.
  • .I find it amusing that Chile somehow thinks that people can't learn. Either that or he has a kind of cultish view that if someone once accepts an idea and finds it to be false that somehow they are tainted if they recognize their error.
  • Using Chiles belief system, those great thinkers of the past would likely have continued to believe that the earth was the center of the Universe.......and, of course, never have been, well, great thinkers. So it was with Friedman. He went on to found an entire school of economic thought. Much of that I disagree with btw.
  • Doubtless we should also be impressed by Chile's sharp rebuttal of Reasons article on Friedman. Or not. He just used a pretty lame "poison the well" argument, dismissing that article without being able to refute any of it. It seems the only the accepted progressive sources of information are acceptable to Chile and somehow others should accept that premise........or not.
  • Chile somehow equates Friedman giving some economic advice to Chile as endorsing the Pinochet regime. Hardly true. As I pointed out, with Clinton and Obama giving financial and military aid to a mass murder like Kagame is just a tad more egregious, no?
  • Here we go with the name calling "insane" thing again. There seems to be a lot of that going around. I mean progressives calling people that do not agree with them "insane". We've seen this a lot throughout history. Those calling the other side "insane" or whatever are invariably those that are on the losing side throughout history. Lot's of examples. So, thanks for the positive affirmation Chile.
Magna est veritas, et prevalebit !




This post was modified from its original form on 03 Jan, 19:03
2 years ago


I think it's time to change Angry Jim's name to "Angry, Bullet-Point Jim."
 

2 years ago

Yeah "some Econcomic advice". Horseshyte.

By your arguments here, voting for someone is supporting mass war. What is working for someone? Being a vicitim. MF lended his name and his theories to a dictator that killed thousands if not 100,000's in coup. That is material support.

TY Not-Angry But Winning-The-Argument Jim S ..
2 years ago

.. for a well reasoned, clearly presented, logically bullet-pointed argument, efficiently backed with relevant evidence.

You make a lot of sense! If only dear governments and socialists could see the woods from the trees ..! We'll be able to be proud of governments and their achievements for the betterment of all..!

Let us not forget individually to do our little bit daily in making this world a better place .. and not become guilty ourselves of the very things we despise in so many governmental officials ..

Have a great weekend all ..!

2 years ago
  • Astounding. By your "logic" then, anyone who "worked" for the Chilean government Is also guilty of "material support" of the mass murder? Many, if not most, of the people who continued to work in that countries government after the Pinochet regime ended had worked for the government during the Pinochet reign.........so, they would be guilty also.
  • In In the case of Friedman, he sent two letters to the Pinochet regime and met once for less than an hour. This was part of the Chicago School of Economics liaison with former students that had become leading academics  in Chile. That was the real connection with Friedman, not as you imply, a direct and ongoing support for  Pinochet. I am also not aware that he was paid so the "working for" is disingenuous. Neither did Friedman design a plan for Chile's economy. People he taught did do that. Perhaps if someone's theories are employed, they are guilty also.
  • Of course, US Presidents including Jimmy Carter corresponded with Pinochet. And Carter met with him twice as I recall. On the meeting with Pinochet Carter stated it had gone "very well".
  • BTW, your claim that 100,000's of thousands were killed seems to be another exaggeration. the highest number with any creditability. I could find was under 3,500. Including those disappeared. A number of them killed were in the armed MIR group. While this is a significant number, it pales against the numbers I gave earlier that you didn't bother to respond on.
  • It is pretty lame to make claims that somehow Friedman was responsible for what the Chilean government did under Pinochet. That implies power. Only the Chilean State had that power. Which should serve as a lesson to us all that empowering the State has grave risks.
2 years ago

I want to make my position here very clear.  I support Social Security and Medicare.

 

I am pissed off how all of those former presidents from both parties stole from SS funds and left IOUs and bankrupted these systems for their own benefits.

 

Now, that baby boomers are retiring all at once, there is no money to fund programs.

There is always money coming into these programs, check your paychecks.

 

What I detest about the republicans is their hypocrisy re: soc. security.  They want to privatize it with Wall St.   We will really be in trouble.

 

This thread was about WHY democrats are favored over GOP and it is this fact.

 

People will vote democrats into Senate and Congress over the republicans because they don't trust that party regarding this system.

 

Social Security is NOT an entitlement.  The dems ruined it by adding on many groups of people on SSDI who never pay into the system.  Soc. Sec. and medicare are important for seniors; they are a safety net which is needed in retirement. 

 

Bill Clinton said:  we are in this together and republicans want you to sink or swim.

 

I can say a lot about both statements but this is why the democrats prevail in these national elections.

2 years ago
Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
Reality check:
2 years ago

The Democrats did not "ruin" Social Security. The Democrats created Social Security, as part of the New Deal, to fix the problems that caused the great depression. The Republicans are trying to undo the new deal, including Social Security and Medicare, because they represent the wealthy elite, who want a desperate and compliant workforce.

Social Security is not running out of money. It takes in more than what it takes out. It MAY, MIGHT, start running low in about 30 years. Not running out - running low. All it would take to fix that is a couple small tweaks, like raising the amount we pay into it by a slight bit, or making the rich pay into it - they are currently exempt. The Republican propaganda machine wants us to believe it's going bankrupt so that we'll let them privatize it - which would destry it.

The so-called "Libertarians" are even worse, folks. Both Ron Paul and his weird looking ghost of Shirley Temple son think that Social Security is unconstitutional, and they want to kill it by making it "optional" for younger workers. Obviously if younger people, who think they'll never grow old, started opting out it would go bankrupt in a heart beat.

Yeah, Social Security and Medicare are important and essential to the wellbeing of this country. and preserving them is the number one reason to vote Democrat

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/

2 years ago
  • Income tax is unconstitutional - or it was untill the pranksters got the feds to amend it to go along with the other half of the plan to fleece America: The Federal Reserve Act' (which would  not work without "income tax.")
  • The "New [raw] Deal is unconstitutional. 
  • Democrats are at the front of the unconstitutional line; Republicans are right next to them.
  • Members of both parties are all willing to violate the Constitution to serve their "special (social issue) interest."
  • If you have read the Constitution and studied the Federalist Papers, Chile, then it's safe to say you have no understanding of them including the most basic premise and purpose of the U.S. Constitution.
2 years ago

LOL and of course Chile's "solution" for SS,s shortfall is to raise taxes ... never mind cutting any "spending" ... how very "progressive"  

2 years ago
  • The government caused the Great Depression. First by Federal Reserve expanding the money supply and causing an economic bubble. Since the resultant expansion of credit was not backed by real investment but by malinvestment, when the stock market crashed there was an implosion of the money supply as credit collapsed and loans were defaulted. Unlike the false history we have been taught, Hoover intervened in the economy and made it much worse. FDR continued and expanded the interventions and as a result, real prosperity did not return to the country until 1946-1947 when the New Deal and FDR's programs were rejected.

  • The political class has caused the escalation of prices in health care, which is responsible for the COST problem of health care. The economic, political, media elites and their allies benefited from the increases in these prices. This was part of the price increases induced by "targeted inflation" of the Federal Reserve. The monetization of deficits by the Federal Reserve caused by profligate government spending in useless wars and failed social welfare programs that has placed an increasing number of Americans into government dependency. 
  • American workers and the American public were deprived of the productivity gains because Keynesian economic policies offset prices decreases with increased money supply.
  • Ron Paul had the only budget that saved Social Security and Medicare. In order to pay for those programs, government spending would have to decline drastically. This would have been done slowly and by attrition as government was slimmed down to a constitutional and economically sustainable level, The costs savings including ending the wars, the interventions and removing US troops from overseas. Also getting rid of many of the regulatory agencies that are now controlled by the Corporate faction of the State.
  • Democrats and Republicans alike seek to continue the welfare/warfare/corporate/security State. In fact, they seek to expand it. Under this administration military spending expanded at the same or greater rate than the previous POTUS. The Security State measures signed into law are the most egregious since Woodrow Wilson. Deficits have topped $1 Trillion/year. The median wage of Americans has declined by $4000. The economy struggles and after subtracting deficit spending, the US GDP is negative. Wall Street recovers based on support by the Federal Reserve, but the rest of this nation is in an economic decline. The percentage of people employed is the same as it was in the worst period of 2009.
  • If you wish to empower those that have enriched themselves and their crony's at the expense of the general public? Continue to vote for the same system.....
Well, every (Republican Cadet Corps) "Libertarian"
2 years ago

knows that the only thing that's "CONSTITUTIONAL" is automatic weapons fer all.... And thanks for taking your mask off on Social Security. I, myself, have worked my asss off my whole life, paid into it since I was a teenager. It's the only retirement I'm going to have and I'm looking forward to it. You could even say that I feel "entitled" to it.....

2 years ago

Libertarians were the only ones with a viable plan to support SS, Medicare, Medicaid. Libertarians may recognize that they were not perfect plans to begin with, but realizing Americans are stuck and dependent upon them and paid into them- that they must be shored up for those who paid into them.

And, in the offering for those younger to start their own plan without the government, it essentially would not harm the former group.

Libertarians believe in cutting the military spending, as Jim illustrated above.

That alone would tremendously reallocate any loss of funds to the programs.

Libertarians believe in freedom of choice. Freedom.

Libertarians believe in no coercion of government.

And, they believe in non-aggression.

If you ask me, Libertarians of today sound more like hippies than the Democrats of today.

Libertarians are ultra right-wingers
2 years ago

who believe in the "liberty" of the wealthy elite to oppress the rest of us, folks. Let's be clear on that. Anyone who passed 5th grade history can see that there was not one true statement in The Jimmer's post above.. Military spending, or any other government spending has no impact on Social Security - it's self supporting. If Ron and Randy are "Libertarians" - well they're also Republicans, and they're also elected members of the "Guvermint" - so the circle of nonsense spins round and round, and anyone who passed 4th grade arithmetic knows that a plan to keep young workers from paying into Social Security is a plan to kill it.

2 years ago

Libertarians consider SS and medicare to be entitlements.

 

They are not entitlements; but I am tired of preaching to the walls.

The majority of people in this country, both parties along with INdependents want social security and medicare.

 

It is the fringe that is the problem.

Any candidate put up by the GOP who is for privatizing Social security will lose ... that is a fact.

2 years ago

I don't ever see a republican landslide in the country because of their far right platform on social security, medicare. 

 

I believe in the long run; voters will protect social security and medicare and be very leary who they vote into office, esp. the party or persons who will jeopardize these safety nets which people pay into with their hard earned dollars.

2 years ago
  • Not really Archie. You support the empowerment of the financial elites through government intervention and manipulation of the economy. That is especially true via the monetary system,. They cannot do that without the government. That's why they have moved to control government. That's also why the top .1% have just had the best 4 years they have had in US history. Depletion of middle class wealth, more concentration of wealth at the top with the financial elites and an increase in dependency are intrinsic results of your economic, social and political ideology. The media, financial and political elites thank you for your support.
  • Yes Archie, anyone who has a 5th grade education in history may believe what you believe. Those of us that have post graduate degrees in these subjects and use an empirical approach with actual data come to very different conclusions......and can defend those conclusions. So far, all I have seen from you is a "everyone knows" defense (Argumentum ad populum) , personal slurs and associated innuendo (ad hominum/) and more.
  • Those "educated" by the Nazi, Soviet and various system and such were also strong believers in what they were told. Naive that you don't even consider that what you have been taught has been "adjusted". Perhaps you should read a bit from "Propaganda" from Edward Bernays or Noam Chomsky' critique of Bernays in "History as a Weapon" or Chomsky on Walter Lippmann in "Manufacturing Consent"? ..........Guessing you won't do that.
  • As far as Social Security? There a number of ways to pay for it ongoing. But it has been used for general revenues for decades by the politicians. To pay for the Welfare/Military/Industrial/Corporate/ Security State. You wish to further indebt the next generations to pay for it and other government programs that support a failing ideology. I think that is immoral.

2 years ago
  • The Social Security Trust is supposed to be paid back in order to fund the system as any projected revenues are now well under payouts. The proposals to keep the system solvent are all based on that money being paid back from the general revenues with various increases that would also come from modifications of the system. But how exactly is that money going to be raised if government spending continues to exceed revenues?
  • Current budgets that come from the CBO and the White House assume a growth rate that few economists believe is likely. Increasing government spending above and beyond population growth and (underestimated) inflation will not be met by increased revenues. In order for that to happen, Federal revenues would need to exceed 27% of the GDP.
  • Regardless of how high taxes have been in American history, Federal revenues have exceeded 20% only three times in US history: Twice during WW 2, and once in FY 2000. The average revenues by the Federal government has been under 19% of the GDP. Even assuming the (unlikely) 20% revenue number, that means 7% deficits. Or over $1 Trillion/year ( in 2012 dollars) and increasing as Social Security costs continue to rise.
  • That means that within 10 years the US national debt would exceed $30 Trillion in today's dollars. That is far worse debt/GDP than those nations that are beginning to collapse overseas.
2 years ago

I wouldn't be so sure that the number of votes the Dem party gets spells "favored" as much as it does a few other words like, "brainwashed" - "misinformed" - "followers," all of which spell "ignorant." I know because I grew up surrounded by labor union 'dependent' (mostly) Dems. I used to have the same altruistic beliefs about government that they still have today. At 59 I am still close to many of them. Most are STILL ignorant (or in denial) to reality, and unbelievably they STILL defend government even as they bemoan their financial losses that were CAUSED by their beloved government's "interventions," taxation (more! More!) and inflation as they wave their fists at the corruption of cronyism, as they go vote - AGAIN - for more of the same. Very much like lemmings herding themselves over a cliff.

Note on history and propaganda by the State
2 years ago
  •  "A meeting of intellectuals organized in Paris in August 1938 by French philosopher Louis Rougier, Colloque Walter Lippmann was named after Walter Lippmann. Walter Lippmann House at Harvard University, which houses the Nieman Foundation for Journalism, is named after him too. Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman used one of Lippmann's catch phrases—the "Manufacture of Consent"-- for the title of their book, Manufacturing Consent, which contains sections critical of Lippmann's views about the media.

This became known as the Almond-Lippmann consensus, which is based on three assumptions:[

  1. Public opinion is volatile, shifting erratically in response to the most recent developments. Mass beliefs early in the 20th century were "too pacifist in peace and too bellicose in war, too neutralist or appeasing in negotiations or too intransigent"[
  2. Public opinion is incoherent, lacking an organized or a consistent structure to such an extent that the views of U.S. citizens could best be described as "nonattitudes"
  3. Public opinion is irrelevant to the policy-making process. Political leaders ignore public opinion because most Americans can neither "understand nor influence the very events upon which their lives and happiness are known to depend."

Example:

"US 'hushed up' Soviet guilt over Katyn

BBC NEW September 11, 2012
New evidence appears to back the idea that the Roosevelt administration helped cover up Soviet guilt for the 1940 Katyn massacre of Polish soldiers.

Historians said documents, released by the US National Archives, supported the suspicion that the US did not want to anger its wartime ally, Joseph Stalin.  They showed the US was sent coded messages suggesting the Soviets, not the Nazis, carried out the massacre.More than 22,000 Poles were killed by the Soviets on Stalin's orders.

Soviet Russia only admitted to the atrocity in 1990 after blaming the Nazis for five decades.

According to a review of the documents by the Associated Press, they show that American prisoners of war sent coded messages to Washington in 1943 saying they had been taken to see corpses in an advanced state of decay in the Katyn forest near Smolensk, in western Russia.The group of American and British POWs had been taken by the Nazis against their will to witness the scene. What they saw convinced two Americans, Capt Donald B Stewart and Lt Col John Van Vliet, that the killings must have been carried out by the Soviets, rather than the Nazis, who did not occupy the area until 1941.  A statement from one, Captain Donald B Stewart, made in 1950, confirmed he sent a coded message, the gist of which was: "German claims regarding Katyn substantially correct in opinion of Van Vliet and myself."  They were apparently persuaded by the advanced state of decay of the bodies - suggesting they must have died before August 1941, when the Germans seized the area.

They also saw items found on the bodies, including letters, diaries and other items, none of which was dated later than the spring of 1940. And the good state of the men's boots and clothing suggested the men had not lived long after being captured by invading Soviet forces.   

  

'Serious doubt'

The close to 1,000 pages of new material will help determine what the US knew and when, the BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says.It has long been believed that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not want to question the version of events put out by Stalin, an ally whom the Americans were counting on to defeat Germany and Japan.

According to the report by the Associated Press, information about the massacre was suppressed at the highest levels in Washington. Katyn expert Allen Paul told AP some of the material did not appear in the record of Congressional hearings in 1951-52 held to investigate the massacre, suggesting it had been deliberately kept hidden.

Among the new evidence is a report sent to President Roosevelt by the then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill - who did not challenge Stalin's claim either - which also pointed to Soviet guilt.  The report is written by the British ambassador to the Polish government-in-exile in London, Owen O'Malley, AP says.  "There is now available a good deal of negative evidence," Mr O'Malley wrote, "the cumulative effect of which is to throw serious doubt on Russian disclaimers of responsibility for the massacre."

The April 1940 killings were carried out at Katyn and other sites by the NKVD secret police on Stalin's orders.  Members of the Polish elite, including officers, politicians and artists, were shot in the back of the head and their bodies dumped in mass graves."



This post was modified from its original form on 07 Jan, 7:24
2 years ago

The Nazi government was guilty of mass murder in many cases, but this shows the willingness of the US government to lie to the public.  The truth took  7 decades go begin to come out and is still not fully exposed.  This is one of many examples of how history has been distorted by the government for it's own purpose In fact, distortion of the facts is a policy of the State. 

  • Note on Walter Lippmann:  "Lippmann was an informal adviser to several presidents.[5] On September 14, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson presented Lippmann with the Presidential Medal of Freedom."   ...... For his service to the State. 

2 years ago

Regardless of if we consider Social Security to be a "entitlement" or "constitutional", the majority of libertarians consider it to be an OBLIGATION of government to pay it. In general we wish to end the Ponzi scheme and and not inflict the debt onto the next generations. Unlike others, libertarians seek a way to pay people that are victims of yet another Statist fraud without doing harm to the economy. Others here and elsewhere use the ostrich defense and seek to extend and pretend.

The word "Libertarian" doesn't even mean anything.
2 years ago

There's so many different kinds of "Libertarians" you can't even count them all. In our country we have a "Libertarian" party that is so out of touch with the people they can't get anyone elected dog catcher. The only politicians who call themselves libertarians are actually Republicans. Libertarians in this country function as a tool for the 1% with all their yammering about "smaller guvermint." Smaller government means more control over your lives by the 1%, folks. It means less democracy. It means decisions made by profiteers instead of elected representatives. It means no environmental regulations, no endangered species protection, no clean air regulations, no clean water regulations, no workplace safety regulations, no minimum wage, no public schools or libraries. And it means no Social Security or Medicare. 

2 years ago

Exactly, Jim. SS is an "obligation" not to be tinkered with - unless you are a Dem or Rep, as Obama proved when he OFFERED to put SS benefits up as a sacrificial lamb during the fake fiscal cliff ' fight' in Washington.  In fact, though he continued SPENDING like a drunken Democrat, wasn't it a REPUBLICAN that put more money in the workers' pockets with tax breaks?  Too bad the Dems in Congress at the time kept funding his wars (and bailing out uber wealthy elites when they had a bad year at the casino) rather than shoring up domestic spending "obligations."  But of course Dem and Reps in government all have the same agenda, and it is NOT in your best interest. That's why you depend on SS to retire, Archie, instead of personal accumulated wealth.     

What could WE have done with that extra money every year to plan for our ' golden years'?  Pay off a mortgage early, perhaps?  Build a business? SAVE it?

2 years ago
Gee Archie. Have you ever read any libertarian writers? Or classical liberal writers for that matter? Or any economics texts? Or anything at all since your grade school education? When was the last time you read a book on any of these subjects? My guess is that somehow without reading anything about of this you have become an expert. Divine inspiration by the State perhaps?
  1. Yes Archie. We understand that you support corporate control over the regulatory agencies for their own uses under the guise that it is improving peoples lives.
  2. We understand that you support the government imposed monetary system and fiat currency for the banking and financial sector elites. That same system has impoverished hard working Americans that you pretend to care about.
  3. You also obviously believe in the "sides" and "class warfare" without understanding that there are economic parasites in that top1 % and cannot distinguish between the parasites you actually support and those within that demographic that improve our own prosperity through their talents, efforts, innovations and hard work.
  4. We understand that you accept violence as a means of achieving your ideology. This includes aggression against your neighbors and fellow Americans as well as supporting US government violence overseas.
  5. We understand that you are completely uneducated on what "libertarian" means and probably don't know what "classical liberal" is either.
  6. We also understand that you endlessly repeat the same progressive disinformation and somehow think that some will believe you. That's a Goebbels tactic of the State by the way.  It doesn't work on libertarians  by the way.  

Feel free to actually answer anything that I have written with a cogent response.  So far you haven't done that. 

2 years ago

libertarian and tea party are synonmous and they have dozens of groups who are not in unified agreement with each other.  Mark Meckler, one of the best left because of the endless confusion and internal bickerings within these factions.

 

You have the Matt Kibbees and the rest of the yokels now.

They could give a rats arse about social security and medicare as a safety net.

They posture under the guise of the Constitution and act like no one else comprehends the founding fathers.  They have a direct line to them just like Christian Scientists have with Mary Baker Eddy....  

Turn over the "Libertarian" rock
2 years ago

and watch the propagandists for the 1% crawl out. If you don't know that we're engaged in a mighty struggle between the classes right now, folks, then you're going to lose. You've got to know what side you're on and you've got to put your shoulder to the wheel. The only tool that works is the ballot box. Voting equals power. Not voting equals slavery. The would be slave owners in this country don't want us to vote because we outnumber them.Anyone who tells you that there's no difference between the two parties, tries to convince you that there's no use in voting or tries to get you to waste your vote on so-called "third parties" is a propagandist for the 1%. Push them back under their rock where they belong....

The TEA PARTY ... Political Impact NYT article
2 years ago

Political Impact

While the numbers of Tea Party-affiliated winners in the November 2010 elections was relatively small, they have exerted outsize influence, putting pressure on Republican leaders to carry out promises to significantly cut spending and taxes and to repeal health care legislation passed in 2010.

They vowed not only to permanently extend the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush and to eliminate the estate tax, but also to replace the progressive income tax with a flat tax or a national sales tax. Several candidates advocated abolishing the Internal Revenue Service entirely.

Many called for a balanced budget amendment. They opposed newly passed financial regulation, and cap-and-trade of carbon emissions. They also promised to carry into office the Tea Party’s strict interpretation of the Constitution.

 

Like Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, many Tea Partiers embrace arguments that government should not provide what individuals can provide for themselves. So, police and public safety are acceptable functions of government, but government should not take from one person’s income to provide for another’s health or well-being.

 

And when Mr. Paul and his Tea Party supporters espouse “constitutionally limited government,” they argue that much of the New Deal, as well as social programs like Medicare that were enacted later, were a gross violation of the founding document. Those ideas are a hard sell in a general election, even to Republicans.

 

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html



This post was modified from its original form on 07 Jan, 11:04
2 years ago

Like Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, many Tea Partiers embrace arguments that government should not provide what individuals can provide for themselves. So, police and public safety are acceptable functions of government, but government should not take from one person’s income to provide for another’s health or well-being.

And when Mr. Paul and his Tea Party supporters espouse “constitutionally limited government,” they argue that much of the New Deal, as well as social programs like Medicare that were enacted later, were a gross violation of the founding document. Those ideas are a hard sell in a general election, even to Republicans.

 

 

          Above paragraphs are from article in NYT .... I printed these specifically because the tea party and right conservatives in GOP do not like Social Security or Medicare.

 

Sorry, I do and these are NOT entitlements; they are safety nets which middle class workers like myself paid into my entire life.  They expanded into disasterous programs by adding on way too many as this was intended for seniors originally.

 

What should the govt. do for disabled people?  I know there is dishonesty within system; but the govt. should be cleaning that up and there are fraudsters in the medical field feeding into this as well. 

2 years ago

I was a democrat became republican briefly and believe me, I have had it with both parties.

I am Independent.  I despise this 1% propoganda and it is so easy to see right through it; protecting their taxes and pushing the country over the fiscal cliff in the name of the Constitution and Grover Norquist tax pledge is phoney baloney garbage.  I am not falling for it.

 

Carefully vote in your congress and senate leaders and don't get bull shyted by these propogandists who use the Constitution as a prop.

2 years ago

Anyhow,    Archie...who specifically in politics comes to your mind when you speak of Libertarians? Which people and their names?

2 years ago

this thread is getting too long for my old computer that i have to be on temporarily for the next week or so...

2 years ago
  • "....they are safety nets which middle class workers like myself paid into my entire life.' . They were fraudulently "sold" to the American people as retirement insurance/annuity or whatever Sheila. This was forced on us. There was no choice.
  • When a private insurance company does that they must invest the money you give them. The government spent the money. As I said, whatever you wish to call them, it is an moral obligation for the government to pay up.
  • The difference between us is that I want to pay that obligation off the only way it can be without harming the young or the economy....And the only way that can be done is our of revenue. That means government must be reduced in size to a level that the obligation can be paid.
  • If you can show me another way.....go ahead. With numbers please.

2 years ago

You do realize that corporate regulations are largely written by the elite?

Big corporations love the regulations becaues it suppresses real competiton and a true free market.

.

“Corporations are legal fictions created by the State to shield executives from liability… It’s like if I had a little hand-puppet, and I went to rob a bank, and the hand-puppet held the little gun and told people to hand over all the money, and then the hand-puppet grabbed the money and ran out, and then I got caught and I handed the hand-puppet over the police and then the police tried the hand-puppet, put the hand-puppet in jail, and I get to keep all the money.”Stefan Molyneux (Libertarian)

.

As for the environment, clean air and water, and saving the animals, government has done a terrible job. The EPA is ineffectual and corrupt. The government is the worst offender of pollution as well.

Libertarians believe in private property rights. Someone polluting or killing animals on your land? Sue for restitution.

And, support groups such as the Audubon Society, the World Wildlife Foundation, the Food & Water Watch group, etc that puts more pressure on offenders and does more good than the EPA.

.

As for no libraries or schools, that's the same nonsense as asking who'd build the roads.

.

As for the SS, Medicaid, Medicare, that has already been answered.

And, yes, cutting the immense military budget and ending wars frees up tons of money to help with those programs that are economically unsustainable on their own.

Libertarians are not out to fleece the people that have already paid into it.

2 years ago

Libertarians are also for decriminalization of drugs, especially marijuana.

And, Libertarians want to keep government out of your bedroom.

.

So, I thought it was obvious, but apparently not to some, that they are a far cry from 'right-wingers.'

.

I actually got a good laugh when I read that statement. Thanks.

To Archie, Christian, Chile and Byran with love
2 years ago

Statism

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.