| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2008/5/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49982 Activity:nil |
5/16 Why did Social Security ever get passed in 1935? Stupid.
\_ because you're an idiot?
\_ Correlation does not imply causation.
\_ FDR was a communist who hated America, see also, the
New Deal and the Yalta Conference.
\_ Because no one envisioned that some day population growth will
slow down and the pay-as-you go scheme will collapse. Actually,
it is predicted that the social security will not be able to
honor the currently promissed retirement payments some time in
the 2050s. Not bad for such a "badly" designed system. Still,
something should be done about it soner rather than later. |
| 2008/4/17-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49772 Activity:nil |
4/16 Social Security is fine:
http://www.csua.org/u/laz
\_ Social Security "reform" isn't about fixing SS. It's about screwing
up the one big government program that everyone likes and that seems
to be reasonably well-run. c.f. "starve the beast" |
| 12/24 |
| 2008/4/17-23 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49771 Activity:nil |
4/16 I've heard that you don't pay social security on income above $90K.
Is this correct? Does that mean ~$8000 a year is the most you ever
pay?
\_ Yes, though the limit goes up every year.
\_ My 2007 W-2 said my Social Security Wages is $97500.
\_ Yes, that was the limit this year. There is no limit for Medicare.
\_ Yes, that was the limit this year. There is no limit for
Medicare. |
| 2008/4/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49651 Activity:moderate |
4/2 New trend: retirees leaving the suburbs for the convenience of
The City:
http://www.csua.org/u/l6p
\_ Only in San Francisco. San Francisco is the opposite of
mainstream America.
\_ " The Gruens say they represent a national trend: Senior
citizens, unwilling to live exclusively with their own
age group, find everything they need (and can afford)
to age gracefully by selling the family home and moving
downtown.
'It's a massive trend!' said Nina. 'It's happening all
over America, and there's a good reason for it.'"
\_ I get all my demographic news from Nina Gruen! She's the
best!
\_ do you have a point?
\_ Yeah. How the hell would she know?
\_ maybe, unlike you, she has investigated the
issue.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/19780 -tom
\_ What does that study mean by 'moving to the
cities'? Is Alameda 'a city' by this
definition? What about Barstow?
\_ Funny how it's always easier to
nitpick at other people's data than to
come up with some of your own. -tom
\_ That's your entire MOTD modus operandi.
\_ You mean like in this thread, where I
provided direct evidence and you
haven't? -tom
\_ Where did you post direct evidence
that Nina Gruen did any research
rather than talking out her butt?
\_ are you really this stupid? -tom
\_ You know, reading this roadkill
of a conversation, it occurred
to me it would be a simple
matter to write an eliza-bot
tom simulator that would fool
most motd readers.
\_ It is true. We are smarter, richer and more successful
than elsewhere:
http://www.csua.org/u/l6x (bizjournals)
\_ Stop trying to bore me. |
| 2008/3/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49558 Activity:kinda low |
3/25 New warnings about entitlements shortfall
Medicare unable to pay full benefits by 2019, Social Security by 2041
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23796483
Bush wanted to fix the problem but could not convince the Democrats
to change. Damn the Democrats!
\_ Um, wasn't Bush the one primarily responsible for making the
Medicare problem worse?
\_ Bush taps a guy to lead social security privitization. Every year
the dude releases reports that say "DOOM! DOOM!" But gee, he has
a vested intrest in shouting doom. Every year his numbers don't
really hold up that well.
\_ Bush and the Republicans conspired to make the Medicare problems
much much worse. Their "solution" to Social Security will destroy
it while enriching Wall Street. Social Security is in much better
condition than many other parts of the federal goverment.
\_ It's true, it's Bush's fault Social Security is an untenable
pyramid scheme, raided by Congress for unrelated expenses.
That some parts of the government are WORSE is not really a
good defense.
\_ There's a great quote by Warren Buffett about how
politicians are sounding the alarm about Social Security
running a small deficit 40 years from now, and yet a
$400 billion deficit today doesn't bother anyone.
Social Security is fine for something like another 40
years as long as BushCo and the Republicans don't get
their greedy paws on it.
\_ It's true, the democrats in Congress totally kept their
paws off the social security pot. Idiot.
\_ You have such a convincing debate style. Idiot.
\_ Social Security is fine: the GOP has predicting its demise since
the 30s (no joke), but Medicare is in big trouble. The entire
medical system is in trouble, in fact, since medical costs keep
going up much faster than the GDP and we have demographics working
against us to boot. Only a sea change in our health care management
philosophy, combined with some pretty serious rationing, is going
to possibly reverse that trend.
\_ Plus, you know. Figuring out what actually helps. We need
personalized medicine, current statistics-based medical
research is shit. |
| 2008/3/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49348 Activity:low |
3/5 Defence spending has been what has busted the budget, not
domestic programs:
http://www.csua.org/u/kys (The Economist'v View)
\_ What is Defence?
\_ It's what's around dehouse. |
| 2008/2/28-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:49283 Activity:nil |
2/28 http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0406-30.htm Republicans, as a group, may be happier because, on average, they prioritize personal goals and largely identify with people similar to them. Compared with Democrats and Independents, their main goals are narrower and more selfish, and thus more easily obtained. \_ Dems need to get the fuck smarter AND co-opt self-reliance \_ What are the goals of (D) and (I)? If your goals are pie in the sky and truly unreachable of course you'll be unhappy. This has nothing to do with your trolling. \_ Rich people are happier than poor people. Does this surprise anyone? \_ Actually past a certain poverty level, it's not entirely clear this is true. -- ilyas |
| 2007/11/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:48541 Activity:kinda low |
11/5 The more you drive, the less intelligent you are:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1671053,00.html
\_ Ah, Guardian, the libural outlet of the socialists.
\_ I just started a job much further away than my previous job. So
I'm dumb for taking a better job further away?
\_ only if you drive there.
\_ well not exactly, but I love this quote from the article:
When you drive, society becomes an obstacle. Pedestrians,
bicycles, traffic calming, speed limits, the law: all become
a nuisance to be wished away. The more you drive, the more
bloody-minded and individualistic you become.
-ERic
\_ Fuck you eric. Read this:
http://images.libertyoutlet.com/prod/p-myvehicle.jpg
\_ Hey, don't attack me, it's not my opinion -- I was just
pointing out a choice quote. -ERic (and yes, I have a SUV)
\_ America is built because of individualism. If you hate
individualism, you hate America. -Randian
individualism, you hate America. -Randroid
\_ Pretty true actually. And a shame.
\_ There was a TV commercial a couple months ago that started
with the line "I only care about me, myself and I."
\_ America is the land of the individuals, the land of the
uncommon man, the land where man is free to develop his
genius-- and to get its just rewards. Individualism
fosters invention and ingenuity. NOW I SHALL GO PUT
KEROSENE IN MY HAIR. -Ayn
fosters invention and ingenuity. -Ayn
\_ None of the above jackasses got the Repo Man reference.
Sad face!
\_ Actually I did, but it was a bad reference, unless yoy are
trying to imply that individualistic implies less intelligent.
-ERic
\_ It made me want to drive more. And I live in LA, and fucking
hate to drive here. -- ilyas
\_ You Go Girl! |
| 2007/10/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:48327 Activity:moderate |
10/15 First Baby Boomer files for Social Security. DOOM!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_go_ot/boomer_social_security
\_ Oh shit! They're going to bankrupt the nation. Let's kill them.
\_ How so? Social Security is a cornerstone of the socialist
promise. You don't want SS but you want universal health care?
*boggle*!
\_ *I* don't want either.
\_ Your disk has turned black. Please report to the Carousel.
\_ lifeclocks turn flashing red at time of renewal. |
| 2007/8/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47684 Activity:low |
8/20 At what point in your life did you realize that you're a
Republican, Democrat, neither, both, etc?
\_ Grew up in the OC... Republican family, like everyone else in
OC. Hated welfare, lazy people, poor people, and gays.
Berkeley changed me profoundly. I realized that I was raised
up as a self loving selfish bastard and realized how stupid it
was to discriminate against people who were different. I
discovered tolerance, and consciously avoided discrimination.
However I also learned how stupid it was to endorse hand-outs and
social programs and tax hike everywhere; you can't help someone
unless they ask for it. I became an independent when I turned 20.
unless they ask for it. I became gay when I turned 20.
I still am.
\_ Spartan
\_ How about the day you wake up and realize it's all a sham?
\_ I'm anti-labor-union but pro-environment, so I'm probably neither.
\_ When I realized the Republicans were really screwing up the country.
That is when I switched from being a Green/independent to the
Democrats. After they finish screwing things up, I will probably
switch back, or even perhaps go Republican if the Democrats
are bad enough. |
| 2007/7/23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:47392 Activity:nil |
7/23 Heil Hitler!
\_ Germany was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore
Its former glory
Where, oh, where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me
And now it's...
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay!
We're marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Rhineland's a fine land once more!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Watch out, Europe
We're going on tour!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany...
\_ Going through grandpa's garbage, to see what I could find.
I find a bunch of goodies, from 1945.
I see all those items, from the good old days.
His metals in his hands, and his uniforms all gray!
Grandpa was a Sturmfuehrer, in the SS.
Grandpa was a Sturmfuehrer, in the SS.
Grandpa was a Sturmfuehrer, in the SS.
Sturmfuehrer, Sturmfuehrer, in the SS.
In an SS Panzer unit grandpa rolled with pride.
Cleansing Bolshevics from the Russian country side!
Every red commie bastard that stood in his way.
Hey would shoot them down, day after day!
Today I smile when I see his uniform.
I know it's battle tested, I know it's battle worn!
Death Head on his hat, gleams in my eyes!
Hail! to your grandpa, now your grandpa's by your side!
I'll be a Sturmfuehrer, in the SS.
I'll be a Sturmfuehrer, in the SS.
I'll be a Sturmfuehrer, in the SS.
Sturmfuehrer, Sturmfuehrer, in the SS.
Grandpa was a Sturmfuehrer, in the SS.
Grandpa was a Sturmfuehrer, in the SS.
Grandpa was a Sturmfuehrer, in the SS.
Sturmfuehrer, Sturmfuehrer, in the SS. |
| 2007/6/24-28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:47052 Activity:nil |
6/24 Partha alert, you have mentioned this issue before, here an
Economist has done a study on it (splitting the check):
http://www.csua.org/u/j09
\- your capitalizing "Economist" caused problems for my high
speed parser. i thought you were talking about The Economist.
Unwinding from that local minima, was very expensive.
otherwise it didnt say much that wasnt obvious i thought
[although thanks for posting it]. i think in practice,
dealing with the check splitting problem relies more on
social skills rather than econ theory ... the freeriding
problem is totally obvious in the case of strangers.
the realistic problem is how to split with friend and
friends of friends, and how to balance between fairness
and awkwardness ... like how far does somebody have to
drift from 1/n split to make special arrangements.
in general, i think people get off too easily because
too many people buy into the "being judgemenal is bad ...
it is intolerant" view. |
| 2007/6/8 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:46889 Activity:nil |
6/8 In case you're wondering where I met my Republican girlfriend:
http://www.google.com/search?q=dating+republican
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dating+republican
Check out RepublicanPeopleMeet and ConservativeMatchMaker.
In case you love Republicans, make sure to click on these ads.
You never know, you may find your dream mate! In case you hate
Republicans, make sure to click on these ads as well. You may
incur expensive advertisement costs. |
| 2007/6/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:46858 Activity:low |
6/5 I used to date a Republican girl. I was pretty much whipped. I
went along with whatever she had to say. She'd say things like
"GWB encourages oil refineries in the Middle East so that when
they run out of oil, we'll still have plenty left! Pretty darn
smart eh?" Whatever she said, I just listened and accepted without
any objection. Reason: the pre-marital sex was absolutely amazing,
and for sex, I turned into a Republican. Now that the relationship
is over, I feel so liberated. It's amazing how my addiction to
sex turned me into a complete moron.
\_ This is actually a pretty good reason to be a Republican. Who
are you dating now?
\_ Just bobbing your head in return for her own head bobbing
doesn't "turn your into a Republican", but it may say
something about your priorities [I mean that non-judgementally].
Usually, it's the other way around where guys go along with
fruitcake liberal girls. In fact one reason some right-wing
nutjob groups are so powerful is they spend their fridays nights
promoting their politics while liberals spend their friday nights
in hedonistic pursuits ... but of course when something like
abortion rights is seriously challenged, that may roust them.
BTW, are you sure she was really a Republican or was she just
an materialist/egoist. Did she believe in "conservative
values" like pemartitial sex is wrong etc or she just believed
in lower taxes and welfare queens should get a job. Just out
of curisority what profeession was she in? Sales?
\_ Yes she was a hardcore Republican because she was raised
that way. Let me clarify and say that she's socially
liberal but values most non-religious Republican values
like small government, self-reliant, hatred for the poor
who use welfare (she thinks they're lazy so they deserve
nothing from her), racial superiority, pre-emptive strike
on people who are "evil", self righteous, and lastly,
STUBBORN. There is no possibility that anyone could
change her opinion because they've been hardcoded since
childhood. Profession? How is this relevant to
the topic? Anyways, the more I think about this the more
pissed off I am. I will be voting non-Republican for the
first time in 8 years. I AM LIBERATED.
\_ Was she good in bed? Can I have her number?
\_ yeah, thats pretty much the definition of being 'whipped'.
\_ Since you didn't believe anything she said you weren't a Republican
or a conservative. No more so than any conservative man was
magically transformed into a liberal while dating a woman's studies
vegetarian (cough). |
| 2007/5/30-6/4 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46797 Activity:high 90%like:46794 |
5/30 When did Hillary join the Communist Party?
http://urltea.com/nwv (timesrecordnews.com)
\_ Right about the time you applied your mad reading comp skillz to
this article.
this article. --scotsman
\_ So I used a little hyperbole. But at least I can read better
than you.
\_ Let me see if I get your point: any regulation of the Free
Market is Communism?
\_ 'it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one
based on shared responsibility and prosperity.' Sounds
like communism to me. -op
\_ Then you're an idiot.
\_ Then you're an idiot. You either have a fundamental
misunderstanding of what Communism is, or you can't
read. Either way, your little jaunt here says that
you're an idiot.
\_ Trying to explain an idiot why he's an idiot is
kind of a waste of time.
you're an idiot. --scotsman
\_ Trying to explain an idiot why he's an idiot is kind
of a waste of time.
\_ I understand what Communism is. I guess you just
can't defend your point. -op
\_ You haven't made a point at all. You've called
\_ I haven't made a point at all. You've called
HRC a member of the Communist Party, with no
basis. You don't do this whole "thinking"
thing too well, do you?
\_ I haven't made a point at all. You've called HRC
a member of the Communist Party, with no basis.
You don't do this whole "thinking" thing too well,
do you?
do you? --scotsman
\_ And you simply call me an idiot. I posted a
quote which is part of why I believe she's
pushing towards a communist agenda. You called
me an idiot again. You'll pardon me if I don't
see this as the height of debate. Oh, and then
more ad hominem. Yawn. -op
Here's another quote:
"Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the
right government policies."
more ad hominem. Yawn. -op Here's another
quote: "Fairness doesn't just happen. It
requires the right government policies."
\_ Explain how that quote is in any way untrue,
or "pushing towards a communist agenda".
Your wink-and-nod approach may win you
points at freerepublic, but you're making
little sense here.
\_ Having the government define
'fairness' and then enforce it
sounds a lot like communism. If
you don't understand, I'm afraid
I can't help.
little sense here. --scotsman
\_ Having the government define 'fairness'
and then enforce it sounds a lot like
communism. If you don't understand, I'm
afraid I can't help.
\_ you're an idiot.
\_ You obviously do not understand what
Communism is, in spite of your earlier
claim. Where is the classless society
or the government ownership of all
means of production? What about the
dictatorship of the proletariat? You\
are not an idiot, you are insane.
\_ Thank you for reminding why I gave $1000 to the HRC for
President campaign. Hint: it isn't because of her political views,
it is because I love watching Freepers squirm.
dictatorship of the proletariat? You
are not an idiot, you are nuts.
\_ tom, you're the idiot. You don't
need this to be part of the CPUSA.
See:
http://www.cpusa.org
See: http://www.cpusa.org
\_ That wasn't my post, idiot. -tom
\_ You still haven't shown where
defining and regulating the
marketplace means that the
government owns the players in
it. You keep talking, yet you
say nothing.
marketplace means owning
the players in it. You keep
talking, yet you say nothing.
--scotsman
\_ My original statement was
about the communist party,
not an academic definition.
Go back to your cage. -op
\_ This doesn't help your
point, as noted below.
\_ From your source:
"All Communists are for socialism, seeing it as a transition stage to
communism, a higher stage of economic, political, and social
development. All socialists arent for communism; some see Communists
as too radical.
Socialism is social ownership of the main means of production
(factories, transportation) and the commanding heights of an economy
(banks and other financial institutions) and runs them in the
interests of the working people, using part of the value that
workers produce to build up the social institutions and benefits
for the whole people."
Is that what you claim that HRC is supporting with her statement?
\_ Thank you for reminding why I gave $1000 to the HRC for President
campaign. Hint: it isn't because of her political views, it is
because I love watching Freepers squirm.
\_ A fool and his money are soon parted.
\_ Funny, my net worth goes up every year.
\_ Are you getting a VIP dinner for that money?
e.g. <DEAD>contribute.hillaryclinton.com/events/paloalto0531.html<DEAD>
\_ I'd rather have $1k than eat dinner with Hillary.
\_ Maybe I read a different article that you did, but Sen. Clinton's
comments suggested to me that she prefers a strongly regulated
market. At most she would be advocating a socialist position, not
a communist position. A communist position would not allow for any
private enterprise.
In addition, it is not at all clear what level of regulation that
Sen. Clinton feels is necessary. She merely states that some add'l
rules are needed to protect workers, &c. In light of Enron, &c.,
one needed not be a socialist to think that perhaps some add'l
regulation or supervision of the market is needed.
Of course, if one were a Ferengi, then perhaps one would not see
any difference between the two b/c either one would prevent you
from maximizing your horde of gold-pressed latium, which would
violate countless rules of acquisition.
violate countless rules of acquisition. And we all know the Rules
of Acquisition are the ultimate way to run a free market b/c they
work so well for the Grand Negus.
work so well for the Grand Negus. -stmg
\_ Regulating markets is not socialism or communism. Until the
government, under the direction of the people, steps into the
marketplace, either as an unfairly subsidized player, or as
a strongarming force to takeover and shut down private players,
it's not socialism. Seriously, everything you add to this
discussion further betrays your misunderstanding of the subject.
--scotsman
\_ Really? I always thought that socialism existed where the
government imposes its judgement in place of what the mkt
under reasonably unrestricted conditions would provide.
But then again everything I know about economics comes from
E120, DS9 episodes and broad generalizations in my Contracts
class, so its not surprising that I'm completely wrong. -stmg
\_ Socialism is where the government/society imposes OWNERSHIP
not judgement. Regulating capitalism is not "socialist".
It's "necessary".
It's "necessary". --scotsman
\_ Is this really true? I was always that Sweden was a
socialist country but they still have private business
over there.
over there. -stmg
\_ Here's a succinct little snippet from a critique
of Swedish Socialism:
http://www.namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/index.php?sw=Sweden#third_way_home
http://urltea.com/o8e (namyth.com)
Medicine is socialized. Schools are socialized.
The state holds large chunks of the marketplace,
and highly regulates the rest.
I personally believe health care and education
should be considered rights and therefore should
be guaranteed by the state. I also personally
believe that outside of those "common good" bits
of the economy, the government's primary duties
are making sure the marketplace is fair, and that
workers are protected. For that, would you call
me a socialist? Because, really, I'm not.
me a socialist? Because, really, I'm not. --scotsman
\_ They also have some government owned business. But
then, so do we. But actually "socialism" is not as
well defined as the know-it-alls here think. I think
any schemes where the government causes resources
to be redirected to the poor can be classified as
socialist. Countries with high tax rates that provide
lots of public services fit that description
perfectly. It's a matter of degree. Public schools
and libraries ARE socialist institutions. Same with
welfare, medicare, progressive income tax, subsidized
housing projects, food stamps, etc. Government owning
businesses or regulation etc. isn't socialist per se
unless it has socialist goals. (e.g. the gov't could
run the something like the postal service completely
unsubsidized).
\_ Please provide a reference for your know-it-all
definition of "socialism." Preferably one which
includes reference to public libraries being
socialist institutions. -tom
\_ The part after "I think" was merely my opinion.
But some dictionaries and other references will
support my opinion. See:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism
"there is no precise canon on which the various
adherents of contemporary socialist movements
agree" "property and the distribution of
income are subject to social control rather
than ... market forces" "The uses and abuses
of the word socialism are legion".
Some apply the term interchangeably with
communism. However, in my opinion the term is
most commonly applied today in reference to
"welfare-state" type policies such as those
in Sweden. A public library, ok it's arguable,
but they provide access for the poor to things
the rich can afford to purchase. They take my
tax dollars and buy books for the use of
others.
\_ Okay, so now that you've actually thought
about it, and had your wikipedia brushup,
let's go back to Hilary's quotes. What in
there, without putting words in her mouth,
says "welfare-state"? Though if you think
public libraries are socialistic, there's
really no hope for this discussion.
--scotsman
\_ Hey I just jumped in on this socialism
definition subthread. I wasn't involved
in the HRC stuff. But it is arguable that
"shared responsibility and prosperity"
can imply things like social "safety
nets" and wealth redistribution. How
would you interpret that quote? What
specific political options other than
welfare-state principles would you
infer from that quote? Re: libraries,
\_ As a reassertment of the Social
Contract, a la Rousseau. As a
rejection of the lassaiz-faire
bullshit that Bush et al. espouse.
That we don't change all our
regulations to voluntary guidelines.
That we actually run inspections on
our food supply, workplaces, etc.
That we make decisions rather than
"make reality". --scotsman
\_ You mean we can't count on "The
Invisible Hand" to take care of
everything?!? That sux. He was
my favorite super hero.
I consider them in the same category
as public schools. If they didn't exist,
private citizens could establish their
own libraries either as charity,
private purpose or commercial operations.
Having the government take my money "at
gunpoint" as ilyas liked to say and use
it for a library fits communist views
of the role of government. Note that I
am not arguing about whether they are a
good thing or not.
\_ I don't think I can take credit for
that particular turn of phrase.
-- ilyas
\_ Read Jack London's People of the Abyss
for first-hand accounts of how an
unregulated society treats its poor.
Cf. Low Life, an account of the
history of the poor in NYC around the
same time period. Also review the
plight of shanty-towns in African
countries where industry operates
unregulated. Wealth-based altruism is
nice, but it doesn't work on its own.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=11134
\_ See now, you just admitted "reasonably unrestricted" which
is a fancy way of saying "reasonably restricted" from the
other side. Regulation != communism.
\_ Um, so? My original point was that regulation !=
communism && at most (lots of regulation) == socialism.
\_ Apologies! I must have confused you with op.
\_ Don't you understand, regulating the market is exactly like
building a Gulag and killing millions of people. The SEC
is secretly in the employ of Kim Jong-il. If you believe
otherwise, you are an apologist for Stalinism.
\_ Don't forget the FDA which (until recently) tried to prevent
us from gaining the superhuman strength that Salmonella
confers |
| 2007/4/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:46197 Activity:nil |
4/4 Knut the cute bear should be killed, say German animal activists:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,472480,00.html
\_ Maybe they're descendants of Nazis. Exterminate impure blood!
\- wow, this is really a new version of "we had to destroy
the village to save it"
\- E_DESTROYVILLAGETOSAVE
\_ Nazis wouldn't exterminate an Aryan bear would they?
\_ who knows? liberals always make expedient decisions
\_ Nazis are liberals? |
| 2007/3/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:46094 Activity:nil |
3/26 "practically everything that our government does, plans, thinks, hears
and contemplates in the realms of foreign policy is stamped and treated
as secret -- and then unraveled by that same government, by the
Congress and by the press in one continuing round of professional and
social contacts and cooperative and competitive exchanges of
information." Quoting from an official affidavit that was part of the
New York Times Co. v. United States (Pentagon Papers). Authored by
Max Frankel, then NYTimes chief Washington correspondent. |
| 2007/2/28-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:45839 Activity:moderate |
2/28 The Iraq War: a bargain at double the price:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xf3kw
\_ You can stop reading at "Dominated by Social Security and health
care, the federal budget..."
Over 50% of the federal budget is now military. -tom
\- if you are accruing liabilities, then you arent really capped
at 100% so it is better to talk number of dollars than
percentages. so he is right the total cost of servicing
things like the social security obligations and medicare
obligations are larger than the military. the numbers vary
based on assumtions and how many years out to but for medicare
and soc security you start seeing numbers like 45-75 trillion
dollars. so the entitlement number seem smaller because we're
not actually paying them but putting in IOUs. we cant pay
the military with IOUs, let alone haliburton. but i'm not
defending this dood's accounting of course. "how many billion
dollars would you be willing to burn to reclaim the loss
of american credibility" etc. it's of course equally bogus
of american credibility" etc. if's of course equally bogus
on only focus on econ costs.
of american credibility" etc. it's of course bogus to only
focus on econ costs.
\_ You need to consider the net present value of all this
spending. And we are certainly paying Halliburton with
IOUs, they are called treasury bonds.
\_ re: NPV ... yes obviously ... that's what is being done.
give me a little credit [no pun intended]. there are a
lot of other actuarial and economic assumptions in there
as well ... that's the tricky part, not mechnically coming
up with the NPV ... that's just arithmetic.
re: halliburton ... no, we are PAYING halliburton with
cash. we are FINANCING it with borrowing. when you buy a
house, you are not paying the seller with a mortgage.--psb
\- see e.g.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200504280951.asp
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070211/news_lz1e11riedl.html
[see in particular the 3rd paragraph in the SD UT article]
\_ i thought of a good analogy: say you are going to
MIT and paying for it though student loans. the mit
tuition is $33k/yr now. now say your are paying
$1000/mo on rent and $1000/mo on food and entertainment.
$1000/mo rent and $1000/mo for food and entertainment.
It is not accurate to say "50% of my expenses is rent".
Really you are accruing close to $3k/mo in liabilities.
So yes, it is fair to say "your budget is dominated by
tuition expenses" ... even if you are only say paying
$100/mo toward your student loans. --psb
It really is not accurate to say "50% of my expenses is
rent". Really you are accruing close to $3k/mo in
liabilities. So yes, it is fair to say "your budget is
dominated by tuition expenses" ... even if you are only
say paying $100/mo toward your student loans. --psb
\_ The future liabilities of our military posture
surely outpace those of social security, though
they may be more difficult to project. -tom
\_ medicare liability is more than 2x soc sec
obligations. it's hard to take your judgement
obligation. it's hard to take your judgement
calls seriously when you seem to miss a basic
fact like that. you can look for
google(kansas city federal reserve bank, social
security, medicare) for a research report on this
from 2006. that bartlett fellow has written a
bunch on this too. there is also an excellent
article in the nyrb ... i think i mentioned that
earlier in the motd or wall archive.
\_ PSB > TOM
http://tinyurl.com/yrtors (60 Minutes) |
| 2007/2/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:45713 Activity:nil |
2/12 Top Gear in Republican America. Disturbingly funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajWS8gCJOac
\_ I like Top Gear, but this is lame.
\_ How so?
\_ It just was. That said if you download the entire episode
(Season 9, episode 3, look on bittorrent) there are some
pretty amazingly funny bits. |
| 2007/1/7-16 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:45545 Activity:nil |
1/8 Hallelujah, freepers know how to keep Wisconsin pure and white
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1763895/posts
\_ White power! |
| 2006/12/19 [Politics/Domestic/SIG, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:45472 Activity:nil |
12/19 "Bus ride upsets black students"
http://www.csua.org/u/hqz (http://www.mercurynews.com
Troll: When they had to sit in the back, they complained (Rosa Parks).
When they have to sit in the front, they complain (now). |
| 2006/12/15-21 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Finance/Investment] UID:45452 Activity:moderate |
12/15 Shadow Statistics-- Ben Bernanke, Fed chairman, recently delivered
an upbeat view of the U.S. economy. It was cheerful, optimistic...
and delusional.
http://prudentbear.com/archive_comm_article.asp?category=Guest+Commentary&content_idx=53549
http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm
\_ Ok, assuing one buys this, what does one invest in? Stocks are
out, real estate (at least around here) is over-inflated.
India's economy is over-heated. I don't trust the Chinese
govt., so I don't want to invest there. Gold? Euro stocks?
Japan?
\_ AK's and canned food.
\_ I just dumped money in Canada, perhaps too late as Canada
has been solid for years now, but I think still a safe
play. Japan also looks promising, although it has looked
that way for years.
\_ If you believe in what this guy is saying, you should
head to the hills and try living as a subsistance farmer.
He makes some valid points, but waaaaay overstates his
case imho.
\_ you don't think Japan's economy and Chinese economy is not
interwind? You think Chinese economy exist in a vaccum? |
| 2006/12/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:45427 Activity:high |
12/11 If the average member of congress worked ~2-3 days a week last
year, the lowest ever in decades, where can I find out how long
EACH congressman/women worked? I'd like to use the data to tally
up total and percentage of hours for each state, and maybe
compare men vs. women, dems vs. reps, new yorkers vs. texans,
gay congressman vs. lesbian congresswomen, etc.
\_ I don't understand the metrics of this. Congresspeople
spend a lot of time in meetings with their staff, meeting
with lobbyists who get past their staff, meeting in the
secret underground Senate chambers, flying back and forth
between their district, calling donors, lots of flying
back and forth, is this 'tracked' in the "2-3 day working week"?
I don't think so.
\_ There's a bit of a misnomer there. Congress was in session 3 days
a week last year, but that doesn't mean every member of Congress
fucked off and played golf the other two days of the week. (*)
Of course if what you want to track is sessions of Congress
attended, you should see if there is if the Congressional roll call
records are available online. I actually think this is an
interesting idea. If you find the data you need to make this go
and want help hacking on it, let me know. -dans
(*) Though it also doesn't mean that every member of Congress
*didn't* fuck off and play golf the other two days of the week.
\_ Playing golf and screwing around with interns and congressional
pages IS work. It is hard work.
\_ Your bar for social life is clearly low. -dans |
| 2006/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:45216 Activity:nil |
11/7 Haha. From CNN:
"Bonds rally on election bets: Market surges on hopes of fiscal
discipline created by Democrat-controlled Congress; dollar mixed."
\_ that must be CNN TV I guess, cuz http://money.cnn.com mentions
the bond thing in the very last paragraph and just says "change
in control of the House" w/o mentioning Dems |
| 2006/11/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:45112 Activity:nil |
11/02 http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=110 shows that medicare is 19% of "mandatory" federal spending. It also lists "health" as being another 13% of off budget spending. What does this consist of ? \_ VA dept? |
| 2006/10/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44989 Activity:low |
10/26 This congress is pretty much a "do nothing congress." My question of
the day is, how did that happene? The Republicans control both
houses and the presidency!
\_ because, fundamentally, conservatives like things the way they are.
\_ That's so cute that it ought to be true.
\_ in part because the republicans in congress are conservative while
the bush administration is republican yet not conservative. so
bush couldn't get most of his big spender policy through yet the
conservatives in congress couldn't get past the more centrist
senate. grid lock isn't a bad thing in government. i'm all for
a life time of do nothing congresses.
\_ I'm sorry, but with budget deficits in the $500B range we
cannot afford "do nothing" Congresses that keep this level
of deficit spending. Further, social security needs to be
fixed.
\_ "Couldn't get most of his big spender policy through"
Are you HIGH? Bush has even eclipsed President Johnson in
spending. |
| 2006/10/13-16 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:44816 Activity:moderate |
10/13 Elephants cross the US-Mexico border w/ impunity:
http://tinyurl.com/ykzp8o (brownsvilleherald.com)
\_ Dirty illegals. We should take away their welfare and health benefits.
\_ Dirty illegals. We should take away their welfare & health benefits.
\_ Dirty illegals. We should take away their welfare & health
benefits.
\_ Why do you hate elephants?
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ I just hate American elephants. The Asian and African ones
are ok by me.
\_ I find Asian elephants to be too small and inscrutable, and
prone to forming triads and building nuclear weapons.
African elephants are just too violent. They are very fast
and strong, though.
\_ But what is up w/ those big ears? Are they using
them to eavesdrop on private domestic phone calls?
\_ But never the European ones. So white and monocultural.
\_ The Jewish European elephants have really long snouts,
though. And one they grab onto a peanut or banana
with that snout, they never, ever let go.
\_ The Jewish European elephants have really long
snouts, though. And one they grab onto a peanut
or banana with that snout, they never, ever let go.
\_ They're all white to me. --BAMN |
| 2006/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:44644 Activity:nil |
10/3 I'm addicted to crystal meth on MTV
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/arts/television/03true.htm |
| 2006/9/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:44512 Activity:nil |
9/23 Dems want to squander money on immigrants and Negros:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/23/Dems.radio.ap/index.html
\_ This message brought to you by the Association of Pure White
Brotherhood and Justin P Black
\_ No one responded to your original troll so you responded to
yourself. Lame, lame, lame.... |
| 2006/9/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:44417 Activity:nil |
9/18 Sweden, the newest red state:
http://tinyurl.com/kbgrt (cnn)
\_ So? The entire earth is leaning towards right. Singapore for
example used to provide government built homes but stopped doing
so and recently have cut taxes and social benefits. China is
totally embracing Capitalism and giving land to whoever has
enough money to bribe officials. The entire earth is leaning
towards the right, to cut social programs to get lazy people
working again. |
| 2006/7/18-20 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:43714 Activity:nil |
7/18 Breaking News: Seeing how unpopular it is to charge evacuation
fees which will affect the November election, two Republican senaators
tell CNN that the fees will be waived. So much for preaching
"self-reliance" and "you're responsible for your own lives."
\_ Oopsiedoodle!
\_ Of course they do. We're in the era of "borrow and spend"
social-but-not-economic conservatism. |
| 2006/6/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:43463 Activity:nil |
6/22 Interesting clause by clause comparison of the US constitution to
the Confedercy constitution.
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
\_ "call a spade a spade." The comparison is interesting but his
comments are sometimes ridiculous. |
| 2006/5/24-28 [Politics, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:43171 Activity:nil |
5/23 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196686,00.html Stop apologizing for being white or any racial group identified on a government checklist. \_ The article itself is rather poorly written IMHO, but this link to the Seattle Public Schools Definitions of Racism is astounding. For example, personal freedom is racism. Wha??? For example, advocating personal freedom is racism. Wha??? http://www.seattleschools.org/area/equityandrace/definitionofrace.xml \_ Where does it say that? \_ Under Institutional Racism: "...emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology..." (I made a small change to my previous post to make it more exact.)-pp |
| 2006/5/17-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:43087 Activity:nil |
5/17 Max Boot of the L.A. Times on the surveillance controversy
http://csua.org/u/fw8 (latimes.com)
"So far there has been no suggestion that the NSA has done anything
with disreputable motives. The administration has nothing to be
ashamed of. The only scandal here is that some people favor unilateral
disarmament in our struggle against the suicide bombers." [and a nuke
going off in a major American city]
He is a Cal alum, graduating in '91 with a B.S. in History at the age
of 20, and from Yale a year later with a M.S. in Diplomatic History.
\_ Basically he's saying "why do you hate America"
\_ I don't care what his credentials are; he's still a fool.
\_ Max Boot used to write a column for the Daily Cal when he was a
student that was SO conservative, most people on campus thought
he was actually a liberal troll.
\_ Uh no. What they did was storm the DC offices and demand the
editor sack him. She refused on grounds of free speech, etc.
Something along the lines of, "Even though I disagree with
everything he writes, he still has the right to say it".
\_ Another great credential: Boot is a signatory of the Project for
a New American Century. -tom
\_ weird i thought he would have been much older
\_ Why do I find the Equifax "finding out if you're good" ad that
came with that article terrifying? -John
\_ Some webmaster must think it's hilarious.
My ad was AT&T Unlimited nation-wide calling, 1st month free |
| 2006/4/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:42720 Activity:nil |
4/6 Aww.. Trent Lott is tired of the Pork Busters, poor guy just
really likes bacon!
http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2006/04/lott-says-hes-damn-tired-of.html
http://truthlaidbear.com/porkbusters/index.php |
| 2006/3/28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:42493 Activity:nil 80%like:42490 |
3/28 Why does the president and Congress hate the Constitution?
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24057/pub_detail.asp |
| 2006/3/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:42490 Activity:nil 80%like:42493 |
3/28 Why do Congress and the president hate the Constitution?
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24057/pub_detail.asp
\_ 'cause it limits their power. Duh.
\_ cuz the 2nd amendment is the only true limit on their power left
\_ Did you mean "nearly every politician"?
\_ Not particularly.. |
| 2006/2/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41915 Activity:low |
2/17 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4726300.stm Retirement at 85 and 50-year mortgage may be common by 2050. \_ In Japan it takes three generations to pay off a mortgage. \_ And in America, it takes one generation to pay off three mortgages. Just look at Bill gates, the Waltons, the Enron executives, and the Bush Dynasty. \_ And Soros and the Kennedy family and the Heinz family and the.... What do billionaires have to do with anything? \_ Yes, if pigs had wings, they may fly. |
| 2006/2/16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41895 Activity:nil |
2/16 Winning the Race
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=21170 |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41618 Activity:nil |
1/31 What's the difference between the Chairman, President, CEO and COO of
a company? To me, all of them are "people up there". Thx.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_operating_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41431 Activity:low |
1/19 Ron Paul, the only Congresscritter to tell the truth? Truth most
Americans don't want to hear ... (http://www.house.gov
http://tinyurl.com/d6g7y
\_ I'd vote for him.
\_ What's your favorite federal program? Ready to have it slashed
or eliminated?
\_ Please please don't cut the massive farm subsidies to ADM!
\_ Someone hasn't read the article. Come back when you have.
\_ I posted the article. See:
11. Cut funding for corporate welfare, foreign
aid, international NGOs, defense contractors,
the military industrial complex, and rich
corporate farmers before cutting welfare
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for the poor at home;
\_ I'd vote for him too. --PeterM
\_ Uh, wow. Did you actually read the whole thing? The guy's a
libertarian radical.
\_ I thought the article was great not because of his
proposed "solutions" but for his summary of the problems.
I agree with him that the Abramoff scandal is just a symptom
of Congress & the Executive branch selling out to the
highest bidder.
highest bidder. -- not PeterM
\_ That's no reason to vote for an optimistic anarchist
\_ A libertarian radical wouldn't say "cut corporate welfare
before you cut benefits to the poor"
\_ He's just prioritizing. |
| 2005/12/20-22 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41088 Activity:nil |
12/20 Update on the "DHS visits student for book ILL" story. At least one
fact is wrong. The ILL doesn't require a social security number:
http://acrlblog.org/2005/12/19/interlibrary-loan-causes-a-stir |
| 2005/12/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:41081 Activity:high |
12/19 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_go_co/congress_high_tech_visas Bye bye high-tech VISA, HELLLLLLOOOO outsourcing! Hello CS majors who are still in school, it's not too late to change your major. If you already graduated, it's not too late to go into other useful things, like real-estate. Fuck CS. Fuck tech. \_ Let me ask you this question. Do you have problem with GM workers with a high school degree making $60-80k a year with full benefit? You commands a higher wage than China and India, you need to think about what makes you worth your pay. If you can't compete, then find something else to do and stop blaming everyone. \_ Um. High-tech VISAs are a form of outsourcing. \_ My preference would be to allow more visas especially for US educated foreign students, but to slow down or educated foreign students, but at the same time, to slow down or stop "real" outsourcing - the moving of jobs overseas. This will attract the best talents from abroad, maintain critical mass of talented workers here, and also force companies to invest in their US based workers. US companies should be given incentive not to outsource but to adapt and move up the technology food chain, especially in critical industries. Outsourcing means companies do well in the short term while US workers lose their jobs. In the long term, however, it means transfer and loss of critical technology to countries like China and India. Unfortunately, US business leaders mostly have short term views. China, OTOH, plan for the long term, and almost always request technology and knowledge transfer before agreeing to a business partnership with foreign companies. -!op partnership with foreign companies. The way it's going, US will have fewer and fewer engineers and even scientists, while the outsource recipient countries will have more and more, and they will be doing more and more interesting work, while there will be less and less interest for students in the US, be they American or foreign students, to do science and engineering, and less incentive for those who did, to stay here. -!op stop "real" outsourcing - the moving of jobs overseas. This will attract the best talents from abroad, maintain critical mass of talented workers here, and also force companies to invest in their US based workers. US companies should be given incentive not to outsource but to adapt and move up the technology food chain, especially in critical industries. Outsourcing means companies do well in the short term while US workers lose their jobs. In the long term, however, it means transfer and loss of critical technology to countries like China and India. Unfortunately, US business leaders mostly have short term views. China, OTOH, plan for the long term, and almost always request technology and knowledge transfer before agreeing to a business partnership with foreign companies. The way it's going, US will have fewer and fewer engineers and even scientists, while the outsource recipient countries will have more and more, and they will be doing more and more interesting work, while there will be less and less interest for students in the US, be they American or foreign students, to do science and engineering, and less incentive for those who did, to stay here. -!op \- it may not be a matter of short term views but elite interest diverging from rank and file interest. \_ Are you seriously going to claim that it's in the longterm best interest of owners of American companies to have America lose its competitive edge in science and engineering? That's ridiculous. I would argue that American science is so good for the world that anything that hurts American science hurts the whole world at all economic levels. This is not a zero sum game. \- i'm not suggesting it is 0 sum. i simply think if you have say $10m today, you are not especially affected by say the dollar weakening, poor public schools, pensions failing, social security having problems etc. i.e. people who "get their own" early, can route around a lot of problems in the future. rather than thinking only temporally, you might consider thing "spatially" ... meaning you stand where you sit. more formally some of the incentive problems are those that come from principal-agent issues. i think part of the issue is corporate governance not just globalization. globalization in mfgring has been going on for decades. i also think factors like amaerica's 0 agg private saving rate are going to play a role in shaping the future as well as "globalization". \- oh and i think your discussion has some status quo biases. like when you say "american science declining hurts everybody". well you are a poor person exposed to say cholera and malaria and poor nutrition and no clean water supply, advances in ass-related plastic surgery or botox or the erectile dysfunction treatment meds arent your priorities. yes i relalize a lot of important research behind the Green Revolution or techniques for purifying water with UV and such have come out of the US, but it's also true relatively frivolous stuff is often vastly better rewarded than stuff that kills poor people. again compare the spending on ED drugs [i think there were something like a dozen in the pipeline [npi] in the last couple of decades, but almost no work on common orphan diseases. much of the economic logic behind free trade and free movement of the factors of production and capital also apply to free movement of labor, but nobody is seriously proposing something like that to max overall efficiency. if anything the recent EU negotiations over the CAP/refund and the US pushing IP negotiations over the CAP and the US pushing IP issues in the WTO negotiations show how far people will go to protect their parochial interest and ignore all the ideology when it doesnt go their way. just out of curiosity, do you drive and american [sic] car? do you have an american TV ... oh never mind ... an american stereo? TV ... oh never mind ... and american stereo? where are your shoes made? do you support negotiations over the CAP/refund and the US pushing IP issues in the WTO negotiations show how far people will go to protect their parochial interest and ignore all the ideology when it doesnt go their way. just out of curiosity, do you drive and american [sic] car? do you have an american TV ... oh never mind ... an american stereo? where are your shoes made? do you support sever penalites for those employing illegal aliens, or should we just keep deporting the persons themselves? \_ Who says that science and technology will decline in the US? Why wouldn't they increase as Americans spend more effort on research and diving into more technically challenging roles to become more competitive than an outsourced counterpart? to become more competitve than an outsourced counterpart? \_ Because the competitive advantage from the discoveries you have made, that is the fruits of your labour, will be knowledge transferred to your counterpart in China and India, and they are 10x cheaper than you, and just as smart as you. With globalization, there is now no incentive for companies to build up a technology gap between US and foreign countries, there is no longer much incentive to invest in technology development in between US and foreign countries, there is less and less incentive to invest in technology development in the US. Also, China and India are constantly encouraging US companies to invest in R&D over there with all kinds of tax incentives and business partner- with all kinds of tax breaks and business partner- ship lures. Is this bad for the world? I don't know. What I do know, is that it's good for China and India, but bad for the US. Anything to do with research and that is "technical challenging" is not hard to but bad for the US. Anything to do with research or that is "technically challenging" is not hard to outsource. All you need is top local talent, of which India and China has plenty, a technology transfer so they get up to speed, which US companies are happy to do, and lots of money for the research facilities, which US companies are happy to invest. \_ Says who? All evidence I've seen so far shows that outsourced work, while cheaper, is significantly inferior too. Outsourced code sucks. Speedy communication still remains an issue. If you're good at what you do, then I maintain that you're not expendible and your job won't be shipped overseas. If that isn't the case, then it's time for you to improve your skills and make yourself more marketable. \_ Even with outsourcing, I'd like to know which major should one choose other than business administration or engineering in order to have the jobs with comparable salaries that are as readily available as in CS. \_ I am in 3G wireless infrastructure, and my employer is systematically moving the whole division to China. It doesn't matter if I am good or bad. Even if I am good, I would be good or bad. Either way, I would be forced to either move to a different field, move to a different part of the country, stay move to a different part of the country, or stay on and do peripheral type work. As for foreign coders, it is the same as over here, some are idiots, some are good, but they are improving fast. And of course, 3G wireless has lots of military applications, pretty kool for China. pretty kool for China to have a large pool of engineers with experience in this area. \_ Even with outsourcing, I'd like to know which major should one choose other than business administration or engineering in order to have the jobs with comparable salaries that are as readily available as in CS. \_ Anything that gets you into law school or medical school. \- self-regulating indistries are in better positions to protect themselves. there was a large influx of indian and russian doctors in the 70s i believe and i assume the AMA either ahead of time or in response took steps to keep them from competing. typically they do so by insisiting on certifications [we are here to protect you] and then defining the area of practice very broadly. see e.g. the nolo v texas case. my understanding is dental hyginists must work for a dentist and cannot operate a $19.95 only-teeth-cleaning service. i believe there are regulations on opticians as well. civil engineers, ME, software engineers either missed the boat or were never in a position to similarly dictate competition terms. \_ Actually, engineering is probably a good choice if you want to go to law school. IP lawyers (patent and copyright) are generally paid more and have better working conditions that the pol sci majors. \_ I can feel nothing but pity for people chosing majors based ONLY on how much they're gonna make. It's gonna take 5 to 10 possibly best years of your life spent on learning something that you're not passionate about before he/she can even start earning money. Of course, most of them are probably too dumb to make it into and through the medical or law school or a rigorous CS program like at UCB anyways but I pity both kinds. \_ Law school doesn't require being smart. \_ Just learn to say "would you like fries with that?" like all th PolySci/English majors have been doing for decades. \_ Actually, I say "Have you rtfm?" these days. -English major |
| 2005/12/12-14 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:40981 Activity:high |
12/12 dim, do you advocate living a lot farther to buy a single family
home instead of a condo that is a lot closer?
\_ Tough question. In general, I like the lifestyle a SFR affords.
However, I'd rather have a condo in SF than commute in from
Sacramento every day. There are advantages to both. All else
equal, you are better off with a SFR in most cases. For
investment purposes, small buildings and duplex/triplex
situations are better than either. --dim
\_ Condos are better when you're young and you don't have time to
mow the lawn, adjust the sprinkler, rake leafs, clean up the
garage (which your wife thinks is an unlimited storage space),
plant new flower beds, add manure [or chemical fertilizer],
take out weeds, kill gophers, spray pesticides, etc.
In addition, when you're older and move up to a SFR that real
men live in, you can rent out your condo without worrying
about the condition of the condo as your home owner's association
should take care of things for you. Lastly, home owner's
association dues (HOA) is completely tax deductable as expense
so it's all good.
\_ Jesus, what is wrong with you people? You do realize that you
can hire a gardener to do most/all of that crap, yes? It's
really actually rather common and can work really well at a
fairly modest price. You can find these 'gardeners' in the
yellow pages.
\_ If I ever want to do any of that shit on your list other than
killing gophers, I hope someone has the mercy to kill me.
\- spoken like a young rebellious liberal. One day, you will grow
up and assimilate, and you'll love to do all of the above.
Grow up, get a job, buy a suburbian house, buy a minivan
or SUV, and have kids. Family values, that's the American
way. Like I said, you'll have to do all of the above sooner
or later. Can I kill you now? God Bless.
\_ God Bless? God Bless what?
What exactly is it that god
is supposed to be blessing
here? Do you really believe
in god, or are you just being
'clever'?
\_ Yes, but at least he galloped. When did you?
\_ blah! both options suck. why buy when you can rent worry
free. i'm happy renting my place, i feel perfectly fine
playing PS2, Xbox and having cool LAN parties. what is it
with you old farts. grow down man -young troll, will try harder
\_ SFR have greater demands and lower supply. Old SFR and
orchids and warehouses are constantly being torn down for
\_ That's gotta be the smallest condo ever!
more condo developments. SFR are disappearing while condos
are being built all the time. So, it's not hard to see why
one is better than the other. If you spend just a little
bit of time in traffic, your overall gain in the long run
is much higher. SFR rules.
\_ I'd actually argue that condos are better for older people.
Young people have a lot more energy for all of the above.
\_ Are HOA dues really tax deductible? googling says otherwise,
can anyone say definitively?
\_ If you are renting the place out, you can deduct the HOA
dues from the amount you collect in rent. You cannot
deduct the HOA dues on your primary residence.
\_ Good to know -potential future landlord
\_ Live simply, and spend your extra time doing charity work,
instead of mowing the lawn.
\_ helping thyself is the best charity work. -libertarian
\- how do you, mr libertarian, define charity? do you
define it as "helping yourself" or that just falls
under your defn? --psb
\_ I think you have been had. Libertarians LOVE
\_ I think you have been had. Libertarians like
charity. Charity makes one feel good about oneself
and helps another who may well be gratefull. It is
and helps another who may well be grateful. It is
Govmnt handouts, which are coerced from one person
(how many here feel good when paying their taxes?)
and given to another as entitelments, (which are
less likely to make one feel gratefuly)
less likely to make one feel grateful)
Please note, that I am *not* arguing personally
against social welfare. I am simply stating the
libertarian POV to illustrate that it is more likely
that the above is (mis)characterizing a "libertarian"
not actually speaking as one. -crebbs
\- i dont think i've been had. i think you are being
defensive. saying "chess is my favorite sport"
may make sense if sport to you is at essence about
competition but may not make sense if must involve
something physical. is non-competititive mountain
climbing a sport? similarly, i am trying to figure
out what this fellow considers the "essence" of
charity. shopping on amazon makes me feel good
and helps amazon stockholders. that isnt charity.
i do know a bit about libertarianism and
contractarian philosophy. i am asking a narrow
question to the PP. not making a statement about
social welfare in the large. --psb
\- on i see ... from below it looks like
the "-libertarian" fellow is just mocking
libertarianism. it's hard to tell the mocking
from those who are in earnest ... privatize
from those who are in earnest ... privatatize
fire depts! --psb
\_ right, my point was just that he is mocking
As for the "Fire Depts" comment. All groups
have their irrational fringe elements. It
happens that 3rd party groups, being ipso
facto out of the mainstream, tend to be more
defined by their extremists. That being said
there is a huge difference between someone
Characterizing Libs as radicals, and some
idiot(s) who (regularly) MIS-Characterize
them as mean/cruel/hateful/dimwitted/selfish
hedonistic bastards (not to say that there are
none who are) -crebbs
\- my criticisms of libertarians is not a
philosophical criticism of libertarianism.
i think most libertarians actually dont
care about the philosophy they just like
what it says. this isnt a perfect analogy
but it's like the difference between a
raiders supporter because they are co-
located in oakland and somebody to endorses
the raider image/lifestyle/values and would
stick with them even if moved to Dallas.
i do have separate criticisms of the lib.
philosophy but i also think the it is a
compelling framework that can force
opposing views to answer some tough
questions (as i have said before some
liberals become defensive when confronted
with "dont you feel people know what is
best for themselves" ... when it is phrased
as "do you think poor people are stupid"
and feel obligated to backpedal rather
than say "yes, there are a bunch of cases
where people dont make good decisions"
either for structural reasons [info costs]
or "weak will"). the Randroids are pretty
much the Stalinists of the Libertarians.
are you related to the Krebs cycle people?
them as evil/hateful/dimwitted/selfish
bastards (not to say that there are none
who are) -crebbs
are you invovled with the crebbs cycle? |
| 2005/11/10-14 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40537 Activity:moderate |
11/10 http://www.politicalcompass.org Another measure of your position on the political spectrum. I'm -2.25 Left, -5.64 Libertarian. -nivra \_ Link doesn't work. \_ Some of these questions are loaded. Also, does "Our race" mean the human race, or white/asian/black/etc? \_ I presume it means the race of the person taking the study. \_ -4.65 left, -3.85 libertarian -- I could be the next Dalai Lama! -eric \_ -2.75 left, -0.87 libertarian --dim \_ -2.63 left, -4.31 libertarian -mice \_ Isn't this old? This has been posted several times. Too bad our friendly archiving is gone. \_ archiving wouldn't have prevented it from being posted, nor would it have prevented people from posting responses. \_ "The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left' , established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789 ......" Is this real? I've been wondering about the origins of the left/right notation. \_ Yes. The people who supported the monarchy sat on the right of the chamber, right being the position of respect (as in "right hand man"). The "common people", who opposed the absolute power of the monarchy and the aristocracy, sat on the left. -gm \_ -5.50 left, -5.90 libertarian. -tom \_ Is the Chinese authority moving from Stalin-like to Hitler-like? \_ Everyone on the left huh? 4.13 left, -1.08 libertarian \_ 3.25 left/right, 0.15 libertarian \- -3.13Left,-2.67Lib. i think that overstates my leftiness. the moral phil test is better. --psb \_ urlP \_ #t \_ 4.75 Right, -2.31 Libertarian. \- -3.13Left,-2.67Lib. i think that overstates my leftiness. --psb the moral phil test is better. \_ some of the squestions are poorly written like the one about "plant genetic resources". \_ Its fairly obvious they mean the "terminator" gene, but it could also include vegetables w/ animal dna. \_ "Astrology accurately explains many things"? Well, yes. The question is what things. \_ -3.25 left/right, -6.62 Lib/Authoritarian. Does this mean I'm a fucking hippy? \_ Only if you are having sex, if not it just makes you a hippy. -ax \_ I find it amusing that classic liberalism is labeled neo-liberalism on their chart. \_ Economic Left/Right: -0.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.72 This makes me a moderate, while most of you think of me as conservative. It seems like the test is a little skewed towards the left, but it could be the Berkeley curve throwing things off. -ax \_ 0.50 left, 5.18 libertarian. Hrm. -John \_ -5.38 left, -6.72 libertarian. -niloc \_ -0.25 left, -2.36 lib. This thing is definitely skewed to the left in the economic scale at least. I am pretty certain that their "International Chart" showing a whole bunch of famous leaders in in the authoritarian+right is wrong; that they are inaccurately describing "rightist" economic attitudes with their questions on that subject. In reality I think the modern notion of the center is somewhere to the left of their absolute scale. (On the other hand I do consider myself a moderate and it puts me there...) \_ -5.88 left, -4.92 lib |
| 2005/10/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Finance/Investment] UID:40213 Activity:nil |
10/21 Alan Greenspan translation for the average American is here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/thornton/thornton13.html |
| 2005/10/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:40011 Activity:nil |
10/7 Al Gore on why Television (news) sucks. Aside from a few petty
digs at his enemies, and some mistaken historical facts,
(protests invented in the 60s?) I basically agree with him.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2IU703.html
\_ Gore is a smart guy, but the electorate decided they didn't like
sighing so we got W instead.
\_ This has what to do with the link?
\_ Watch the News Hour.
\_ Thanks, this is great reading. |
| 2005/9/28-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:39904 Activity:nil |
9/28 Mortgage interest is tax-deductible for federal and state taxes. Is it
also deductible for the items on my paycheck like Social Security,
Medicare, etc.?
\_ No. You get to pay the middle-class regressive tax whether you
like it or not. Call us back when you get past that AMT wall, boyo.
\_ i dont understand AMT. when i am about to pay $0 tax dollars..
all of a sudden i have to pay $8000?
\_ AMT is a minimum amount of tax you should pay based on
some formula. So, for instance, if you make $300K and
have $300K in deductions (let us say stock losses) you
still have to pay the minimum tax (and not $0).
\_ AMT was designed to prevent the ultra-rich from paying
no tax. Unfortunately it has never been indexed to
inflation, and so it increasingly hits the middle class.
This is only going to get worse over time, but for some
reason the Republican leadership seems reluctant to fix it.
\_ Well, the R leadership is too busy spending like drunken
sailors (apologies to sailors). But if they tried it,
the D's would say "they're trying to protect the rich
again!" -emarkp
\_ Apology accepted. I used to be a sailor, and drank
plenty, but I never spent more than I could afford.
\_ You also spent /your own money/. Which is another
important difference. -emarkp
\_ For what it's worth, I believe the Democrats want
to fix the AMT. It may even be in the platform,
but I don't recall.
\_ The AMT is primarily a problem for voters in
Democratic states. Why would the Republicans rush
to fix it? Let CA and NY vote Republican, and the
AMT will get fixed in a jiff.
\_ No, the Republicans want the AMT to explode and
hurt people. Then they can repeal the whole thing,
no questions asked.
\_ and by not removing the AMT, they have a
non-exploding budget for years to come :P
\_ No one wants to "remove" the AMT, except
for maybe the Grover Norquist wing of the
Republican party. What it needs is to
fixed so that it doesn't hurt the already
battered and shrinking middle class.
\_ yerright. I amend that to:
and by not fixing the AMT, they have a
non-exploding projected budget deficit
for years to come
\_ No, I think you're wrong. To correct it
would be simple, just like the fixing the
estate tax. And now that tax is on the
brink of being permanently off the books.
The fate of the AMT will be the same, but
unlike the "death tax," it will actually
hurt people.
hurt people first before they kill it.
\_ do you think the GOPers will be
laughing their asses off when the
upper-middle-class Democrats are
paying the higher taxes they wanted?
\_ Oh dear me yes. They are expecting
a rash of people going to the GOP
when this happens. |
| 2005/8/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:39333 Activity:nil |
8/28 Worth reposting. James J. Heckman's systematic demolition of
"The Bell Curve":
http://reason.com/9503/dept.bk.HECKMAN.text.shtml
\- FYI: HECKMAN co-won the Econ nobel with UCB Econ Nobel D. MCFADDEN
\_ "For a variety of reasons, treating persons fairly as individuals
may lead to heterogeneity in outcomes among demographic groups.
Denying individual heterogeneity by treating persons as members of
demographic categories will produce disparities in productivity
among demographic groups, reduce economic efficiency, and foster a
sense of injustice among all participants in society." MOTD, I
hardly knew ya. |
| 2005/8/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:38929 Activity:nil |
8/2 Can someone define "social justice" for me?
\_ "Social Justice" is someone's idea of how things ought to be
run. Depending on that person, it could mean universal health
care, or executions for all murderers.
\_ A simple definition would be "A fair society" where 'fair' is a
matter of debate, but it is more commonly used by Liberals to
refer to helping some disadvantaged group. |
| 2005/7/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:38669 Activity:nil |
7/16 Rove: "I've already said too much."
http://csua.org/u/cqf (Yahoo! news)
\_ Yeah? So? The President has been doing whatever he pleases and
nothing touches him or his staff. What's the point for fighting... |
| 2005/6/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:38326 Activity:nil |
6/28 On Tuesday evening, President Bush will try to convince you that
we're making big progress in Iraq, energy, social security, tax,
health care, and others. What are some things you expect
him to say? I'll start:
\_ "Terrorists hate freedom, that is why we must stay in Iraq"
\_ More interesting to an actual discussion would be what you think
he'll say, why he'll say it and why you think he is right or wrong
with each statement.
\_ More interesting than that would be a drinking game - a shot
of Patron every time he says the word "freedom" or refers to
9/11. |
| 2005/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:38056 Activity:high |
6/9 "The last two decades have witnessed a revival of the American credo
of personal responsibility, championed by conservatives as an
all-purpose tonic to every social ill." I will agree that many
conservatives use personal responsibility as the solution to all
life's problems. However, I also get upset when liberals seem to run
from personal responsibility too. I think that this is a false
choice. The fact is we need both personal responsibility and social
responsibility. People need to responsible for the lives they are
given and be responsible for their fellow man and woman. It's not an
either/or, but a both/and. I need to find a job. That's my
responsibility, not the government's. However it should be the
government's responisibility to make sure I have adaquate health
care, and other stablizers in order to keep me slipping towards
poverty. That's what makes a social contract: I will do something
for you and in return you will do something for me. As a pragmatic
moderate who is experiencing economic insecurity, I know we need to
have government play a more expanded role. However, let's not
sideline personal responsibility in process.
\_ From what I have seen with my own eyes, the actual number of
cases where people are simply unwilling to find a job is nearly
negligible compared to the cases where economic realities are
enough to make socialized assistance a good idea. Living in
Berkeley was not good for my perspective since that "negligible"
number of people were right in my face everyday. Outside Berkeley,
I've mainly seen people working their asses off and barely getting
by. From that I've concluded that personal responsibility, at least
as far as getting a job, is an easy go-to emotional push button for
people who don't think socialized assistance (and that comes in many
many forms) is a good idea. It is an easy way to distract otherwise
well meaning people from a larger reality. -- ulysses
\_ A large majority of Republicans would say that people working
their asses off and barely getting by is how it should work.
The people working their assess off and doing better than that
"deserve" it because they came up with a better mousetrap, or
are children of those who already succeeded (inheritance, family
connections). They also say the lazy wealthy will spend all
their cash in one generation, and it's no one's right to tax
their inheritance away -- their kids will be working their asses
off and barely getting by again.
\_ Actually the Chinese say that. It's an old proverb that says
"wealth doesn't last past 3 generations". There's also an
old Chinese proverb to the effect that "weath creation is
hard, but wealth maintenance is even more difficult."
\_ The Chinese also say something to the effect of "Only the
good die young".
\_ Don't know that one. Lots of famously Chinese sayings
really aren't. What is it in Chinese?
\_ I'll go ask my girlfriend. Maybe she got it off of
soap operas or wu xia novels.
\_ There is a descriptive phrase that says "noble
spirit is dead early", but this is descriptive
rather than prescriptive.
\_ The good die young because only the young die good.
\_ You know, I had been experiencing economic insecurity more than once
in my life, but it never occurred to me to conclude I need the
government to play a greater role in my life and help me. People
are very different I guess. There is this microloan bank (fully
peasant-owned) in South-East Asia somewhere. They are doing really
well (most of their loans are not defaulted on). This is because
for most poor people there, it is a matter of honor to return the
loan, so they work hard on their 'microbusiness' which the loan
helped them bootstrap, and almost always end up better off, and
paying off the loan. Most poor people HATE relying on charity.
Do you know how I learned about this bank? Dr. Breyer (Inktomy fame)
Do you know how I learned about this bank? Dr. Brewer (Inktomy fame)
was giving a talk at UCLA about, among other things, how
charity-based efforts to uplift the third world poor tend to work
badly, while capitalist methods like microloans tend to be very
effective. -- ilyas
\- microcredit is good at some problems but it isnt going to
help with things like malaria, flood control, post-flood
recovery, arsenic in the water etc [BTW, this list is based
on development issue in bangladesh, where the grameen bank
started, not SE Asia]. what about govt promostion of business?
started, not SE Asia]. what about govt promotion of business?
this isnt just obvious corporate pork or things like tax holidays
but subtler things like city leaders going on trade promotion
tours, the import-export bank etc.
\_ Breyer's thesis is that 'development' (which is the real
tours, the import-export bank etc. --psb
\_ Brewer's thesis is that 'development' (which is the real
way to affect things like malaria and response to natural
disasters) has to happen in a capitalist way, or it is not
sustainable. The typical example he gave was a World Bank
project going in, spending some money for a few years, and
leaving once the grant ran out. The structures they have
build immediately dissipate because charity does not build
sustainable development structures, whereas a business does.
I don't think he was particularly hung up on microloans as
the universal panacea, nor was he saying charity has no place.
-- ilyas
\- to say development is the way to solve something like
endemic malaria or various other problems killing
10x the tsunami's total death toll per year is just
an excuse to do nothing, a lot like the people who
keep saying "oh first we have to solve the governance
and transparancy issues otherwise we will be throwing
good money after bad". without a doubt these long terms
policies are what do you need to accomplish long term
results and solutions but to avoid the problem is to
consign a lot of people to cheaply avoidable death and
misery.
\_ Partha you often accuse libertarians and
market-oriented folks of 'ulterior motives' for their
beliefs. Why is that? Do you really think they are
really more likely than any other political group of
having ulterior motives? Actually this touches on
'the motivation problem' which is something that
has been on my mind for many years now. At any rate,
I don't think those kinds of arguments are very
convincing. It's kind of like accusing the pro-charity
folks of having excuses for feeding unjust
dictatorships. -- ilyas
\- go count how many reasonably
well governed countries there are
in africa that could use some help.
there is more to africa than
uganda, congo, sierra leone, liberia,
sudan etc. you never hear about most
of those countries.
\- BTW, I think you should be more
specific when you are talking about
charities. I am not sure whether
you are talking about the SF Opera
or Breast Cancer or organic food
in the ghetto or free cateract
operations for poor people in the
3rd world. why do some rightwingers
only talk about the latter kind of
thing as fostering a culture of
dependence? hey let's have breast
cancer sufferers suck it up and the
SF opera singers can build their own
sets. --psb
\-Finally: it really says something
about the right-wing today to have
me lumped in with the leftists.
I mean this is truly new levels
of mendacity ... doesnt mining
nicaraguan harbors or iran-contra
just seem quaint now. --psb
\- my point about randroids is pretty specific.
my overall view is a lot of libertarians dont care
about others and dont choose to admit it and
a lot of liberals dont want to admit there are a
lot of stupid poor people who dont know what is
best for themselves so they let libertarians
bash them over and over with "are you saying
poor people dont know what is best for them" ...
yes, a lot of parents dont give a rats ass about
their kids, yes, a lot of people are too dumb to
manage their money. thats part of the problem with
some voucher and privatization plans. dumb richer
people can game the system after making a mistake
[orange county bailout]. there is a lot of
hypocrisy on both sides [family values sex fiends,
leftwingers advocating things that will drive up
costs of goods for poor people]. the angry
right wing mobilize in a way that advances their
interests while the angry left wing just foams.
the moderate left wing are too hedonistic to
bother to do much. the moderate leftwin now
consderates any day a democratic congressman
doesnt wet his pants on TV a successful day, see
recent judicial "compromise". the moderate right
wing is assessing whether they can throw money
at the problem and avoid the problems the angry
right might drag them into. --psb
\_ Firstly, I find it supremely amusing you wrote
4 separate replies. Secondly, I was not lumping
you with anybody, although I would say your
beliefs qualify you for a 'liberal' in the
American sense. Thirdly, to reiterate a point
I perhaps did not state sufficiently strongly,
I have no problems with charities. I love
charities, in fact, because I view them as a
more viable alternative over government-managed,
tax-funded programs, in many cases.
\- on a lot of specific policy areas ...
regulating pollution and other environmental
issues, trade unions, free trade, tort law,
govt paid for sex change operations ... i
hardly endorse the traditional liberal
position. but it's hard for to ignore
hypocrisy, racism, and rank criminality
because i agree with them on welfare
reform. if i have to choose between some
loser getting a free sex change operation
and halliburton ripping us off for millions
of dollars, it doesnt really matter to me
whether the transsexual is straight, gay
or bisexual. for example i have a reasonably
hard attitude toward illegal immigration,
but 1. the arguments for and against free
trade in goods largely apply to free movement
of labor 2. this new idea of creating a
semi-official second class status of persons
is really offensive ... it isnt excused by
being pareto superior. the right is sinking
to a new low on big issues that are hard to
ignore or compromise on becaues of their
extremeism or magnitude.
having ulterior motives? -- ilyas
more likely than any other political group to have
ulterior motives? -- ilyas
\_ I suspect libertarians such as ilyas are
actually a bit handicapped understanding
the perception of the libertarian pov.
ilyas, alone among the libertarians who
I've read here over the years, generally
sounds like he's convinced libertarianism
is a correct means to an end. All the rest
I've read, my impression has been that one
scratched their argument a bit and it was
a bit of Limbaugh-esque flim-flam painted
over naked greed or blame-mongering.
-- ulysses
\_ Everyone agrees microloans > charity, doing nothing.
However, is it that:
microloans > charity > doing nothing, or
microloans > doing nothing > charity
Also, above poster contends certain things are difficult to
microloan on.
\_ I would say charity is better than doing nothing, but I
think charity tends to be a very inefficient means to
achieve desirable long-term positive effects, because of
the mentioned lack of sustainability of effects charity
produces. I think people who want to enact long-term
change ought to spend more time thinking about the best
way to spend their charitable contributions than just
blindly give to a charity, and telling their conscience
to shut up. Breyer gave an example of developing a
malaria blood tester machine that can be used 'in the field'
as a PhD thesis. Then you can put in your CV "my work
saved 50 million lives." -- ilyas
way to help than just blindly give to a charity, and telling
their conscience to shut up. Breyer gave an example of
their conscience to shut up. Brewer gave an example of
developing a malaria blood tester machine that can be used
'in the field' as a PhD thesis. Then you can put in your CV
"my work saved 50 million lives." Hard to argue with that.
This touches on a larger philosophical problem of moral
actions being generally uncomputable (you don't have time,
\_ I think most people agrees with what you wrote,
up to ". Breyer ...".
and doing nothing is also immoral). -- ilyas
\- i am not familar with your "blood tester" but you can
look at jay keasling's [ucb/lbl] work on "e coli"
factories to bring down the cost of an anti-malarial
as well as something like ashok gadgil's [lbl]
UV waterworks. BTW, i am sure Brewer is a "breyte"
guy [are we talking about Brewer?] but why dont you
read a development export on this stuff? like say
jeffrey sachs or AMARTYA SEN. you might be interested
in SEN: DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM. --psb
in SEN: DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM.
\_ It is Brewer, sorry. Fixed. I forget what disease
the field blood tester was for. It might not have
been malaria. -- ilyas
\_ I think most people agree with what you wrote,
up to ". Breyer ...". As for Breyer, well, I think he's
up to ". Brewer ...". As for Brewer, well, I think he's
just stating the obvious, except he is a startup founder
and Berkeley CS professor (but that's just my opinion).
The "obvious" being:
microloans (and other aid which encourages self-reliance
and comes with long-term benefits)
> short-term charity, doing nothing
\_ If, as you say, most people agree with what I wrote,
it is very curious that there is so much controversy
about whether it is better to uplift the poor in the
United States using capitalist or charity-based methods.
Is there something fundamentally different between the
situation here and in the Third World? -- ilyas
\- yes. in jeffrey sachs rather disturbing phrase,
some people are "too poor to live". by and large
the poverty in the united states is not "the
poverty that kills". --psb
\_ Yes, I am of course aware of that. This
actually makes the 'uplift through charity'
argument harder in the case of the US poor.
\_ Let's go back to:
Everyone agrees microloans > charity, doing nothing.
However, is it that:
microloans > charity > doing nothing, or
microloans > doing nothing > charity
The problem is that the process hasn't been created
to efficiently microloan everything but only a
limited number of projects.
Let's say the U.S. government could potentially spend
$10 on aid. Practically speaking, we can only spend
$1 on microloan type stuff. So, do you: spend $9
on charity, keep the $9 (do nothing), spend $4.5 on
charity and keep the rest, spend $9 on developing the
process for microloan type stuff and give nothing
to charity, or some combination of the above?
It is on these practical issues on which most of
the substantive arguments are about.
Plus, you have Dems who think that GOPers prefer
doing nothing over giving charity and think
micro-loans are really about doing nothing; and
you have GOPers who think Dems prefer giving charity
over doing nothing and micro-loans.
From my perspective both parties are making the wrong
assumptions about the other side, and this is a
major part of what a lot of the bickering is about.
In an ideal world, both parties are having arguments
on the substantive differences, not the imagined
ones, but oh well (what better way to rally the base
than to say that the other side would like nothing
better than spending zilch on charity, or say the
other side prefers putting the lazy on the dole
forever).
In the real world (which includes soda), the vast
majority of arguments are about imagined differences,
or are situations where 80% of the difference is
imagined/non-substantive and 20% of it is
substantive.
majority of arguments are situations where 80% of the
difference is imagined/non-substantive and 20% of it
is substantive.
\_ I don't think this is really true. Some people
really do not trust market and self-interest-based
solutions. -- ilyas
\_ I am not excluding that.
People who understand the valid points held by
the other side are having the substantive
arguments.
\_ So you are experiencing economic insecurity and you want the gov
to fix it all up for you? What is this kindgarten? If you are
really worried about economic insecurity, why don't you save money
to get through the tough times? How about trying to get another
degree or something?
\- if you owe the bank $100, you have a problem. if you owe the
bank $1m, the bank has a problem.
\_ Why get yourself in a position where you owe the bank
$1m (or $100) and don't have the means to pay? (Serious
question - I've never carried long term debt and don't
understand why you would want to) |
| 2005/6/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:38046 Activity:high |
6/8 Janice Brown: Liberalism --> Slavery
http://csua.org/u/cb0 (nytimes.com)
\_ WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
\_ GOP is brilliant. By hiring minorities who align with their agenda
they attract other minorities who are ignorant of Republican agendas
\_ Would you care to enlighten us poor benighted savages about
the real Republican agenda?
\_ In my opinion... in theory, their ideology is good for the
society. But in practice, it is flawed. That is not to say
that Dem ideologies are in practice flawed as well. However,
it's not hard to see that in the past decade or two that
the Rep ideology is being abused much more, by the religious
right, the homophobes, big Corporate sponsors, and the
NeoCons. Lastly I simply have a lot of problems with Rep's
fundamental idea of using personal responsibility to solve
most of life's problems. In many cases, people are not born
with the ability to solve their own problems, but would be
ok if given a second or third chance. We talk about
equality, but in reality the world is not equal. Regardless
of abilities and merits, the rich still get better education
and the minorities are still getting a shorter end of the
stick. Personal responsibility-- great in theory, unfair in
practice. That is why I am opposed to Rep agendas: tax
reduction, flat tax, completely personal responsible social
security, reduction of welfare, reduction of public
education, reduction of public/gov owned entities. A more
balanced approach is personal responsibility AND social
responsiblity. -pp, a Moderate
\_ You realize that poor == minorities is a false
equality, right?
\_ There's a remarkable correlation. one of the sins
of our society.
http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032004/pov/new01_100.htm
Do your homework.
\_ correlation != causality && correlation !=
equality. Do your homework.
\_ I didn't say it was equality, but just to throw
that statement out was disingenuous of you. To
speak of poverty and try to gloss over ethnic
disparity is dishonest. And who said anything
about causality?
\_ I just threw it out because "-pp, a
Moderate" seemed to be implying it. I
didn't think it really warrented
discussion. I figured causality in
because I figured that was what you
must be thinking, since you brought up
the numbers. ie, from these numbers it
seems that being a minority causes one to
be poor. Furthermore, why is glossing
over the ethnic disparity dishonest?
Including the figures is often used to
suggest that the disparity is caused by
racism, which I think it dishonest. Any
culture that discourages education will
produce more poor, on average, than one
that encourages it. It doesn't matter if
you're white, black, brown, or any other
race. Many poor families in the
states exhibit this characteristic.
\_ All ideologies are open to manipulation, not just
Republican ones. However, I disagree that Republican
ideas unfair in practice.
ideas are unfair in practice.
In my experience the Liberal Democrat pov is one that
emphasizes the importance of the elites and what they
think is best for us "masses." They decide the agenda
and tell us what it important and we have to go along
and tell us what is important and we have to go along
with it. It doesn't not allow us to think and decide
what is best for ourselves. In the guise of "fairness"
they suppresses creativity and ingenuity and rob people
of the incentive to work hard and make their lives
better.
The Republican pov is that there should be a minimum
level of restrictions on the activities of people and
that people ought to be left along to decide how they
that people ought to be left alone to decide how they
want to live their lives. (Some GOP administrations
are worse at this than others, but one the whole they
are much better than Democratic administrations).
are worse at this than others, but on the whole they
are better than Democratic administrations).
Re: Education - I completely disagree that the rich
get or have access to a better education than the
"poor." My family came to this country w/ ~ $10.
My mom managed to put both of her sons through
engineering at Cal, one of the finest institutions of
education in the whole world. In no way would I
characterize my education as lesser than what some
rich guy who went to Yale and couldn't even manage A's
in humanities classes got.
rich guy got at Yale (he got 5 D's and not even one
A in a humanities major, give me a break).
A in a humanities major, give me a break). -scotsman
\_ Is that why the Republicans keep trying to outlaw
sodomy and marijuana and stuff the prisons full?
Republicans are in favor of big government just
as much as Democrats, they just prefer the kind
that wields a truncheon.
that wields a truncheon instead of a welfare check.
\_ I don't really care about sodomy laws but as
far as pot (and other drugs) are concerned,
they are a legitimate arena for government
control b/c drug abuse leads to costs for
all of society. When you smoke out and
crash your car into mine, I'm stuck having
to deal w/ it and I shouldn't have to.
Anyway, at least the GOP *tries* to get
rid of gov controls in many aspects (esp.
economic) vs. the Democrats who want to
control everything from Washington.
I wouldn't characterize Bush II as the
best GOP administration but they are
better than any Democratic administration
would have been.
\_ I don't see evidence that the GOP tries to do
this at all. I see lip service, but no action.
Name one action that the current administration
has done that has either diminished federal power
or devolved any to the states. I follow the news
pretty closely and I cannot think of anything.
Incarceration rates in the US are ten *times*
what they are in Western European countries,
but there does not seem to be an abundance
of drug fueled crime in Europe. It is all
about fear and control, and using government
to enforce these values, not public safety.
\_ Anecdotal evidence it not proof. Study after study
has shown that children in wealthier neighborhoods
get a better education. Do you honestly believe that
Oakland schools are as good as the ones in Orinda?
\_ scotsman, you are smart and special. But you are simply
ONE data point, which does not accurately represent
poor people as a whole. Put it another way, if the
criteria to get into Ivy League schools were based on
nothing but merits, by throwing out external factors
such as connection and money, do you think the mostly
[Caucasian] student demographic representation would
still be the same?
\_ Wow. Someone signed my name to someone else's post.
cute. --scotsman (to future forgers, I use 2 -'s)
Btw, I was fortunate enough to be born to a 3rd/4th
generation family, with highly educated parents.
And I agree with you.
Oh, and even cuter, you're the one who signed my
name.
\_ So what if a big name gets you into a Ivy League
school? It doesn't matter - there are plenty of
equal or better opportunities in this country.
There is a proven path to the middle class in
this country - it involves frugality, education
and hardwork. Yes you can't buy all the things
that rich people have, yes you have to study
harder than the rich kids and yes you have to
go to work early and stay late and put up w/
crazy bosses, but that is the price you have
to pay. If you aren't willing to do that, why
should the gov fix it all up for you?
\_ Appointing minorities with conservative opinions exposes the true
Democrat belief: only minorities that toe the Dem. line are
acceptable. The others aren't "real" minorities.
\_ Democrats want minorities and they want liberals. Given a
choice between a conservative minority and a liberal white,
idealogical correctness trumps political correctness.
The only people I ever hear say conservative minorities aren't
"real" minorities are conservatives attempting to impugn
liberals
\_ http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021010.asp#6 |
| 2005/5/20 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:37776 Activity:nil |
5/19 http://tinyurl.com/bsyxx http://Amazon.com I have never seen so many reviews written by a dumbass with so many negative ("0 of X people found the following review helpful") feedbacks. Half of what he writes, he writes VERBATIM in his other reviews as well, like "Socialism is the root of all evils!" Maybe you can help/unhelp him out as well. |
| 2005/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37757 Activity:moderate |
5/19 David Brooks, moderate conservative of the NY Times, on Newsweek
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/opinion/19brooks.html?hp
\_ Thank you.
\_ David Brooks is an intellectually dishonest man.
\_ Examples?
\_ He's a master of the false dichotomy. A canonical example:
"Before we get lost in the policy details, let's be clear
about what this Social Security reform debate is really about.
It's about the market. People who instinctively trust the
markets support the Bush reform ideas, and people who are
suspicious oppose them."
http://csua.org/u/c4d (nytimes.com, although you may have to
pay to read this content now)
\_ I thought he was being pretty reasonable while honest
about having a subjective point of view. -John
\_ I don't know about false dichotomy or being
"intellectually dishonest", but here he is definitely
demonstrating his mastery of being vague to the point of
being useless.
His thoughts on Newsweek, however, ring true.
\_ Well, if you talk to a lot of people with different
backgrounds you'll find that this statement is true.
Some people don't trust the market and want a safety
net.
\_ My FIL is retiring soon with over $1 million because of
the market. His SS returns are worthless by comparison.
How long should we fund irrational people?
\_ The Nikkei first hit 11,000 in May 1984.
It's at 11,000 today, which means it has lost a
significant amount of value in real terms. There is
no reason that couldn't happen to U.S. markets. -tom
\_ What if it did?
\_ It never has over the long term. Pick any 20 year
term of the Dow.
\_ "It never has" doesn't mean "it never will."
There's nothing magical about the Dow that
insulates it from stagnation or decline.
How do you think the U.S. economy will do
in a world economy of oil scarcity? (Hint:
not well). It is entirely possible that
we have already seen the peak of the U.S.
stock market. -tom
\_ In a world economy of oil scarcity I
think the US has a leg up on
competitors who are just entering a
stage in which they require increasing oil.
Countries like the US and Japan are
already addressing alternatives. What will
less technologically developed nations do?
\_ The US consumes more oil per capita
than any other nation on the planet.
In any case, the point is that the
fact that the US economy did well
during the 70-100 year reign of the
oil economy does not have any predictive
value for whether it will continue to
do well when the oil economy is gone.
It might, and it might not. It's
certainly not something you can trust.
-tom
\_ And if he had gotten injured at 40, he would be
broke and the only thing keeping him from penury
would be Social Security.
\_ I think that Social Security as retirement
should be distinct from Social Security as a
form of welfare.
\_ Since no one has so far come up with a
proposal to do that, you are just spitting
into the wind. I have no idea if it is
even economically feasable.
\_ Isn't this essentially what Bush is
proposing? Some of the money stays in
the system as a 'safety net' and some
leaves in the form of retirement accounts.
\_ No. Bush has never proposed putting
the disability insurance part of
Social Security into a seperate
program.
\_ He hasn't, but isn't that
essentially what he's doing by
privatizing part of it - separating
out the the retirement accounts?
\_ Please find URL where Dubya talks
specifically about what happens
to disability benefits in his
personal accounts plan.
to disability + veterans benefits
in his personal accounts plan.
\_ You are being obtuse. Does
the phrase "essentially"
mean anything to you? When the
money is diverted to retirement
accounts and out of disability
(for instance) then you are
essentially creating two
different plans: one for
retirement and another for
disability. If you read the
literature you will see
statements like:
"Diverting money out of the Social Security system into individual investment
accounts could require substantial reductions in survivor and disability
benefits. Since revenues diverted from the Social Security Trust Fund would no
longer be available to pay guaranteed benefits, those benefits might have to
be reduced significantly. This is a critical issue that has been largely
ignored by proponents of individual investment accounts."
\_ Please find the URL where /Dubya/ talks specifically about what happens to
/disability benefits/ in his /personal accounts plan/.
Or, you can refuse to answer the request and continue to stay with the
opinion that I am "being obtuse".
\_ That is sort of the point. He ignores the problem.
\_ If the URL exists then you find it. If it does not, then what the
heck is your point? By privatizing retirement then he is by
necessity splitting retirement from disability, unless there are
also privately funded disability accounts, which is not possible
as how could someone not able to work fund their account???
http://www.ohiosilc.org/news/2005/050216_harkin_soc_security.html
"President Bush says that he has no current plans to cut disability
benefits. And I hope that remains the case. Unfortunately, the
president's Social Security privatization plan leaves a lot of
questions as to how people with disabilities will be treated,"
Harkin said. "We have no details from the president, and I am deeply
concerned that he has not thought this through."
\_ Thanks for the URL. At least we have a Senator saying that Dubya
"has no current plans" to cut disability benefits in his new plan.
Data points are useful. Maybe someday we will have more data:
a URL where Dubya says what the Senator thinks he said. |
| 2005/5/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37748 Activity:high |
5/19 Some hopefully neutral background on the filibuster:
According to Wikipedia, the filibuster has existed as an option to
stall any issue in the Senate since 1806. Since 1917 the requirement
to terminate a filibuster has varied from two-thirds of the entire
Senate (67 votes) to the three-fifths (60 votes) we have today.
In 1974, we did change the rules such that budget bills could not be
filibustered if they reduced the budget deficit (the exception to the
rule is Social Security, though -- you can still filibuster bills which
would change SS).
We are now debating whether we can change the rules such that you
cannot filibuster nominations to federal judgeships.
Theoretically we can change the rules to eliminate the filibuster as an
option for any particular class of issues if you can get 51 votes or 50
votes + VP tiebreak.
[re-posted in response to thread below]
\_ What if they filibuster a bill to relax the rules to eliminate
filibusters?
\_ Can't filibuster that. It's not a law, it's just part of the
senate rules.
\_ Question: This is what I thought was the case, but reading the
senate rules suggests 2/3 for a rules change. Everyone's saying
it's only 50% + 1 for a rules change but I can't figure out why
that's the case. Do you have a cite for that?
\_ This is the "nuclear option". Basically, breaking the rules for
changing rules so they can... change the rules.
\_ Never have I read/heard it described as 'breaking the rules'.
Do you have a ref for that?
\_ Well, according to Wikipedia, [Reid said] "the
parliamentarian of the United States Senate has said it
(the nuclear option) is illegal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_%28filibuster%29
Also, from a likely non-neutral source:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=18761
Reading this stuff, it makes me think that the nuclear
option is far less of a "you can certainly do it but people
just don't want to piss other people off that much" type of
issue than I thought. If the nuclear option was arguably
illegal, then I could certainly see "successful" employment
of it causing all sorts of problems in the Senate.
\_ If it were so illegal, why would R's even have it as an
option? Why have no pundits said anything about it?
\_ Even if it were legal (and we won't have a word on
that unless it happens, but some say it will be a
constitutional crisis), it flies in the face of 200
years of tradition in a body that thrives on
tradition. At this point, I would be surprised if
Frist actually had the votes to get it done. In any
event, it'll be interesting to hear the
constitutional scholars and SC weigh in.
\_ SCOTUS doesn't have a say.
Also, a senior Republican aide said, "[the
Senate parliamentarian] has nothing to do with
this. He's a staffer, and we don't have to ask his
opinion." |
| 2005/5/15-16 [ERROR, uid:37690, category id '18005#9.005' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37690 Activity:nil |
5/15 Humor for liberals only. http://dontblamemeivoted4kerry.com Also, read hate mails from conservatives: http://dontblamemeivoted4kerry.com/page2.html \_ You're wrong. That's comedy gold for us conservatives too. Heh. \_ Not according to all those conservative hate mails |
| 2005/5/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37542 Activity:low |
5/5 This has got to make social conservatives happy:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/05/cheerleaders.law.reut
\_ Screwing around with football related traditions in Texas does not
strike me as wise for a conservative Texas politician. I hope
it bites them in the ass. |
| 2005/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37526 Activity:nil |
5/5 http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/04/social.security.ap If GWB cuts social security for the middle and upper-middle class, then doesn't it simply mean SS = welfare system for the old people? Second question. If we can invest in private accounts, can we invest in foreign stock market? -SS dumb guy |
| 2005/4/30-5/3 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37435 Activity:nil |
4/30 These frist filibuster protesters are actually kinda creative and fun,
I gotta hand it to them.
http://www.princeton.edu/~petehill/filibuster.html |
| 2005/4/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37242 Activity:very high |
4/18 Am I a conservative or a liberal? I'm actually quite confused.
I don't believe in war for ANY reason (liberal), and I don't believe
in gay marriage (conservative). I do I believe in separation of church
and state (somewhat liberal), and that religious text like Intelligent
Design should be taken out of public schools (very liberal). On the
other hand, I also believe in smaller, more efficient government
(conservative), and at the same time they should provide more public
infrastructures for us, like better roads, more redundant power grids,
equal education across States, etc (liberal). I think SS and housing
projects should go away, and let low-lives learn how to be productive
members of society (conservative). I do however support better public
education and opportunity so that there will be less need for SS and
housing projects (conservative). I don't mind more taxes, in fact, I'd
delight in seeing a pre-Reagan tax rate (liberal) as long as there is
a lot more accountability in the government. I totally support in
programs that strengthen family values, like going to church or
community centers (conservative), but not at the cost of public
funding (liberal). So what am I, a liberal or a conservative?
\_ "Smaller" and "more efficient" are two separate parts. When R's
say "smaller" (at least in the last 30 years) they mean less
regulation, not necessarily less in outlays (and usually exactly
the opposite). They also most definitely do not mean "more
efficient". These stands are indeed "conservative" values, but
they are rarely expressed by R's.
\_ Neither, you're what's known as the "typical American", who
is a moderate.
\_ The typical american is real dumb, with an IQ around 100.
\_ precisely.
\_ you're just a wuss
\_ Sloppy with your labeling.
\_ So when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, you would have just ... uh,
what would you have done?
I think what you meant to say was, "I believe war is always morally
wrong, but it's at times necessary as a last resort, such as when
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor."
\_ Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!
\_ You are, for the most part, socially moderate and economically
conservative =~ libertarian.
\_ except that he wants high(er) taxes.
\_ I agree: Wanting less waste in government, while being for
higher taxes spent wisely makes him moderate. However,
wanting to get rid of social security pushes him to the Dark
^H^H^H^H^conservative side.
\_ I don't know anyone who is for less "efficient" government spending
except the politicians who favor pork barrel spending to keep their
jobs.
\_ Until Democrats work "more efficient government" into their
platform, this property is squarely in conservative-land.
Sorry, that's just public perception - I'm not really disagreeing
with you.
This is especially true now that Dubya has begun real
implementation of performance-based pay in the area of "cushy
government jobs".
\_ Don't you remember Al Gore's "re-inventing government"
initiative? He made some headway with it, too, but I guess
he didn't get any credit.
\_ you forget he invented the INTERNET
\_ Actually he wrote the bill to fund APRAnet. The big
"I invented the Internet" Lie never happened, and
would have been mostly true if it had. Take a
contrast with the Goerge Bush whopper to take credit
for the Texas Patients' bill of rights, which was
passed over his veto. He got a pass from the press
on that one...liberal media my ass
\_ I like how even in this age of unprecedented
communication and recording, something like this
so easily becomes folklore and fact, yet people
have no problem believing ancient religious texts.
\_ do you believe in civil unions, then that makes you
moderate-liberal on the gay marriage issue. As someone
moderate on the gay marriage issue. As someone
pointed out above, everyone would like more efficient
government. As for "smaller government," you need to
decide which you value more: that or "public infra-
structure, ... education, ... funding." If the latter, then
overall, you are on the liberal side concerning the "size
of government." Liberals also believe in "family values,
... church, ... community centers." The only issue above
that is a firmly conservative value is your dismissal of
"SS and housing projects." Given that, I would say you
are a moderate liberal. A lot of what you believe to be
"conservative" values that you listed are actually
media distortions that make you think "liberals"
don't approve. For the current US political situation,
it would seem that Democrats are the party of smaller government.
\_ What happened to the party of 80 character columns?
\_ fixed. |
| 2005/4/18-19 [Industry/Startup, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37233 Activity:kinda low |
4/17 United is in chapter 11 and has been asking to lower the pension
obligations to persons already retired to keep the lameass
management in power. United had its most profitable years in the
years the union owned them and operated them. What do you think
about a major US company renegging on pension promises? and
about the bankruptcy court backing them up?
\_ just goes to show, don't trust pension/retirement plans run
by third parties. I bet other bankrupt airlines will follow
suit. Pension plans are a thing of the past anyway.
suit. Pension plans are a thing of the past anyway, just like
social security.
\_ Company pension plans probably are, at least to some degree.
I think the underlying phenomenon is more what we've been
seeing for a long time now--that companies, because of apathy,
shareholder value, excessive costs, and other reasons no longer
feel it expedient to treat employees as long-term assets. No
news here, move along. -John
\_ where is psb#1 fan when you need her?
\- ??? --psb
\_ Not the general employees, no... they figured out that only a
few key folks are really necessary and the rest are just a
mass of replaceable cogwheels. They still take care of the top
people which in the case of an airline probably doesn't apply
to anybody actually operating planes etc.
\_ Practically everyone is replaceable, and the ones who
aren't are usually not management.
\_ "If you think you're indispensible, check your
appointment book a week after you drop dead."
\_ Yup, fact of life. Best way to deal with this is to
be aware of it and replace the concept of "company
loyalty" with pure professionalism, i.e. I'll work as
long as they pay, but no more. -John |
| 2005/4/13-15 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37182 Activity:high |
4/13 Yay! The same Republicans that are saying "we don't have enough money
to pay for Social Security" just voted to abolish the estate tax,
which will cost one trillion dollars (including interest on debt)
over the next ten years.
\_ Explain the estate tax please...
\_ Currently estates over $1 million are taxed - I can't remember
the rate. This is a very old tax - it was first instituted by
that flaming liberal Howard Taft. The Democrats have proposed
raising the minimum value to something like $2.4 million, which
would exempt virtually all family farms and small family
businesses. The House still voted to kill the whole thing.
\_ William Buffett: Removing the tax would lead to the creation of
\_ Of course, there are *ALREADY* exemptions for family farms
and small businesses. The Republicans don't go out of
their way to state that. In fact, I don't think a SINGLE
family farm has had to be sold due to the estate tax. It's
just one more way to shift the tax burden from the haves
to the have-nots, and the future generation of have-nots.
\_ Well, you think wrong. Plenty of farms have been sold
for this reason. What do you define as a small family
farm, anyway?
\_ Warren Buffett: Removing the tax would lead to the creation of
an "aristocracy of wealth" instead of a meritocracy.
\_ What's wrong with that? The rich are more well educated and
have a much better idea than you prolitariats on how to create
a stable and sustainable economy. I support our corporations and
the wealthy financiers behind it.
\_ Mod +5 Funny!
\_ William Buffett? Is that the "Margaritaville" guy?
\_ oops, too many hits off the crack pipe
\_ No, he's the white Jay-Z. /obscure
\_ STARVE THE BEAST!1! The more interest payments the b3tt3r!
\_ why do you think 10 out 12 richest Congress critters are democrats,
as are many of the wealthy elite? You honestly think they pursue
a political agenda contrary to their personal financial interests?
\_ Since both Republican and Democratic congresspeople are rich,
obviously one side is pursuing a political agenda contrary to
their personal financial interests.
Hint: It's not the Republicans. -tom
\_ there is a difference between self-made entrepreneurs, of which
are many Repubs.
\_ Exactly. Heinz and Forbes were businessmen and only
their wussy offspring are suffering from guilt. More
seriously, what makes Tom think that the Democrats are
pursuing an agenda that does not benefit them? I never
figured him for that sort of sucker.
\_ What is your point? You think that keeping the estate
tax is better for the super-rich? -tom
\_ It might be. Where does the tax money go? It may
well go to special interests just as well. Do
you think the Democrats are trying to help
anyone other than themselves? Maybe they are
just trying to get re-elected, which in itself
benefits them. Don't think they are trying to
help poor slobs like us.
\_ oh no, an elected official might be doing
something because his constituency wants it,
not because it benefits him financially!
Someone call Tom Delay! -tom
\_ There are rewards for doing what your
constituency wants. Most politicians don't
have a constituency of poor homeless
people, btw. In the end, I'll be surprised
if a politician does something that both hurts
himself and ruins his career - except fuck
interns.
\_ There *should* be rewards for doing what
your constituency wants. -tom
\_ The problem is that the constituency
is dominated by large corporate donors,
powerful unions, and lobbies - special
interests.
\_ I don't think any of these groups
are advocating for the estate tax;
perhaps the unions. -tom
\_ No, but they might be
advocating against it. The
politicians are just listening
to their constituents, right?
\_ you know, when you change your
point in every single post,
it becomes really difficult
to understand what you're
saying. -tom
\_ If the Dems are arguing
against it, then that means
there is probably something
in it for them. Else,
why would they? It is
naive to think they are
doing something that
would 'hurt themselves' in
order to 'help you'.
\_ I don't care why they're
doing it; I care whether
it is a good idea or not.
Doing the "right" thing
for selfish reasons is
certainly better than
being a money-grubbing
asshole and giving huge
kickbacks to the rich.
-tom
\_ What makes it "right"?
\_ Me. -tom
\_ Um, okay.
\_ who determines
what *you*
think is
right?
Rush? -tom
\_ "dominated" only because money has
been defined as speech.
\_ Exactly.
\_ You agree with that definition?
\_ Sure. Money talks.
\_ Mmm.. cliches as
political philosophy.
When money is speech,
those with little have no
voice.. Do you think
that's in any way
in line with the spirit
of a democracy?
\_ Nope. And?
\_ the super rich do not pay the estate tax, and
incur an effective income tax rate of less
than 10%, if that.
\_ prove it. -tom |
| 2005/4/13-14 [Finance/Banking, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37162 Activity:very high |
4/13 Stop the Presses - (John Corzine(D) says print more paper money to
fix Soc. Sec. problem!)
This is same dipshit whose idea to stimulate the economy in 2002 was
a 300$ one time refund to tax payers. More incredible is this
guy is from Goldman Sachs. Wait, Robert Rubin of LTCM and
Mexico bailout fame is also from Goldman Sachs...
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200504120929.asp
\_ Just because you don't understand the concepts behind it doesn't
mean he is a dipshit. Also, that you don't realize you're reading
an article that oversimplifies the point to make political hay makes
YOU the dipshit.
One more thing:
"The idea that the pay-as-you-go concept is a sound
savings and retirement system is a fraud."
This should have been a tipoff. SS is NOT a "savings and retirement
system."
\_ you know more than Milton Friedman, interesting.
\_ you think Milton Friedman's word is gospel, interesting.
\_ no, just disagree.
\_ No shit sherlock, it's a big ass government funded pension
system that relies upon current taxpayers to fund past
generations, which is a problem because life expectancy
has drastically increased in general resulting in that
system being potentially insolvent within our collective
lifetimes. This is why it's an issue, this is why
it probably needs to turn into a "savings and retirement"
system in the long run. Are the Pubs right in saying it will
become insolvent in XYZ year? Perhaps. But if the Dems want
to appear semi-coherent about the issue they need to do their
homework and show how the system will NOT become insolvent
based on any given set of projections vs. what the Pubs are
saying. Are personal accounts the answer if there is a problem?
Maybe, but the flip side to that coin is that you are leaving
the decision making process for retirement up to individuals,
and the majority of individuals couldn't financially plan
their way out of a paper bag. Perhaps this may change if we
gave them the responsbility, who knows. Anyway, the issue
has been broached, and it needs to be addressed one way or the
other.
\_ It isn't a "pension system" either. It's societal insurance.
It's us as a society saying "if you contribute to this society
we will guarantee you a baseline level of support when you
are elderly or can't work anymore." It's insurance. If it
turned into a "savings and retirement" system, it would no
longer be a guarantee. The Dems are coherent on it. The
administration itself has stated that private accounts do
absolutely NOTHING to affect solvency. The Reps are
purposefully incoherent because they're doing marketing. And
you're just an idiot.
\_ Question 1: What was life expectancy when SS was enacted?
Question 2: At what age were you allowed to collect SS
income?
\_ Increases in life expectency were predicted pretty damn
reliably by the actuaries. The discrepancies have been
taken care of by tweaks in the system and increases in
productivity. This is a red herring, and does nothing
to support switching to privatization even if it weren't.
Privatizing puts us trillions more into debt and moves
those insolvency projections UP.
\_ Why have you not answered the question?
\_ Because the answer would be irrelevent. The
system has evolved for 70 years.
\_ Then let's evolve it again.
\_ By removing the guarantee and adding $2+T
to our debt. Great.
\_ Yep, and it'd get rid of the IOUs, which
aren't a guarantee anyway. Congress can
just change the retirement age whenever
they like. Some guarantee.
\_ yes they ARE a guarantee. And if you
think they're not then sell me any
treasury bonds you hold. I'll give
you a nickel on the dollar if you
think they're worthless. As long
as this country has its constitution,
those bonds are an absolute guarantee.
\_ If the market collapses and the
economy tanks, it's not a
guarantee. Just like private
retirement.
\_ Even then you're wrong. Those
bonds go away when this country
goes away.
Check amendment 14, paragraph 4
\_ 65 and 63. Insert argument about avg. life
expectency vs. expectency after adulthood here.
we've rehashed this dozens of times.
\_ Then what are *those* numbers? What was life
expectancy after adulthood then vs. now?
\_ It really doesn't matter because comparing
SS structure now to then is apples to
oranges.
\_ You could make SS instantly solvent by raising
the retirement age up to 80.
\_ You could make SS instantly solvent by
raising the retirement age up to 80.
\_ As we have told you dozens of times before,
the original SS actuaries accurately
predicted that lifespans would increase.
They even guessed what the lifespan increase
was going to be pretty accurately. The
fact that you cannot comprehend this fact
and insist on hammering at a Red Herring
just indicates that you are not too well
informed yourself. The real problem is
demographic and is caused by the baby
boom generation retiring. No one could
have predicted that. This problem will
fix itself, btw, in about 70 years.
\_ Oh no, nobody could have predicted that
the baby boomers would retire!
\_ Not in 1933, they couldn't.
\_ Hey, this scheme did help a capitalist democracy get out of debt
once before...
\_ You mean WWII?
\_ The post-WWI German government decided to just go nuts
printing more Deutsch marks. Surprise-surprise they got
insane inflation.
\_ And people mock those who point to this kind of thinking as the
reason it was bad to leave the gold standard.
\_ But what Corzine is saying is what is happening. The current solution
to our massive deficit and liabilities is a printing press. I mean
it's not like we are actually going to raise taxes to pay for it.
\_ But what Corzine is saying is what is happening. The current
solution to our massive deficit and liabilities is a printing press.
I mean it's not like we are actually going to raise taxes to pay for
it.
it, or cut spending. |
| 2005/4/5 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37072 Activity:insanely high |
4/5 From Lockbox to Fiction, in four short years.
http://csua.org/u/bl1
\_ Social security is dying, and it's a costly idea. Why don't we just
go back to the old Chinese way where you support your family
members at all costs. And if you messed up and didn't have good
loving educated children who can support you when you're old,
it's all your fault. The Chinese way is a compromise between
Libertarian's "every man for himself" and government imposed
"All men get equal income" concept.
\_ Let's bring back debtors prisons and indentured servitude while
we're at it.
\_ Because we are self-centered. We won't do it unless we are
forced to.
\_ Wow. I removed my reply because I thought you were trolling,
but now I think you might be sincere:
What's your support for "is dying"? Social Security HAS worked
for 7 decades, and as long as the current freaks don't fuck it
up, it'll work for decades more.
\_ It's dying because the projected population grow was off and
current actuarials have a hard time balancing it without
either cutting benefits or raising tax, and given the way
the current administration is going, they're just gonna kill it
\_ What's your source about projected population growth?
You're right about the current administration, but the
only people saying there are "difficult" actuarial problems
are ... the current administration! You're buying a lie.
\_ That doesn't solve anything. People who depend on SS now probably
don't have wealthy kids either. And who wants to pay for old
parents AND their kids at the same time? And what's "Chinese"
about that system? Do you think westerners had social security
for centuries or what? You're pretty dumb.
\_ I think it's pretty obvious the Chinese are better at having
kids than most everyone else.
\_ Well whatever. The oldest system would be like what many
native american tribes were like, and other places. The
old people help cook, make clothes, care for kids etc.
while parents are off hunting and gathering and pillaging
other tribes. Trouble is old people don't want to work
anymore. Anyway SS isn't quite "government pays everyone"
since in theory you're paying into the system while you
work. Too bad they typically set it up as a pyramid scheme.
Like in Germany they don't have enough young workers to
pay the old people's services. But that's just their own
stupid fault for not taxing those old people enough while
they were young and driving Mercedes and taking their 6
week vacations and invading Poland.
\_ I thought invading Poland was their six week vacation.
\_ old [Confusius] Chinese way is when you have respect for
the elderly and treat them the same way that you want your
children to treat you. That is, you and your wife live with
grandpas/grandmas and cook and eat together. And there is a
lot of interactions between different generations. It is a
world of intense interactions, cooperation, and assimilation.
However, much of that is lost in modernized, Westernized
China where people just want privacy, individualism and
independence. Kids no longer give a damn about old people.
They just want to play first person shooter games and
listen to hip-hop music filled with sex, guns, and profanity.
It's no longer about the family. It's all about me me me.
Sure, China is enjoying all the new material goods they're
getting, but spiritually, Confusius is dead.
\_ Confucius, not Confusius!
\_ Doesn't China has some gigantic looming pension liability
problem?
\_ China after 1950 != old Chinese ways.
\_ Nah ... in China, it's simple, you just let the poor
old people rot and fade away. You get sick, you just
die. No cost. It's capitalism at it's rawest form.
\_ Their biggest problem is going to be the male:female ratio.
\_ There are so many minor ways to keep SS going forever. You
can always raise the retirement age and fix the problem. I
don't know why Bush keeps dissing the SS return. 3% return
on top of inflation guaranteed isn't bad. You can tax SS
payments, you can raise or eliminate the SS tax cap. You
can increase SS taxes (like what they did in the 1980s). Etc.
It is NOT broken.
\_ The easiest solution it to pull the $90K payroll limitation.
Don't need to change the retirement age, can claim that
everybody now pays an "equal" share (equal benefits? Ha!),
and it keeps SS "safe" for the foreseeable future.
\_ Sure. Tax the wealthy. That's always the solution,
isn't it? As long as people who make under $90K don't
have to share in the pain, right? It's not they will
\_ Uh. Right now, those making over 90K aren't "sharing
the pain"... Dumbass.
benefit more from it or that they tend to rely more on
SS.
\_ Uh. Right now, those making over 90K aren't "sharing
the pain"... Dumbass.
\_ Yes they are, dumbass! It's called the tax on
the first 90K that they make!
\_ how is taxing someone who makes $100K the same
amount as someone who makes $1M "sharing the
pain"? -tom |
| 2005/3/22-24 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36815 Activity:nil |
3/22 CNN front page: "But when 443 of the 909 polled were asked whether
they supported private retirement accounts in exchange for a reduction
of guaranteed retirement benefits, support fell to 33 percent, while
opposition rose to 59 percent [+/- 4.5 points]. ...
Fifty percent said they understood the debate over Social Security
"somewhat well," and 31 percent said they understood it "very well."
Only 18 percent said they did not have a good grasp of the matter. |
| 2005/3/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36787 Activity:low |
3/21 What corporate greed does to a city.
Original title, changed to above by MOTD communist:
What democrats and Unions do to cities
Documentary Shows a Ruined Detroit
http://detroityes.com/home.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1366589/posts?page=1,50
\_ I think you can blame the decline of Detroit on the incomes
of the city and residents being dependent on the auto industry,
then the factories moved off shore because it's cheaper
there. blaming it all on democrats and unions is stupid.
\_ then why do foreign motor companies continue to build
US plants? GM outsources to China in the 1970s....
hmmm
\_ you know what, i don't know. i doubt it's
because of those goddamn liberals though.
\_ you are right, probably a magical leprauchan
\_ yes, that's actually much more plausible than the
previous explanation.
Documentary Shows a Ruined Detroit
http://detroityes.com/home.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1366589/posts?page=1,50
\_ Thar she blows, it is the fabled Freeper back from the dead!
Do you really think you persuade anyone by posting these fanatics?
\_ no
\_ Why do you do it then?
\_ or more specifically, what does the freeper link add to
the first one, other than the spittle emissions of
the inbred?
\_ San Francisco is a similarly pro-union and Democratic town,
yet it is thriving. How do you explain the discrepancy? |
| 2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:36724 Activity:nil |
3/16 New White House cliche: "We were all wrong"
We were "all" wrong about WMD, "all" wrong about deficits:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050316/greenspan_2.html
\_ Don't forget: "If confronted with the same evidence we had back
then, I would recommend exactly what I recommended then" |
| 2005/3/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36624 Activity:high |
3/10 Why is it that the perception is that Christians are Republican.
There are many Christian views that fits with Democrat/Liberal
values. Eg. Care for widows and orphans, giving to the poor,
strong dislike for self-righteousness, peace on earth, care for the
environment, spreading the gospel through peaceful means, equality
for all, etc. Why is all the focus on gay and lesbian marriages
and abortion?
\_ abortion has very little shades of grey.
with regards to helping the poor. Do you want to help the
poor by giving money to government who will then enact social
programs? Or do you have tax cuts which give more money
to the poor, or maybe give money to charities who will help
the poor. Either way could be acceptable to a Christian.
\_ This might hold water if recent tax cuts had anything to do with
cutting what poor people have to pay vs richer people. I would
also need to be convinced that they increased money given to
charities (charitable contribution has been down in general the
last few years). I understand the reasoning but the reality
doesn't agree very well...particularly since the nature of more
recent actions by the right are effectively increases on money
the poor must pay. -- ulysses
\_ Tax cuts to the poor? Last I saw most of the tax cuts went to
the wealthy. Or do you really think dropping the capital
gains tax (and dividends taxed at cap gains rate) is something
that really helps the impoverished? Or eliminating estate/gift
tax so their wealthy ancestors can bring them to fortune?
\_ Actually, I think the same applies to abortion - i.e.
how much should the government be involved. I am a
Christian and I don't believe in abortion. If you can't
take care of a kid, don't fool around. I don't buy
the "woman has right over her body ... " crap, at least
not in its most irresponsible sense. However, I also
think that there are certain sins that perhaps are
not for the government / legal system to deal with
eg. infidelity. Perhaps abortion is another one of
these. Perhaps it's a matter for the mom (and her
family) and God. The government should not subsidize
family) and God. i.e. God has given the mother
(or the parents) ultimate responsibility over
over the unborn child. The government should not subsidize
over the fetus. The government should not subsidize
it. Society should discourage it. But we should
not make it illegal. Is my view considered very
conservative / on the right ?
not make it illegal.
\_ As a Christian, can you live in a society where murder
(includes abortion) is legal and accepted and a "right"?
\_ Can you live in a society where infidelity is legal?
\_ Or war?
\_ interesting article here regarding all this:
http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
\_ Much of the Christian == Republican comes from the conservatives
efforts to show its primary issues are the same as Christianity's
primary issues. You choose the other side, you're not a REAL
Christian. Mix this with American mythos of Horatio Alger, the
individualist, and on-going xenophobia, and then other "Christian
value" social issues become Someone Else's Problem best treated
by a charity/local government, not a godless Federal Bureaucracy.
Or even worse, those problems are simply impossible to solve. As an
aside, a large part of the conservative success is that they have
been successful. It gives supporters hope that they can influence
or control the government, an entity most people feel helpless
fighting against. Success breeds success.
\_ I'm not sure I agree that the Republicans chose the Christians
and then successfully courted them. I think a specific group
of activist protestants chose the Republican party as their
vehicle to political power, and the Republicans have just
capitalized on that. The Democrats didn't get to where they
are as a major party without getting vast numbers of Christians
to loyally vote for them.
\_ I agree with your premise, but not with the Democrats gain
as majority party. Their rise came from repercussions of
the Civil War and the Depression.
\_ an pithy quote by John Paul II will give you all a good answer:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1309831/posts?page=16#16
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309831/posts?page=16#16
[URL with IP address replaced. Fuck you.]
There are many many more quotes on this page that fully rebut
your argument on many levels.
\_ Funny how you and your fellow republicans have no qualms about
redistribution of wealth at gunpoint as long as the recipient of
the welfare is a corporation. I wonder what your savior would
have to say about welfare for defense contractors.
\_ Funny how you have no idea what you're talking about.
\_ Yeah, funny that. http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw422.htm
Corporations get a lot more in welfare than individuals.
-meyers
\_ screw you meyers, Christians good, you are bad, and um,
terrorists terrorists 9/11 9/11 9/11 -true conservative
\_ You misunderstand. I didn't say corps don't get
welfare, I say that conservatives aren't in favor of
it. Bush, BTW, is not a conservative.
\_ The post you're arguing with says "Republican",
not conservative. Are you seriously going to
argue that the Republicans in congress do not
support corporate welfare? Is your arguement just
that no one in congress except maybe a couple people
in the House are true conservatives?
\_ Hmm... "Conservatives" aren't in favor of it.
"Liberals" aren't either. Then why do YOU think
it happens SO DAMN OFTEN. You're buying a lie.
\_ Because "Lobbists" are in favor. duh.
\_ "Lobbyists"
\_ Summary and refutation:
(1) Poor people are poor because they are lazy and don't
like to work, so they deserve it.
Ans: According to the Bible, being lazy will lead
to poverty, but poverty does not imply lazy (check
out Proverbs for instance).
(2) Government is bad, we should not help the poor
through government. Christians make lots of private
donations, so we should not help through the govern-
ment.
Ans: Our government is democratically elected. We
allow it to lead us into war spending hundreds of
billions of dollars. We can also allow it to help
the poor. There are laws and practices mentioned
in the Old Testament for helping the poor.
What's wrong in having a safety net?
\_ not everyone will agree with me, but safety net is good.
but the lifestyle shouldn't be encouraged. |
| 2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36612 Activity:very high |
3/9 Sun Tzu's Art of Winning Election, Liberal Edition:
- If you want to protest on the streets WEAR NICER CLOTHES for
heaven's sake. Door-to-door salesmen and businessmen don't wear
tie-dye shirts and jeans to persuade people. Neither should you.
- Don't show conservatives how pissed off you are. Sun Tzu in The
Art of War says to never show your emotions.
\_ Perhaps Republicans are just more polite.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108561
\_ Very well. In that case, if you're a rude liberal, FAKE IT
- Listen to Sun Tzu. Trick your enemies by feigning incompetence
when you're strong. If you want to exterminate your enemies, you
don't announce how you're gonna do it. You agree with them, party
with them, drink with them, and when they're drunk and asleep in
victory, kill them and their families when they least suspect it.
\_ I'd keep their hot daughters.
\_ Is their a site with "republicans we'd fuck"? I mean beyond
the Bush twins and Coulter, both of which, well, yuck.
\_ http://www.rilf.com
- Attack conservative views aggressively, but with sensitivity.
The more nasty names you call your foes, the more likely they'll
disagree with your views (examples: idiots, Red necks, hicks).
- Get a clear, simple & maybe stupid message this time, just make
sure to stick to it. To some [sad] extent, it's not what you say,
but how you say it.
- Support liberal views early. Not 1 year before the election,
not 1 month. NOW.
- Talk about tolerance and the history of Civil Liberty EXCEPT
in predominantly white/Red states because they hate "Nigers"
\_ I disagree with this. Even in the South, most people are
in favor of equal rights these days. Don't make this
the focus when talking to uneducated whites, obviously.
\_ In Mississippi and Tennesee, blacks and whites still don't hang
out together.
\_ You're an idiot.
\_ Have you been there? I have.
\_ Not only have I been, but my gf is from
Mississippi. You're an idiot. Yes, they are more
backward than, say, NYC but your comments are
insulting.
\_ If your gf from a different race? Why did she
leave Mississippi?
- Tie in liberal views with family values. Just because you
support gays and lesbians doesn't mean you must support drugs,
rave parties, and swingers.
- Do what your enemies do, and do it better. For example, work less,
try to enjoy life more, and for heaven's sake PRODUCE MORE KIDS.
You're more than welcome to add to the list, and God Bless Liberals.
\_ Improve visual presentations better. The power of persistence and
suggestion is great. Fox pioneered the flashing Red/White/Blue logo,
so should liberal media. For example when you talk about gays &
lesbians, flash those colors around.
\_ Stop buying at Walmart and Dell! They write big checks to RNC.
Check http://buyblue.org.
\_ Low prices at Walmart are good for low-income consumers which
are more likely liberals.
\_ I agree but look at long term implications.
- Stress your patriotism. Talk about your military service, if you
have it, support the troops even if you don't. Sing along with the
national anthem at football games. Let everyone know that you
love your country, even if it is flawed. Dissent is not unpatriotic. |
| 2005/3/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36601 Activity:moderate |
3/9 some thoughts on why Bush is so obsessed with paving
over Social Security:
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18684
-danh
\_ Flat tax, no government social services people
== It's fair; the huge liberating effect on the economy will
be felt by everyone; and even if an even larger gap does form
between the wealthy and non-wealthy, it's a fair system;
progressive taxes and social services keep lazy people lazy
Progressive tax, government social services people
== It takes money to make money (rich have a much easier time and
can make money at a much higher rate); extreme wealth-gap is
bad; progressive taxation and government social services as
they exist today are cheap for what you get -- no revolutions
\_ I was unable to find any thought there. YMMV
\_ I was unable to find any thought here. YMMV
\- A fine paper to read is "The Procedural Republic and
the Unencumbered Self" by Michael J. Sandel. Available
most easily from JSTOR.
\_ Ultral Left-Wing Liberal Troll Alert. If you really want good
info, you should check out fair and balanced sources:
http://federalist.com, http://newsmax.com, http://taemag.com, http://tysknews.com,
http://worldnetdaily.com
\_ you forgot http://www.jeffgannon.com - danh
\_ I hate that it's impossible to talk about Bush's plans without
sounding like an absolute conspiracy nut.
\_ Way to be a total idiot. Your first paper says its a farsical
comedy making fun of the left. How about you take your
rediculous conservative propaganda elsewhere. -mrauser
\_ Mmm... better check your sarcasm detector.
\_ Be nice to him, he's a bit new around here. |
| 2005/2/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36390 Activity:high |
2/23 Survey, do you still remember what you did the day before 9/11,
and if do you what were you doing?
\_ On 9/10, I posted 2 questions on motd, the Accuvue question and
the Java == and equals(...) question. I didn't get to see the
responses till now, how funny.
\_ Working. had a rehearsal that night (and the next night as well).
Did Iolanthe with San Jose Lyric Theatre. You wouldn't believe
the outporing of appreciation for the performances (couple weeks
later). Everyone wanted something they could enjoy.
\_ working. I remember this old polish guy who lived through WWII
running into the room and telling us not to panic, that we should
listen to the news and just keep working as normal, which is
exactly what we did(after making a couple phone calls).
\_ What was on the news on 9/10/2001?
\_ Gary Condit all day and night.
\_ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/10/ED226834.DTL
\_ http://tinyurl.com/6olqm (sfgate.com)
\_ Remembering what I was doing when Kennedy was shot.
\_ yes I do and I feel sad just thinking about it. I don't want to
talk about it.
\_ No, I don't particularly recall the day before 9/11, but I do
vividly recall the morning of. I remember waking up to NPR on the
clock radio next to my then girlfriend's bed, hearing something
about the World Trade Center being attacked, and
thinking to myself ``Oh, it must be the anniversary of the World
Trade Center bombing.'' I think the relationship was beginning to
come to a close, though I didn't realize it at the time. What's a
little strange to me is that much of my memory that time period
hazy, but I vivdly remember many of the little details from that
morning, e.g. the smell of the sheets, the light coming through
the window. -dans
\_ WOW that's exactly how I felt! The little things... Also...
my gf and I were woken up by a call, my gf's mom in Taiwan was on
the other side telling us that both WTC towers had been attacked.
I turned on CNN and it said only 1 tower was on fire. I thought
it was just an accident, like the Empire State Building accident
they had many decades ago and given that Taiwanese
news were mostly trashy sensationalist news I thought they were
just exaggerating. 30 min later CNN finally broadcasted the 2nd
tower footage. A while later her mom called again and said one
of the towers collapsed. I didn't believe it because I had never
heard such a thing in my life, and because CNN didn't broadcast
it. Surely enough 30 min later, CNN finally broadcasted the
collapse. Then she called again about the 2nd tower collapse, and
30 min later, CNN broadcasted that. It's weird how we get our own
news later than people outside the US.
\_ I first heard about the first plane a couple minutes after
it happened when Cmndr. Taco posted it to slashdot. Slashdot
was pretty much the closest thing to real time all morning.
There were posts on slashdot from people who could see what
was happening outside their windows the whole time.
\_ Same here. My dad called me from Hong Kong to tell me to
turn on the TV when I was getting ready to go to work without
realizing that something was happening.
\_ I was getting a demo system prep'ed for a customer were were
\_ I was getting a demo system prep'ed for a customer we were
visiting the next day. I was on a plane 1/2 way to my destination
when the first wtc attack happened on 9/11. --ranga
\_ Busting my ass to put together a report for City Council. Stayed up
all night, went to sleep just as the first plane hit, then got told
the report wasn't necessary.
\_ Clearly Sodans have reading comprehension issues. As for me, I have
no idea what I was doing on 9/10.
\_ Quite a few got it right. Read above.
\_ Why is 9/10 interesting? It was a day like any other day.
May as well ask about 9/9, 9/1, and 7/29.
\_ Do you really need this explained to you, or are you just
being willfully obtuse?
\_ I remember I was sitting at home, unemployed, feeling sorry for
myself because I couldn't find a job. I spent most of the day
playing WoW and applying for jobs. |
| 2005/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36203 Activity:very high |
2/16 How do the Republicans on the motd think about this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4805078,00.html
Bush May Raise Taxes for Social Security
\_ What bullshit. Bush'll raise taxes for Social Security, but
the money will actually go to fund the Iraq war and other
budget needs, just like the current Social Security surplus.
Yes, that's right: SS tax brings in more money than SS
beneficiaries receive, and Congress spends the rest and gives
the SS system an IOU--which will never be paid because when
the IOU comes due, we won't have enough tax base to pay it.
Spending has to be cut. Period. --PeterM
\_ The SS surplus by law is used to buy T-bonds. Currently the
SS program has trillions in t-bonds and will continue to accumulate
more until 2018 or so. After that the SS program will start cashing
in the t-bonds to pay benifits.
\_ I don't think you are a republican, but thanks for your
input anyway. -op
\_ Didn't I sound like a Republican? --PeterM
\_ No, a loyal Republican would support private accounts and
be opposed to any across the board increase in the
payroll tax.
\_ You sure about that? If what you were saying were true, "IOU
... will never be paid ... enough tax base", don't you think
Dubya would be saying it would be a lot EARLIER than 2042 when
we'd be in trouble? I believe we start drawing on the "IOUs"
as early as 2010.
as early as 2018.
\_ He is: "Some in our country think that Social Security is a
trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being
accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll
taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent
on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is
no trust. We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what
goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in
-- what's coming out is greater than what's going in. It says
we've got a problem. And we'd better start dealing with it now.
The longer we wait, the harder it is to fix the problem."
- Bush 2/9/2005 http://csua.org/u/b3g (whitehouse.gov)
\_ Thanks. Okay, Dubya does mention 2018 in saying "we've
got a problem". And from what you posted, Dubya is
saying the trust fund does not have "a pile of money being
accumulated".
So I ask you, peterm, and Dubya, will those government
bonds "never be paid" -- never be redeemed?
Someone please answer question below:
Question: Has the U.S. ever redeemed any of the government bonds
that surpluses have been used to purchase?
\_ have you ever redeemed IOUs you wrote to yourself? SS is
a fraud ponzi scheme. If I, as an individual, tried to
sell this kind 'insurance' plan I would be put in jail.
\_ "The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred
for payment of pensions and bounties for services
in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall
not be questioned."
Why do you hate America?
\_ You would also be put in jail if you overthrew a foreign
government. This is a stupid argument.
\_ You and peterm are saying:
U.S. economy + U.S. government bonds
== Your personal finances + IOUs you write yourself
... when in fact the above equation is a myth.
Since this is an important topic, I'll start a new motd
thread on another day (sorry, got a lot of work - can't
monitor the motd today). -the "You sure about that?" guy
\_ Bush is the one spending all the damned money. Of course
he doesn't want to come clean.
\_ Bush is brilliant! -conservative
\_ You misspelled 'Republican'.
\_ Will benefits also be raised? I doubt the plan is for high
income to pay more in and get the same back out.
\_ How is this different than what Kerry proposed, which is pretty
much distributing wealth from the wealthy to the poor?
\_ Republicans aren't supposed to be raising taxes, at all,
especially since this is Bush Jr.
... Read my lips!
\_ FUCK POOR PEOPLE! Maybe if we cut their benefits enough of
them will FUCKING STARVE and not hold our mighty economy back!
\_ if there are not poor people, then the middle class becomes
the poor people.
\_ I am not really interested in hearing what Republicans think
about Kerry. I already know that. -op
\_ I'm irritated at this. I'd rather see bigger cuts to the federal
budget. But then I'd also like to see the borders secured. Those
are the two things that make conservatives scratch their collective
heads about GW. -emarkp
\_ you can't fight a war and then cut taxes and balance the budget,
something has got to give, and in this case his rich friends
(ppl making over 90K) are getting fucked. Now they can only
afford to buy BMW 500s for their kids instead of BMW 740is.
\_ 90K/year is rich? Are you a troll? No one making 90k/year
can afford a 740is, kids, mortgage, etc. Try some math.
\_ 90K/year anywhere other than SFBA, LA, or NYC puts you
nicely well off, able to afford a house, save for
retirement, and leverage into real estate/entrepreneurship.
It's not rich, but for most of the nation is upper middle
class.
\_ The rich friends aren't worried about payroll taxes. They're
sitting pretty with dividend and capital gains cuts, not to
mention lower attention on tax avoidance.
\_ Your assumption is that cutting tax rates reduces revenue.
That is not necessarily theoretically true, and isn't actually
true in GWB's case. I've charted the last 100 months of
income/expense (from cbo.gov) and while revenue dropped
dramatically post-9/11, we've increased year-to-year for the
past 2 years. Tax revenue is actually above 1997/1998 levels.
-emarkp
\_ This is silly. Tax revenue _should_ increase year to
year. Why? Because the economy grows year to year. It is
rare for the economy to not have a net gain over the whole
year, and even rarer for it to not have a net gain over
two years. The 2004 economy _should_ be larger than the
1997 economy. That's 7 years. On average the economy has
grown ~3 pct(iirc) per year. That's 21 pct growth since
1997, assuming the boom/bust years even out.
\_ Except the predictions were that the Bush's economic
policy would destroy the economy, 9/11 was a serious
blow, and the tax cuts lowered the revenue in theory.
-emarkp
\_ Not destroy the economy right away, duh. Def-i-cit.
\_ Deficit/GDP is lower than 1990-1993 years.
\_ It is true that it is lower than the worst
period since WWII. It is the second worst.
\_ Tax cuts did lower the revenue, look at the numbers
below. The economy was not destroyed. Yes, it
entered recession, but overall, growth occurred from
2000-2004. The key is that _despite_ economic
growth almost equal to the Clinton boom years, gvmt
tax revenue dropped SUBSTANTIALLY. Ergo, in
actuality, tax cuts reduce tax revenue.
\_ "From 1996 to 2000 GDP grew by $2 trillion, and tax
revenues grew by $550 billion. From 2000 to 2004 GDP
grew by $1.9 trillion, but tax revenues declined by
$143 billion. What changed? We had roughly the same
level of economic activity. If tax cuts lead to more
federal revenue, shouldn't $1.9 trillion in growth
have yielded more than $550 billion in new tax revenue,
and not a $143 billion decline?" -Former conservative,
now liberal economist. All numbers from Chamber of
Commerce and CBO.
\_ Good reference, and thanks for pointing it out:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html
Includes tax revenue as percentage of GDP. I had no
idea it has been hovering near 20% since WW2. That's
amazing and horrifying. -emarkp
\_ Add in state taxes and the total government take
is more like 30%. But still lower than every other
member of the OECD. -ausman
\_ So you have discovered tax revenues fall when
the economy enters a cyclical downturn after a
bubble market, and after the World Trade centers
are destroyed which send the economy reeling,
and that tax revenues fall in a war based economy.
Congratulations for this perspicacious revelation.
You should rename yourself former conservative
liberal economist who is also stupid.
\_ Can you even read? 4 year period. Same economic
growth: ~1.9-2 trillion dollars. Cyclical economy,
bubble economy, 9/11 should have _nothing_ to
do with it. If the economy grows the exact same
amount, why in the world would any of your factors
affect tax revenue? The _only_ thing affecting
tax revenue, after economic growth is the Bush
tax cut.
\_ Well, it's simple. Bush's morals inspired more
ppl to take him as a role model and cheat on
their taxes.
\_ three words you may have heard of and were
alluded to in my post: capital gains, bubble
\_ The shortfall has to do with capital gains,
but only because GW Bush cut cap. gains and
dividend taxes. If you think the difference
in capital gains taxes(at an equal level of
taxation) comes out to $700 billion, you're
crazy. Prove it. Meanwhile, I'll say that
the bulk of that $700 billion tax revenue
shortfall is due to Dubya's tax cut.
\_ Tax revenue is up, but interest rates are still abnormally
loose, and the tax cuts have not fully hit yet. Also, the
promise of yet more money into military action and cutting
meat rather than fat is going to make continuing these
trends difficult if not impossible. State and local
governments are trying to pick up the slack while already
bankrupt. I can't remember which agency (maybe gao)
governments are trying to pick up the slack while heading
for bankruptcy. I can't remember which agency (maybe gao)
reported that if the tax cuts were made permanent, by 2024
the only thing the fed gov could afford would be debt
interest.
\_ this is nice, but would be much better and more convincing
to us stupid liberals if it came from someone other than
religious right conservatives.
\_ Then track it yourself. sheesh. -!pp
\_ All the data is at:
http://www.cbo.gov/byclasscat.cfm?cat=35
Where I couldn't find a simple line-item for monthly
income or expense, I used the estimated value.
I've uploaded the data to /csua/tmp in OpenOffice and MS
Excel format. Check it yourself. Let me know if there
I've uploaded the data to /csua/tmp in OpenOffice
format. Check it yourself. Let me know if there
are errors.
/csua/tmp/bud_1997_to_Present.sxc
/csua/tmp/bud_1997_to_Present.xls
-emarkp
\- Can you do this back to 1990? Also, are these
inflation adujusted? ok thx.
\_ Historical data:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I don't think any of the numbers are inflation
adjusted. Do you have a handy inflation table?
[Found one. I included inflation and remove the .xls
file. Use OpenOffice.]
-emarkp
\_ Haha, this remark made my day. -- ilyas |
| 2005/2/2 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36036 Activity:nil |
2/2 Why don't the people who are against social security mention that
women live longer then men, and that men are getting screwed out of
social security benefits? It's even possible (and common!) for women
who have never worked to collect social security based on their
dead husband's income! Where's the sanity in that?
\_ Because some people believe in society. Some of those people who
believe in society think government is best suited to help, and
some think churches, communities, etc are best suited. Someone
who believes neither, who doesn't believe in society or helping
his fellow man is immoral.
\_ Uhm, no. That might be the way leftist liberals think, but
that's not the reason why women collect 50% on their husband's
income. The reason is simple, traditionally women were not
in the work force but were expected to stay home and raise
the kids. So in essence although they didn't have a paying
job they still did work. Since the male was traditionally
the primary breadwinner of the family, it was viewed that
widows should be able to collect on pensions of the the husband.
In reality, such an arrangement logical, since by allowing
widows to receive their husband's SSI we compensate the widow
for their years of work being a house wife.
\_ So you prefer that women enter the work force and leave
their children to be raised by baby sitters? You sound
like the leftist liberal.
\_ No, I like men who abandon their children and don't
pay child support (Go Newt!!)
\_ Against Social Security? I *love* Social Security. I love it
so much that I want to make sure I get my cut of it when I'm
eligible. |
| 2005/1/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35969 Activity:very high |
1/28 Follow up on Blacks and Social Security. Anyone know what the relative
likelihood is of a black man vs. a white man surviving until retirement
once he starts paying into SS?
\_ Someone posted the full table of life expectancy per year lived,
broken down by white/black, male/female the other day. I'll try
and find it again.
There we are...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_06.pdf
\_ So from page 5, it's clear that Blacks (esp. black men) are far
more likely to pay into SS and never get any out of it.
\_ And again, this is not the fault of a biased system (SS) but
the result of a higher incidence of violent death among
young black males. If the Pres. wants to extend the life
expectancy, he should put more than lip service into No
Child Left Behind and other social services.
\_ the irony...
\_ As I said before, this is balanced out by the fact that
more blacks than whites are on SS disability.
\_ Two issues I have: 1. Why does SS pay disability at
all? 2. Why have SS on top of welfare, disability,
unemployment, and other existing programs? |
| 2005/1/28 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35943 Activity:high |
1/28 Krugman explains why Dubya's "blacks are shafted by social security"
claim is false, and the origins of the claim:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html?oref=login&hp
username/pw: gnugnugnu
This is not to say that the Democrats who sent out the initial
e-mail petition weren't dumbasses, because they were - and I'm
not sure if even the truth can repair the damage.
\_ wow, I must be a prophet. after my rambling about blacks
and social security on the motd the other day, it's now
all over the news. even bush is following up on my motd
remarks.
\_ Yeah, he uses the same faulty logic. If you work for 10 years
and die, all that money you put into SS is gone, so a lower life
expectancy means your family gets screwed from SS unless you own
the account and your children can inherit it.
\_ So what about all the white guys who worked for 11 years
and died? They got slightly more screwed. And social
security is so our old folks don't end up on the street
eating from garbage cans, it is NOT a pension program.
\_ Sorry, I screwed up in my analysis. Indeed, this might
suggest that whites are being screwed, since they might
live longer (hence being taxed more) and then die before
age 65.
\_ I hope someday you come to realize what a dumbass you
are.
\_ This is countered by the fact that more blacks than whites
(percentage wise) are on disability.
\_ The problem with the article is that is reasoned and well laid
out. The sloganeering and "faith-based" logic of the Bush admin
will always convince the 51% of the country that put the current
set of neocon nuts in power of the veracity of whatever BS the
admistration is peddling at the moment.
admistration is peddling at the moment. See: death tax, tax
administration is peddling at the moment. See: death tax, tax
cuts, WMDs, clear skies, healthy forests, etc. |
| 2005/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35918 Activity:nil |
1/26 Reading all of the SS threads there seems to be a real
misunderstanding about the SS "surplus". There is no
"surplus" - the money has been spent. So when it is
said Clinton balanced the budget that is false. So when
government officials like to pretend they have bought
Treasury bonds and are "receiving" interest this
statement is absurd. They money will have to come
from somewhere, either taxes or the printing of more
money. It is equivalent to you making a loan to
yourself and paying yourself interest.
\_ You really have drunk the Republican kool-aide haven't you?
\_ I have known this long before I was a conservative.
Really, how exactly is the SS administration going to
redeem these bonds?
\_ Uh, how does the government pay all of its bills?
And you line about Clinton is simply a bad lie.
\_ was the budget balanced without SS receipts - yes
or no?
\_ Answer my question and I will answer yours.
\_ sorry I really should say Gingrich didn't
balance the budget. Either way, its clear
by your cryptic responses you have no idea
\_ I'm not any of the above posters, but the
answer to your question is, I believe, the
gov't pays its bills by taxing and by
borrowing, but ultimately by taxing.
what you are talking about;
this is not worth my time.
\_ Yes, it is obvious that you will not convince
me by parroting republican propaganda. Inform
yourself a bit about economics before embarassing
yourself again.
\_ gosh I guess that Econ BA was worthless...
\_ So do you believe that there is no
money in the bank because it was
"all spent"? If your bank told you
that the money you deposited with them
had already been lent out to other
people and "already spent" would you
just take that as an answer? Where
did you get your Economics degree from,
Stanford? |
| 2005/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35916 Activity:very high |
1/26 Riddle me this: Congress jumpstarted SS, and then contributors got
out what they put in, plus interest. How does this turn into "our
grandparents are robbing us"?
\_ It is because the payout is based on wage increase and not on
inflation. So someone retired today that is collecting SS is
getting paid based on todays wages. The other way to do it is
to base it on inflation. That is bad though because you are
then expecting retires today to live off of 1940 wages. An
example is that the average SS receipent today gets about
1200/month. If SS was based on inflation the payout would be
around 300/month. That is not enough...
\_ I think the argument is, the SS system is a progressive one, and
we can't opt out. Old folks are currently the ones getting SS
money. Therefore, old folks are robbing us.
Kind of lame logic, but that's what some sodans think.
\_ No, the logic is that the old folks are taking out more than what
they put in plus interest. Therefore we're just keeping them
afloat, with really nothing set aside for ourselves. So, in
essence, by the time we're old, there'll be nothing left.
\_ How does this jibe with the notion that if there weren't
a baby boom hump, social security would be fine?
\_ jibe, maybe?
\_ oops, learn something every day!
\_ corrupted into a giant ponzi scheme
\_ ... how does this jibe with the notion that if there weren't
a baby boom hump, social security would be fine?
\_ look, it's a combination of things, like baby boom and the
increase of medical technology that allowed the boomers to
live 10-15 years longer than expected. Personally I don't
see the point of extending lives of 70-80 yr old people
so that they can live another 10 miserable years, but then
I digress
\_ The actuaries who helped devise SS prepared for extended
lifespans. They actually predicted the increase would be
larger than it has been. The ass-talkers are out in force.
\_ Did they account for a baby boom bump?
\_ No, but there have been adjustments in the last few
decades to work on it, and the most conservative
estimates put the date of needing to reduce benefits
at 2042.
\_ 2042 is the year the SSA estimates that the
cumulative surplus (after the IOUs/bonds are
redeemed) will be drawn to zero, while
simultaneously needing to pay more to old folks
than we take in social security taxes.
This is assuming nothing is done.
\_ And the CBO estimates that will not happen\
until 2052. Even at that point, SS will be
able to meet 75% of its payments on its own.
The worst thing that could happen would be
that benefits would be cut by 1/4.
\_ So, SS wasn't devised as a ponzi scheme when it was
created, but the system has a solvency problem with the
unexpected baby-boom generation and increased longevity?
\_ The point in extending lives may become clearer once you
reach 70-80, as in, Q: "who would want to live to be 80"
A: "someone who is 79" |
| 2005/1/26 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35915 Activity:moderate |
1/26 Question:
Currently we have a surplus of social security funds every year
(i.e., more taken in from social security taxes than disbursed).
I do know that the federal government spends the surplus, and leaves
an IOU to the social security trust fund.
The trust fund will start collecting on those IOUs around 2019, when
social security taxes will not be enough to cover disbursements.
Does the IOU make any money, and if so, how much?
\_ The surplus is used to buy government bonds, which pay (not great)
interest. When the surplus needs to be spent, the bonds will be
redeemed (government pays money into the SS system from general
revenues) or the bonds will be sold on the market. These have
basically the same net effect.
\_ What this is getting at is that at some point the government
is going to borrow to cover the system. This is a given. I
don't know why everyone is up-in-arms over the costs of PRAs
when SS is going to go bankrupt at some point without reform.
If you object to privatization then what is the solution when
SS eventually goes bankrupt? Wouldn't it be better to try
to fix it now? It will cost more now, but save more in the
long run.
\_ "at some point" is when?
\_ Basically, all of Krugman's articles argue that private
accounts will be significantly worse than a long-term SS fix.
\_ I think we SHOULD pay now to fix the system, but that means
either raising taxes or not letting people excuse themselves
from payroll taxes just because they have a PRA.
What's being proposed is just running up the debt now
in stead of later. I think it's an especially bad idea to
run up a big debt when we already are running a huge deficit.
\_ What makes you think we will borrow? Why not just raise taxes?
The current surplus is being handed to the wealthy in
the form of a tax cut. Eventually, they will have to pay
it back. They are doing everything they can to blow smoke
in your face and avoid admitting to the responsibility though.
up your ass and avoid admitting to the responsibility though.
\_ Let's have a hard number. 3% annually? |
| 2005/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35914 Activity:high |
1/26 Question for those who say: "We don't need private accounts. We just
need to invest social security funds better!"
Currently, the annual surplus from social security funds is invested in
government bonds. How should social security funds be invested
"better"?
\_ Inclone and Enron stocks were really high at one time! If they
can just time it right, SS would be saved!!!
\_ I think the government plans on putting it all on "red" at
Vegas.
\_ I wanna go to GWB's dice game! |
| 2005/1/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35913 Activity:high |
1/26 How does SS in the US compare with other countries, like Japan,
Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, etc?
\_ What you have as IRAs and other voluntary contributions is
mandatory in a lot of other countries. Example: We pay a base
equivalent to SS (in .ch) and a second amount derived from the 1st
into a privately run (but still mandatory, with interest rates set
by the govt) account. There is much less flexibility for other,
voluntary contributions (including tax benefits.) Similar in
Germany, etc. The difference? We'll be fucked much later than the
US, but it'll happen (European & Japanese populations are getting
much older and will rely on massive immigration to sustain us in
our dotage.) Also, when it does, the gefuckt-ness will be more
widespread, due to the fact that the US appears to have a greater
percentage of the population saving into private retirement funds
as opposed to being taught to rely on a government "bank". Many
Europeans, at least, are only now coming around to the fact that
their retirement pensions are illusive--made all the more bitter by
the fact that the tax rate in EU countries is criminally high (this
is a _bit_ better in .ch as our taxes are lower.) So essentially,
same problem, different format. -John
\_ In Japan at least, another major problem is corruption: in a
recent scandal, it turned out that the people running the
pension accounts were living large on loans they'd approved
for themselves from the pension money. --erikred
\_ The Chilean experience has not been so good:
link:csua.org/u/ave (nytimes blahblahfoo:biteme)
\_ How about China? I don't think SS exists, they just shift the
problem to the family. So in essense, they don't have any problem.
\_ I read somewhere that China has a huge pension liability problem.
\_ "Death solves all problems; No man, no problem." -- Stalin
\_ Go fuck yourself.
\_ Somehow this reminds me of Bush...
\_ your liberal brain has been classified as-- small.
\_ The death of one Iraqi is a tragedy. The death of
100,000 is a statistic.
\_ Wow, your big brain tells you only 1 Iraqi died?
Really, you need to go fuck yourself.
\_ You are living proof that anti-war people can
be just as arrogant and clueless as the Cons
on the motd. For this, I salute you! -motdtl
\_ What about the millions of Native
Americans you killed huh? What smart ass
comment you have to say about that? How
the fuck did that happen under democracy?
"We come in peace", ha. Oh I get it, you
can kill, but no one else is supposed to.
Just like you can have nuclear weapons,
and shit loads of them, and ready to use
them on the first sign of trouble (bunker
busting nukes?), but no one else should
have them. Talk about double standards. I
will shut up when you apply the same set
of rules and regulations you scream at
others (I bet if the current
administration is running WW II, they
would've claimed German troops are
terrorists and don't deserve the Geneva
\_ different standards for white people
Convention). A real test of any man, any
nation, is how you stick to your
principles you claim to be so great when
you are the one under fire. It's always
easy to stand on the side lines and say,
oh look, you violated human rights! Hmmm,
I wonder why the Whitehouse PR machine has
stopped accusing other nation of HR
violations... -pissed off at double standards
\_ You really have me howling with laughter
here. I want you to know that someone
appreciates your work. Please look up the
famous Stalin quote "The death of one man
is a tragedy. The death of millions is a
statistic," and think for a second about how
my deliberate referencing of this quote
could not possibly be an effort to make
George Bush look better. Unless I was
a big Stalinist. Which I am not. I almost
didn't add that last sentence, but your utter
inability to see historical references
right in front of your face forced me to make
it 100% clear what I meant. -motdtl
\_ No shit, I can't believe no one caught on
and it quickly devolved into politically
correct BS. Ok, I can believe the second
part. The original quote was to show
that the Chinese have means at their
disposal to deal with internal problems
which we do not [yet] have.
\_ First time I read this I thought SS meant the German secret police.
\_ me too. I was trying to figure out the American SS |
| 2005/1/26 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35911 Activity:very high |
1/26 I don't think everyone understands this yet, so I'll make sure.
You know the 6.2% social security tax you pay every year (and
the matching 6.2% paid by your employer)? All of it goes directly
to people receiving social security checks today. It does not in
go into any "private account" for you. Instead, the government
tracks how much money you make over your life. Once you hit 67, you
start getting social security checks. The size of each check
will be somewhat proportional to how much you made over your life.
But this number is very progressive -- that is, people who made
a lot of money get a much smaller proportion of how much they
made, compared to people who made a small amount of money during
their life.
Once again, the current generation pays money directly to the
old generation.
What happens when you have "private accounts"? Well, everyone gets
a private account now. You are paying yourself, not other people.
However, the old people today still need their social security
checks. So who pays for it? The government! It takes out huge
loans to pay money to old people, since all the young people are now
saving for themselves instead of paying old people.
Now, it's not a 100% transition to private accounts. At the
beginning, it will be a 1/3 transition. So 4.2% tax goes to
the old system (paying old people), and 2% goes to yourself (your
private account).
\_ Where did you get 6.2? I pay 7.65% (as does my employer).
\_ Medicare is 1.45%. 6.2% is social security tax.
\_ But where does the government money come from? Taxes. Collected
the same way the money would be collected under the current system.
Right? Am I missing something?
\_ I don't understand your question.
\_ You are missing someting. If an individual goes the PRA route,
they will stop paying SS taxes and in stead pay a (regulated)
amount into their PRA. The government is now missing the payroll
taxes for this person but still has to pay for current SS
beneficiaries. To make up this missing money the government must
either raise taxes or run a (larger) defecit. The person who got
a PRA is paying X-dollars less in taxes but being forced to
invest X-dollars into their PRA.
You will see your payroll tax be replaced with a enforced PRA
contribution. That money must be made up with new taxes or a
defecit (future taxes).
\_ While you're contemplating this, please also ask yourself the
following questions.. Is an average American capable of making
reasonably good investment decisions for his/her private account? If
\_ You presume that there will be a choice.
not, then do you think you would trust the government to do that for
you? What about mutual funds? Where is the guarantee that whatever
gains you get from the higher stock market returns will not be
skimmed by those firms as administrative fees? What will happen to
the financial markets around the world as trillions of dollars from
the private accounts will start being poured into them? What will
happen to the world economy and the US economy in particular if the
US government tries to borrow trillions of dollars that are
necessary to implement the transition? Have you seen a country that
has successfully privitized their social security system?
\_ Solution is simple. Holders of the PRA are only allowed to
invest in T-bills. The rate of return is still better.
\_ The problem is that with financial industry lobbying you know
that regulation won't last for long. If you think they'll let
themselves miss out on this avalance of financial-services
business you'd be deluded. What about people (like me) who
think that with our current-account defecit T-bills are not
a terribly safe investment?
\_ You investing in T-bills is likely as safe as the SSA
investing in T-bills for you. Would limiting investments
to T-bills resolve the pp's concern for the lack of
security for PRA funds? I am trying to figure out if the
sensitivity is over the security of the investment or
something else.
\_ It may be as safe an investment, but it destroys the
system. Is that where your sensitivity is? Do you
want the system gone?
\_ We all understand this. SS does not need to be privatized, but
it needs the ability to invest better. Imagine if that massive
surplus has been invested in something other than navel lint.
\_ Why? What's wrong with treasuries?
\_ can I just opt out of the whole system? Where's my freedom to do
that? Don't send me checks, don't make me pay into it...
\_ It's part of living here. Don't like it? Move somewhere else.
\_ The social contract is that you get to live in a country where
old people get medical care and don't starve to death living on
the streets. In return, you must pay payroll taxes.
\_ The law allows that if you become Amish.
\_ Why do I have to pay for freeways even though I don't have
a car? Why do I have to pay for the police even though
I don't commit crimes?
\_ And why is there an income cap for SS tax?
\_ Do you mean, why is it that if I make $200K/year, I only pay
6.2% of $90K?
\_ Exactly. Why make any income exempt?
\_ I think it's because they want social security to be
progressive, but not THAT progressive. In fact, one of
the remedies toward fixing social security is to raise the
the amount taxable, while keeping the maximum social
security check amounts lower in proportion or the same.
\_ SS is regressive, at least when taxed.
\_ The payout is much more progressive, outweighing
what you put in. |
| 2005/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35909 Activity:very high |
1/26 Social Security is a system where our parents and ancestors rip us
off, so that when we get old, we can rip off our children as well.
\_ Hey, this is exactly how deficit spending works! Er wait, it
can't be bad if Reagan did it..
\_ Don't forget the non-SS federal and state income tax!!11!
\_ The first generation got something for nothing. We will have
paid into the system.
\_ This has been how traditional societies work -- children supporting
retired parents, except that it wasn't enforced by law and wan't
done by the govt's.
\_ and didn't involve income redistribution. - troll
\_ Right. Except now it's the working less wealthy supporting
the retired wealthy. Here in reality land, seniors (defined
as 65+) are the *wealthiest* Americans, and they have been
getting richer faster than anyone else. Me, I see lots of
seniors touring around in new Mercedes and BMWs and going on
expensive vacations.
http://research.aarp.org/econ/dd44_wealth.html tbl 2.
\_ SS was started as a response to a real problem, many elderly
who could not afford to retire and were living in real
poverty.
\_ And rural electrification started when the rural was not
electrified. What's your point?
\_ I would suggest that SS payments be tied to net worth,
but it would be too easy for seniors to circumvent by
giving stuff away. Obviously a wealthy person doesn't
need SS at all. On the other hand, they were forced to
pay into it so...
\_ Yeah, they paid into it, but THEY LET THEIR OWN
STUPID CONGRESS SPEND ALL THE FUCKING MONEY AND
BADLY INVEST THE MONEY. They didn't rein in their
reps, so they effectivly allowed their SS money
to be stolen. As it is, it's effectively welfare
but given to old people regardless of whether
they're rich or not. Face it, you old bastards,
you let Congress steal your money, you should not
steal it back from poor people to make yourself richer.
\_ uh... talk about blaming the victims. Dumbass.
\_ Are you sure it was "badly" invested? Mostly, it
seems to have been invested in tax cuts for the
wealthy, which has probably made the economy
grow faster, increasing the tax base. I think
it was pretty well spent, actually.
\_ Yes, any time the economy expands, it wuz tax
cuts. Any time the economy stagnates, it wuz
9/11, the hurricanes, and the tsunami, and not
enough tax cuts. Hoozah!!
-Small-govt footsholdier
\_ You fool! You're supposed to blame
Carter!!
\_ GAAAAAAH, FACTS!!!! DOGFOOD! SHIVERING IN THE DARK!
\_ The retired wealthy might complain if you stop giving them
social security checks.
\_ Shoot them if they complain. |
| 2005/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35908 Activity:very high |
1/26 Not only the below, but conservatives have a handy dandy calculator
to tell you how much you're losing under the current Soc Sec system:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity
It says if I'm a 30-year-old male earning $8K/year now and put all
my social security money into 3% government bonds, I'd get $970/month
from private accounts, compared to $935/month in the old system!
Woohoo!
\_ And your tax burden over your lifetime goes up how much to pay for
the transition to privitization?
\_ Why does the transition have to cost anything at all? We
are running a surplus. Just take the money currently in the
plan and invest it differently. It doesn't have to be
'privatized' just invested better.
\_ To do what you suggest would take changing a huge number of
laws and market regulations. Investing it "better" means
increasing risk. It's social SECURITY. It's design is
predicated upon SECURE investment. As long as this country
exists, it is guaranteed. Anything less throws that out
the window.
\_ If the fund falls short you borrow. Imagine it being
secured like the FDIC.
\_ Imagine a prolonged tanking of the stock market,
with a self-propagating cycle of borrowing more,
other countries moving out of the dollar, higher
interest rates, and people going underwater on
their mortgages
\_ SS is not designed to protect against doomsday
scenarios. Imagine that the dollar goes into
a tailspin and your SS money is still worth the
same in dollars, or imagine frightful inflation.
SS as currently concocted won't protect against these.
\_ At least we would all be in the same boat
together.
\_ Is investing it 100% in T-bills more or less risky than
the current regime?
\_ This from the same guys who endorsed Chalabi and said we'd be
welcomed with open arms?
\_ And if you fall off a ladder and break your neck at 30, you will be
penniless and broke and without any safety net, just the way the
Republicans want you to be.
\_ It says I'm losing $9,000 per month.
\_ More than that for me, but more importantly it's a $1 million
difference. That's a lot of money. Fuck SS.
\_ You're not paying into SS for your retirement. You're paying
for it so your parents and grandparents and uncles don't end
up eating dog food and shivvering in the dark with no medical
care.
Before SS, people saved for their retirement, but a LOT of old
people lived longer than they expected, or had some fiancial
hardship and flat-out didn't have enough money. It was a
humane response to a humanitarian problem. If we convert to
private accounts, setting aside for a moment how we pay for
that... we will still end up with a lot of old people living
in abject poverty because either they didn't save enough or
they got swindled. We CSUAers like to think we're pretty
smart, but how many people will invest money in dodgy fly
by nights, penny-stocks and junk bonds? When these people are
70 and broke will we still have social security to take care
of them? Or will we just say 'ownership society'?
\_ Privatizing social security will have a hugely positive,
liberating effect on the economy! -troll
\_ Just invest the money in the index. I shouldn't be
forced to pay for your uncle and grandma. If I want to
pay for my own (or not) that's my business.
\_ I with more pro-privitization people had your kind of
courage to just come right out and say they want to let
old people starve.
\_ Old people worked their whole lives and should
have something to show for it other than my
money. Maybe if they weren't paying so much in
SS taxes they would have some money left for
themselves.
themselves. Alternately, maybe if their money
had been invested smarter when they were younger
they'd have more money now. The argument is that
you can take SS as it exists now and make it a
lot better just by changing what it invests in.
No costs at all and everyone benefits.
\_ Then go buy an island and form your own nation.
\_ Index fund? If the stock market tanks, you're fucked.
\_ Yes, this is why I don't invest in my 401k. I am
very fearful of the stock market going into a
decades-long tailspin.
\_ If you are paying that much into SS, you can afford to fund
your own $1M retirement fund, like I am doing. SS is there
as a safety net, not to fund your lifetestyle of luxury.
\_ So I should give away $1 million opportunity cost just
because I can save $1 million more? Huh?
\_ The $1M "opportunity cost" is just a figment of your
imagination. The taxes you pay are the cost for living
in a stable and sane society. Don't like paying taxes?
Simple, move to a country where there aren't any.
I am pretty sure the Congo does not require any
Social Security taxes.
\_ It does a fair job of comparing your benefits under the two systems.
It fails to acknowledge that we're currently under a 'PAYGO' system
and all the pain converting to personal accounts will cause. It
makes it look like the SocSec system is ripping off everyone when
a big part of the problem is that under the current system everyone
is paying for their ancestor's retirements.
\_ i.e. ripping off everyone |
| 2005/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35901 Activity:very high |
1/26 Democrats illustrate once again they are dumbasses by falling into
obvious Republican trap.
(1) Republican figure makes comments about how social security payments
may be tied to race and sex, without elaborating
(2) Less than 48 hours later, official e-mail petition circulates
Democratic Party mailing lists, condemning proposed tie. 70,000
sign petition over two days.
(3) Dubya tells the world blacks are being fucked by the current
social security system because they die on average 9 years earlier
than whites, and the funds are generally not inherited once the
parents die.
\_ At least one Democrat saw it as obvious bullshit, deleted the
email, and got pissed off.
\_ Dubya tells world that blacks die, on average, 9 years earlier, and
Dems fail to call him on the fact that this stat is due to more
blacks living in poverty, dying in violence, and reaping the
whirlwind of years of backsliding on the gains made in Civil Rights
in the 60s.
\_ The (alleged) reason doesn't change the fact.
\_ Can you also claim "blacks put in less"? Not that I am
advocating looking at the fairness issue in these terms.
\_ However, better facts should trump worse facts. Blacks do
not die 9 years earlier than whites. Apparently neither
Dubya nor the pps understand how life expectancy works.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/2/110
\_ This article says that black men have a greater than
9 year shorter life expectancy. Maybe you should
elaborate, because this article seems to contradict you.
\_ Average life expectancy is pretty useless for discussion
of SS benefits. The correct measure (that the framers
had in mind) is expectancy after 65. They predicted
that it would increase, and were off slightly on the
high side. There is no damn crisis.
\_ Why is it expectancy after 65? If you die before 65
you've paid into the system and don't get anything
back. Besides, if Congress changes the retirment
age, 65 is irrelevant.
\_ The difference in full life expectancy comes from
higher infant and young mortality rates. If you're
going to compare benefits, you have to compare
apples to apples. In comparing how benefits are
dispersed, it's dishonest to say "because more
kids died in your demographic, you're going to
receive lower benefits."
\_ So a better stat would be of people who
survived to working age, not those who survive
to 65. And my guess is that general mortality
is closer to that than the paper cited (though
I can't read anything more than the abstract).
\_ My guess is your guess is wrong. The reason
this is still not apples to apples is that
SS is a societal contract. You pay into it
until you draw benefits. Until you start
drawing benefits, it doesn't matter whether
you get anything back. If you want to live
here, you pay. If you don't want to pay,
go somewhere else.
\_ So your disagreement is philisophical.
So is mine. You should own what you
save.
\_ And your guess would be wrong. Consider
link:csua.org/u/aum where the life expectancy
of blacks and whites generally converge as
they get older.
\_ So when you start paying into SS (age
15-20) is closer to birth than age 65.
So you're wrong.
\_ "Sixty-five-year-old black men had a lower total life
expectancy (11.4 years) and active life expectancy
(10 years) than white men (total life expectancy,
12.6 years; active life expectancy, 11.2 years),
although the differences were reduced after we
controlled for education." The difference between
65-year old black and white male life expectancy (both
total and active) is 1.2 years. The article goes on
to say that the difference for women is 0.
\_ pwnd!
\_ http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib161 |
| 2005/1/21-22 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35832 Activity:high |
1/21 Can you guys help me out? I'm trying to expose the Amway business
model and I'm doing research. What are some past companies that
operate like Amway? I remember there was one in the 70s and one in
the 80s but they're defunct because of lawsuits. I can't remember
their names. Any info you guys have, like the people behind it, and
how they got sued, etc would be great. Thanks.
\_ http://www.amquix.info/quixtar_los.html
I was approached by this guy from INA.
\_ Herbalife
\_ Market America
\_ http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/dsotour.html
\_ expose Amway? What part are you trying to expose? I don't get
it. They're obnoxious, but I don't think it's illegal.
\_ expose that while a very few percentage of people actually
do make money, more than 97% of them never made more than
$100 a year, and in fact, more than 50% of them lost money
because they were buying Amway products for themselves so
that they could meet the money quota for bonuses.
\_ Aren't you about 30 years late with this news?!
\_ try 50 years late. Well I'm just annoyed because I just
found out my sister and my aunt joined it. HOW STUPID!!!
I always thought only uneducated ppl joined these things,
but boy, was I wrong.
\_ According to the DSA, in 1996, 59.3% of American
distributors were female, 23.4% male,and 17.3% couples...
The restraints for women still in the regular workforce
in addition to the pressure to help the family have made
direct selling very attractive to women. Many DSO's
directly appeal to this need. -from the article above
\_ Cutco
\_ Do those encyclopedia or vacuum cleaner (Kirby) salepeople count?
Or those water filter people I saw once.
Man, the Kirby guy I saw years ago seemed sooo annoyed when we
didn't buy his fancy vacuum and he cleaned our large living room
carpet for free. |
| 2005/1/17 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35743 Activity:insanely high |
1/16 Dear libertarians (ie "all man for himself") and conservatives
(ie "flat tax means equality"), what is your opinion on the
following article and why is it flawed? -moderate
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/wealth.gap.ap/index.html
\_ Dear moderate (ie "I am too dumb to make up my mind"),
please fuck off.
\_ I'll bite. The article points out that the income
gap has closed but the wealth gap has not. It seems
intuitive that if the gap in income and wealth
were to both close, that the income gap will come first.
That we haven't seen the wealth gap close yet does
not indicate a market failure. Also, doesn't take
into account that regional variations in wealth/income
and regional variations in race are highly correlated
(see <DEAD>www.csua.berkeley.edu/~darin/upload/black.PNG<DEAD>
--Darin (moderate libertarian)
\_ user/pass? I tried moderate/libertarian and it didn't work.
\_ I'll go in as well. Again, they point out that the income gap
has closed, but not the wealth gap. In the article they
attribute this to racism in companies giving morgages. BS.
Lack of loans don't stop people from investing in the stock
market or any other sort of saving. Basically, America has a
big problem with people not saving. There's an epidemic of
people living beyond their means in America, and blacks seem to
be particularly susceptible to the lure of conspicuous
consumption. This is cultural, if your parents didn't save
money, you probably won't either. (In this case, it may be
their parents didn't save money because some white guy would
come and steal it. It doesn't matter, the result is the same
now.) I think we should make a class in money management a
high school requirement. -jrleek
\_ I agree with everything you say, and yet I am a liberal.
This may be one of the first jrleek posts I would say that about.
\_ Ahh! You used the b**** word!!! Racist!!!
\_ People keep saying blacks don't save money. Then you go
look up life expectancy of black males and it's like 69.
The amount of money one needs to save for retirement is
vastly different depending on whether one is going to live
to 69 or 82.
to 69 or 82. White people complain a lot, but it's they
who live a long, unproductive, useless post-retirement
life on government subsidies. They should learn to die
earlier like black people, and stop wasting my tax dollars.
These days, you start getting social security at like 67,
so the average black male is only gonna get two years'
worth, whereas someone who lives till 87 is going to get
20 years' worth. So, please stop dissing on black people.
\_ Sigh. This is why a little knowledge of statistics is
such a dangerous thing.
\_ well, the same thing can be said of jrleek's post,
which is my point.
\_ I must have missed it then. Could you explain
where my post goes wrong in more detail? Your post
makes a number a wierd logical fallacies that I
makes a number of weird logical fallacies that I
don't THINK I commited, which you claim to have
understood when you posted. Please be more
specific. -jrleek
\_ Please explain what weird logical fallacies
were in my post?
\_ I don't think you know how life expectancy
works. - !jrleek
\_ That's the main problem. The way you
apply life expectency is criminal, and
the resulting argument is horrifying in
it's circularity. -jrleek
\_ This is the first time I've heard of the notion of African
Americans in general not saving money vs. other Americans. I
read last night in the Post editorial on Social Security that the
average U.S. household saves 1.5% of disposable income, compared
to 11% two decades ago.
So ... that must mean blacks are dragging down the average, even
though they make up ~ 10% of the U.S. population?
(That was an absurd statement; of course I don't believe that.)
\_ I was just using the stats from the article. I guess you
could say that blacks are "dragging down the average" but
I wouldn't. It's a huge probelm in every race. Blacks
just seem to be particularly afflicted with it. -jrleek
\_ I just updated my stats for you since I remembered my
source. Anyway, if you said, whiteys played more stocks
than black people, even if they make the same money -- I'd
agree with you.
But I think the numbers don't lie, for all Americans, when
it comes to annual savings.
I don't know if the Post's result intelligently classified
some stock market investments as savings, so I can't argue
there.
\_ Again they focus on equal outcome rather than equal opportunity.
The goal is clearly socialism.
\_ socialism is equal income.
communism is equal outcome.
\_ capitalism is equal cum.
\_ no, capitalism is equal outcome when you have enough income
\_ "Victims!" |
| 2005/1/13-14 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35690 Activity:high |
1/12 Can library fines affect your credit rating?
\_ Just pay them; a library is one of few institutions
that could probably use the money for a good cause.
\_ In general, I agree. These are fines from over 10 years ago
from the town where I went to highschool which I never intend
to return to. The librarians there are evil assholes who exist
only to persecute everyone who is not a bitchy old lady like
themselves. They refuse to accept payment by mail, and demand
that I return to their shitty library to pay the fines in
person. If it were any other library in the world, I never
would have let it get to this point in the first place.
\_ hahahaha good cause? I don't think the public library is
all that great. This is one fine example where the tax
dollar is used inefficiently. How about less tax and more
money for people to buy good books? Fuck all government
aided infrastructures, let the people rule.
-less tax more self-reliance guy
\_ Go look up the budget for your town and decide whether the
library even makes the top 50 list for pork. Seriously.
Go look it up.
\_ Go look up the budget for your town and decide whether the
library even makes the top 50 list for pork. Seriously.
Go look it up. Also, every time I go to my local library
(I live in a medium sized city), I see some kind of job
training or literacy program being hosted there, and I see
a lot of poor people reading who I'm guessing would not
otherwise be. It seems to me that this translates directly
into more economic productivity for poor people, hence less
welfare outlay and more tax revenue for the government. So
if you're just going to look at it in terms of tax revenue,
over a long period of time, I'm pretty sure the library is
a net gain.
\_ People become poor and unable to afford books because
the government allows (in fact entices) them to be
lazy through things like welfare and public library.
Once you cut them loose you will be amazed how self-
reliant they can be. Besides, why do people who cannot
support themselves deserve to read anything anyway?
\_ I have zits on my ass that could troll better than
you.
-less tax more self-reliance guy
\_ Uhm, the majority of people who are unemployed or
poor aren't lazy. Ever heard of supply and demand?
When the labor demand goes down, the supply stays
the same and people end up being unemployment and
as a result poor. No matter how self-reliant you are
when the economy is bad everyone loses. It's like
being in a tsunami. You're just one person. If the
environment is not conducive to you being employed,
you don't have much control over it. Most people
don't realize how easy it is to be completely wiped
out until it happens to them.
\_ Library fines don't go to the library. Typically they go to the
city (or county) general fund. --married a librarian
\-Dear Married to a Librarian: can you ask your spouse what is
the typical lag time between an anticipated book coming out ...
say something by a major author like Tom Wolfe, but not
something like Harry Potter, and the library gettin it on their
shelf? It seems like it is more than a "couple of days".
I could understand the delay if it was somehow cheeper to
go through some special publisher's channel but as far as I
know, that is not the case [I believe the SF Pub Lib paid
more per copy of Harry Potter than was the AMAZONG price].
ok tnx. --psb |
| 2005/1/6 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Recreation/Humor] UID:35567 Activity:very high |
1/6 So, the neocons deleted my post on Alberto Gonzales' appointment.
This is why I hate neocons. They will always rally behind their
leaders regardless what he does, and if they can't win an arguement,
he simply make them silent. The mentality behond those who deleted
my post and those US marines fire missles at Al Jazeera TV station...
sigh...
\_ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20041229
\_ Wow, I was going to point out the error in the assumption, but
this cartoon does it so much better.
\_ Does this cartoon ever get good?
\_ I mostly disagree with it politically, but I have to admit
this particular strip has a point. --liberal
\_ What? that both sides have crackpots? Duh..
\_ I think it's pretty funny, as far as political cartoons
go. Political cartoons aren't usually laugh out loud
funny. Why don't you post some cartoons you prefer?
\_ http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18323
\_ A guy complaining about an un-funny political
cartoon posts "This modern World?" Irony lives!
\_ I thought it was funny. I think the point is,
if you're a liberal you enjoy liberal viewpoints,
if you're a freeper/libertarian you enjoy those, etc. |
| 2005/1/3-4 [Industry/Jobs, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35532 Activity:moderate |
1/3 I have a better question. What % of tay payer money actually reaches
it target for expenditure. For example, for Medicare / Medicaid,
welfare, education, this is pennies on the dollar.
\_ I think you need to define your terms more. And not to be pedantic,
but 'pennies on the dollar' includes everything short of 100%. As
far as 'reaches its target', what counts? If medicare spends $100
on a prescription, should you count $100, or the retail price of the
drug, or the wholesale price, or the manufacturer's cost? Education
is even stickier. Do you count teacher's salaries? Do you count
money spent on building maintainance? What about a principal or
superintendant's salary? Or perhaps you're just trying to start
some flamewar on "the government's wasting MY money!"
\_ you're an idiot. -tom
\_ How about asking the question in terms of staff per customer
served? For schools, that would be (# students)/(# persons
drawing a salary at the state and local level).
\_ For CA, the ratio seems to be (10 students)/(1 salary
drawer). Just teachers alone the ratio is (21.2 students)/
(1 teacher), so the other staff:teacher ratio is almost 1:1. |
| 2005/1/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35521 Activity:high |
1/3 so is SSI broken or not? i can't figure it out.
\_ If you ask anyone in the media, yes. If you ask anyone who
actually knows economics and pays attention to the subject, no.
\_ i'm not sure. i have read that the bush/norquist and co.
want to break soc. security to allow the government to
not have to pay back all the money it borrowed from
the ssi trust. not sure, maybe someone smarter than me
can write a report for the class.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004327.php - danh
\_ you're an idiot. -tom
\_ More to the point, BushCo want to let people invest their SSI
payments in the market; has he never heard of the stock market
crashes of 1929, 1987, and the DotCom Bust of 2000?
\_ Do better research, even including the crashes, over the
long term a well diversified portfolio out performed
"safe" investments.
\_ Genuinely curious: how diversified do you have to be? If
you put 1% each in 100 Dow Jones listed companies, you'd
still be down 10% from the pre-DotBomb days.
\_ DJIA @ 1/2/81 = 963.99
DJIA @ 1/2/91 = 2633.66
DJIA @ 1/2/01 = 10790.92
DJIA @ 1/3/05 = 10729.43
Please refer to subsequent post about the lack of
historical perspective and the over-emphasis on current
and short-term trends.
\_ I really do appreciate the amazing jump made between
91 and 01, but now what?
\_ The data is trivially available. I assumed it
was sufficient to give the long term trend, and
that you would be able to fill in points in
between. Mea culpa. BTW, the question is not
whether the Dow performs well over the long-term
(it does). The question you should be bright
enough to ask (with that fancy cal education and
all) is really how long would it take you to
recover if you had the misfortune to buy at a
peak. DJIA @ 9/3/29 = 380.33, and @ 12/1/55 =
386.77. DJIA @ 10/1/87 = 2596.28, and @ 8/1/89
= 2660.66. DJIA @ 9/1/00 = 11219.54, and it's
10729.43 today, down 4.3% from 9/1/00.
\_ SSI is broken simply because people are living longer and
having fewer children.
\_ today's nytimes editorial says "if you extrapolate to
INFINITY, the amount of money you owe is greater than
getting payed(paid, learn to spell, damn you)
in, if you extrapolate to something
more reasonable, it's not broken." who do you
believe? - danh
\_ Agreed: the argument that we're going to run out of money
in SSI any time soon is based on an ad infinitum fallacy.
\_ From the same NYT editorial, " sticking to the traditional
75-year time horizon [...] Social Security's shortfall is
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $2 trillion
and by the Social Security trustees at $3.7 trillion, a
manageable sliver of the economy in each case. If the
shortfall is on the low side, Social Security will be in the
black until 2052, when it will be able to pay out 80 percent
of the promised benefits. If it is on the high side, the
system will pay full benefits until 2042, when it will cover
70 percent." Whether this is considered broken depends on
your politics, but certainly this is less broken than if you
projected out to infinity. GDP today (in today's dollar) is
~ $12T. Assuming a growth of 3%, GDP in 2042 will be $37T
in today dollars. Would a SSI deficit of 10% of GDP in 2042
(assuming worst case deficit of $3.7T is in 2004 dollars) be
considered broken? Remember, the current budget deficit is
"only" 2.7% of the GDP.
\_ At the end of 1993, According to Al Martin, "The
total national debt of the United States on a fully
realized basis, inclusive of federal, state, county
and local debt stood at a record $20.613 trillion
(83.73% of said debt having been created from 1981-92
and from 2001 to present.) The total public and private
indebtedness of the United States ended the year 2003 at
$39.384 trillion. The total public and private assets of
the United States ended the year 2003 at $26.134 trillion.
Thus, the United States by the end of 2003 has a negative
net worth of approximately $13 trillion. The total debt
service of the United States ended the year 2003 at 309.4%
of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). These are numbers never
before seen.
\_ What? "end of 1993", "created from 2001 to present"?
\_ There might be some surpluses in there, so that
means no new debt created? The point is that
betting on the long-term viability of the US might
be unwise. When you add in other liabilities like
SSI and Medicare, the numbers go beyond $80
Trillion, but then of course we don't *have* to pay
those.
\_ The national debt by itself is "merely" $7.5T, which is
62.4% of the GDP. We had national debts of 64.1% to
63.5% of GDP from 1992 to 1998. Unfortunately, the
OMB estimates the debt will go up to 72% of GDP in 2009. |
| 2004/12/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35426 Activity:high |
12/24 Today I saw a few protesters on union square handing out flyers
reading something like "stop Bush's Pinochet social programs." They
looked like reasonably educated, intelligent kids, but I couldn't help
but think that, regardless of whether or not I agree with their points
(which I could sort of infer) there seemed to be a pretty hilariously
bad interpretation of politics, history, and reality in general there.
So just as a general observation, if you're going to argue about a
particularly emotionally or ideologically charged topic, no matter
which side you take, it helps to do some _basic_ research first, or
you look like an idiot. This has been a public service announcement,
Happy whatever. -John
\_ maybe they're being ironic? pinochet had lots of great
social programs involving tossing people out of helicopters.
in other news, that "NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE! NO SEX ! NO SEX!
NO SEX!!!!!!!!" guy who sits on a fire hydrant all day
outside of the cable car turnaround on powell in a suit is
still there - danh
\_ union square in... Switzerland? Wait, where are you really?
\_ Sorry, you are siply misinformed:
http://www.econop.org/SS-SocialInsecurityChile.htm#PrivatizationScheme
You *do* know that the Republicans pushing for Social
Security privitization hold up the Pinochet example, right? -ausman
\_ No, I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the information. Mea
culpa, I should have done more research myself, but it seemed
like a pretty absurd connection. Anyway, Hitler built nice
highways... :-) -John
\_ Stop the Mussolini BART reform! The flyer guys are still
dumbasses. Well, either dumbasses or cynics of the worst
kind. -- ilyas
\_ better than sitting on their welfare state public univeristy
grad school ass.
\_ Yeah, well calling it the "Pinochet" plan is kind of over
the top and stupid, imho, but at least it got your
attention, right? I really don't know if this kind
of grandstanding works in American politics, but it
appears to have worked pretty well most of the time.
American politics is laughably stupid. -ausman
\_ It got my attention, got me to (indirectly) find out
about it, and (a) dismiss these particular guys as kooks,
and (b) dismiss their points as invalid. So, net effect
of kookish presentation is negative... -John
\_ In my experience, most protest signs about something
more complicated than "NO WAR!" are so badly written
as to be worse than useless. If I wanted to stand on
the side of a road all day telling people about my
oddball political position, I'd just buy an easy to
remember domain name, post a clear statement of my
position at the website, and hold up a sign with
the url on it. I've pointed this out to protesters
who had crappy looking, cryptic signs before and they
never seemed to appreciate the advice. I'd read
a url if I saw it on a sign.
\_ It's obvious you've never done anything like
campaign or run for office or try to get something
voted on a ballot. Probably only 1% of the people
who would read your URL sign would actually go
to the stupid website. The point of protests
is to get attention, preferrably media attention.
People aren't going to pay attention to you if all
you've got is a hard to remember URL. If your URL
is easy to remember (which is quite difficult nowadays
with all these URLs being taken) you wouldn't
need the URL anyway since your message would
be short enough to put on a sign.
\_ I had a long reply that got deleted. Your
sentence is to live in darkness forever. |
| 2004/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35403 Activity:very high |
12/22 Dear Religious Democrats (emarkp, jrleek, etc), please help out.
I'm trying to find biblical sections like John 12:34,
Genesis 56:78, or something like that, which may suggest
that Jesus 1) favors more government handouts for
welfare 2) is compassionate and is soft on crime
3) prefers raising tax for the rich to support the poor
4) anything else that aligns with the Democratic agenda
I'm trying to come up with something cool, but I need actual
sections from the bible. ok thx -don't know much about bible
\_ Apparently you know even less about the motd and its cast of
characters than you do about the bible.
\_ I have to wonder what I or jrleek have written which led this
person to believe we are Democrats. -emarkp
\_ Well, it sounds pretty bizarre to me. Is there *any* issue
on which you would consider yourself to be a "liberal?"
\_ This has to be the dumbest request of the year. You can't take
the bible and start applying 21st century politics to it.
Anyway, the Bible as a whole is definitely conservative, especially
the Old Testament. You are prohibitted from homosexuality, you can't
eat pork, and anyone who isn't part of your group is slain. If you
think that Jesus was a liberal, you'd be wrong. He expressly
states that although he brings something new, the old ways are
by no means to be overthrown. Also, although the Catholic
Church has traditionally been aligned with the Democrats, they
are firmly against abortion, divorce, and contraception. I'm
not quite sure how you could align the strongly traditional message
in various parts of the Bible, especially books like Job or Jonah
which teach absolute faith in God without reason, to liberal
democratic views.
\_ look, if Karl Rove can successfully use the Bible to
manipulate the not-so-bright mass of people, then it
shouldn't be so hard to use his own ammo to manipulate
them the other way. If all logic and reasons fail, you
have to resort to... Religion, which is proven to work well.
\_ Maybe instead of finding a few choice quotes to bend to your
agenda you should read the whole bible to get a better idea
of what Jesus stood for. You're no better than O'Reily.
\_ it takes one OReiley to counter another OReiley.
\_ Maybe you should watch Jon Stewart on Crossfire. He
seriously disagrees with that approach.
\_ Um, I'm most certainly not a Democrat. -emarkp
\_ uh, ok. So what are you, a conservative?
\_ he's not a Democrat, he's been Visited by the Angel Moroni
\_ Yes. And I see very little in the Bible to support government
policy of any sort. -emarkp
\_ Luke 12:33, Matthew 19:21, Colossians 3:2
\_ None of those have anything to do with public policy. -emarkp
\_ so emarkp, would you say that if Jesus were alive today, he
would rather support Republican agendas than Democratic agendas?
\_ I don't think he'd support any political agenda. -emarkp
\_ If you ask me, Jesus is a communist. Just read:
Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to the poor.
Matthew 19:21 "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions
and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
Colossians 3:2 "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things."
\_ Yes, those would be the verses listed above. They are about how you
should live your own life, not how you should legislate the lives of
others. Note also that in Luke he was speaking to the twelve
(slightly different commission) and in Matthew he was responding to
the young man who asked how to become perfect. -emarkp
\_ "not how you should legislate"? Give me a break, conservatives
are trying to legislate religious values all the time.
\_ That doesn't mean Jesus would advocate it, or that all
conservatives suggest that Jesus would advocate it. -emarkp
\_ hi kchang!
\_ "As you treat the least of mine, you treat me also".
\_ 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire
prepared for the Devil and his demons! For I was hungry,
and you didn't feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn't give
me anything to drink. I was a stranger, and you didn't
invite me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me
no clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'
Jesus goes on to say Then they will reply, `Lord, when did we
ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or
sick or in prison, and not help you?' And he will answer,
`I assure you, when you refused to help the least of
these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to
help me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment,
but the righteous will go into eternal life." -Matthew 25:41
Also look up liberation theology to see how leftists have
interpreted these ideals into action.
\_ Jesus advocates charity. Leftists advocate charity at the point
of a gun. -- ilyas
\_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology#Passages_from_the_Bible |
| 2004/11/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:34984 Activity:very high |
11/19 All discussion of voter fraud censored for The Good Of America.
\_ Why do you hate voter fraud?
\_ ain't no fraud gonna make up 3million votes
\_ but 200k votes is enough to turn the election.
\_ republican: good, democrat: eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil
\_ You go girl!
\_ Are you a hoser? Do you have any idea the effect of ilyasing
the motd has on the CSUA??
\_ Wear a uniform when ilyasing the motd, or you may be legally
shot on sight!
\_ You must also act as part of an organized military force
while ilyasing the motd, or you may be tortured.
\_ You must also hate freedom, America's god given right
to rule the world, welfare (except corporate welfare),
cute puppies, apple pies, and yermom. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:34654 Activity:high |
11/4 With all the garbage about "liberal" vs. "conservative" (both horrible
misnomers) floating around, I seriously am trying to find out if/where
I fit into the political spectrum. I've put together a list in
~john/politics.txt am curious about what the MOTD peanut gallery
thinks. -John
\_ I look at that list and see a strong modern left position. And
I suspect it pretty much mirrors a lot of what us commie pinko
socialist bleeding heart liberal scum on soda beleive in. Modern
"liberals" (whatever the fuck that means) are not the same thing
they were 40 years ago, but are still stuck being painted that way.
For Europe you are probably pretty middle of the road, but in
America you'd be a flaming liberal. So sad.
\_ huh. I agree with you on all points you list, and I consider myself
to be a liberal. I think that's out of step with what most people
call a liberal, but fuck them. I believe that these principles
coincide with what liberalism is supposed to be.
\_ You have contradictory requirements. First, you wish for low taxes,
but then you also want to fund a moderate liberal agenda (keep the
poor off the streets, good public education, etc). You have to
choose what is more important to you, low (and in particular
progressive or no) taxes, or the nifty stuff you want to buy with
taxes. As described, you would be called a centrist, somewhat
left of center, or a moderate liberal, in this country. You are
probably somewhat right of center in EU. -- ilyas
\_ here's an idea: if you can't explain the views of one side without
making them look like evil morons (ex: the conservative view
below), then you don't hold that political philosophy.
\_ I applaud your rigorousness, but I strongly suggest you frame
this in specific, in-your-face examples.
E.g.,
Iraq - liberal view: America should have waited for Blix to finish
Iraq - conservative view: America was right to use its military
superiority to remove Saddam, even if he had no WMDs and even if
we don't have a track record of building a democracy in a country
like Iraq, and it's worth the cost of innocent Iraqi and American
lives that we are directly responsible for.
Consensus view: If you have WMDs, we produce a smoking gun, and
we think you may take us out or blackmail us, we'll take you out.
Social security - liberal view: As-is progressive system where
rich contribute more relatively to help out poor
Social security - conservative view: Give everyone IRAs, if you're
poor when you're young and working, you're still poor when you
retire. Sorry! America is the land of OPPORTUNITY, not handouts!
Consensus view: It shouldn't be as bad as Western Europe.
\-i think your list is sort of "bottom up" ... here is what i
think about 10 issues ... what do i fit into best ... rather than
a "top down" view which would take as it's starting point some
kind of "big question" like "what is the purpose of govt" or
"what do we owe each other" and have more of an essay form of
answer [or if we take the essay to the extreme, you get say
nozick: anarchy, state and utopia, or rawls: a theory of justice].
also a lot of the "hard questions" involves aspects of process ...
like the role of money in politics, what should be civil penalty
vs criminal [say a company pollutes] ... so in your list is it
not clear what should happen to the "victims" of free trade,
not much on health care ... and without some kind of "philosophy"
it's hard to guess where you would come down on issues not
explicitly delineated. it's not clear to me why you believe in
public education, for example. oh your list is also subject to
the a sort of wilt chamberlain problem [where you have initial
condition you like, but nothing prevents things from evolving in
a direction you dont like ... without an encroachment on liberty
you also dont like ... you can look up "wilt chamberlain nozick"
on the WEEB probably]. --psb
\_ Good points, thanks for the critique. That list was just a
sort of brain dump in reaction to "issues" discussed during
the election. I have a sort of naive assumption that someone
who stands for election would possess the kind of intelligence
and flexibility that would let them adapt to changing
conditions; I am wary of platforms or grand sweeping
documents that go too much into detail (see the US vs.
European constitutions). As for W. Europe vs. US social
security, they're both bad and in the shits, but at least the
W. Europeans are getting something from it right now :) -John
\_ Well, I've always thought that if you can't explain it to
a four-year-old, you don't really understand it. I'm taking
this approach. Why theory-build when you don't need to?
\-because a complicated society involves hard questions.
the simple theories like "strict constructionalism" either
have limited power, or arent as simple as they pretend to be.
know any 4yrs old who can follow say the federalist papers?
how do you balance between minority and majority interests?
you cant just say "vote on everything". not only is there the
interest of minorities but problems like the arrow problem.
what about trade offs between equality and efficiency [see eg
arthur okun's essay by that name]? not all social choice is
pareto improving ... if it is kaldor-hicks efficient, how are
losers compensated? i think "can you explain X" is a decent
test of your understanding, but the 4 yr old test is setting
the bar a little low. books i've read which i find have some
bearing on this include: the republic, dworkin: taking rights
seriously, cardozo: nature of the judicial process, bickel:
the least dangerous branch [no, the bible isnt on this list].
\_ You're right, but at some point, as a citizen, you have
no choice but to abstract and simplify political
principles; one of the major tasks of a government is
to outline a set of guiding philosophies, and to work
within these as much as possible, taking into account
"operational realities". Simple, 4-year-old statements,
such as "wealth is good" and "crime is bad" are perfectly
valid; however, at some point it should become possible
for someone with an average level of education and
intelligence to identify and formulate some coherent
beliefs without the benefit of an in-depth knowledge
of political theory. You pay your elected officials to
deal with the minutiae of making these work. -John
\- sure, there are some guiding principles like: freedom
to contract, social safety net, coase theorem/learned
hand rule, checks and balances, stare decisis,
federalism, due process, equality before the law ...
but entire books have been written on the single word
"equality" [http://csua.org/u/9sw] so again while
these are useful tools to have in your mental cabinet
with which to analyze problems like prop 187, they
are not simple tools. people who use one or two of
these has hammers and reduce problems nails [like
most libertarians] are falling short of the reflective
ideal, imho. curiously, some of the issues most people
would see as the most inherently moral questions, i
see as pretty empirical, like abortion and the death
penalty. i think another interesting and hard question
is "what is the role of govt outside of solving
'problems'" ... like why should there be a NASA ...
clearly NASA is not as "practical" as DARPA. if there
is one question for conservatives: what should be the
limits of the freedom to contract, and for liberals:
how would i justify progressive taxation. aff. action
is also a rich topic for debate ... also not something
clearly address in your list [metatopics being: how
do you trade individual rights for social agendas,
are there 'group rights' etc]. --psb
\_ I think the limits of the freedom of contract should
be the death of the individual (to prevent
feudalism). [ I had some other stuff here, but I
removed it, because I realized the problem is harder
than it looks. I want to say that the individual
should be free to sell his life however he wishes,
but I am not sure I can bite the bullet on the
ensuing ick.] One nifty argument for
progressive taxation I heard is that the rich make
a more effective use of the money they have,
because they have more of it, and so in some sense
a proportional tax isn't really fair. -- ilyas
\_ i don't know a lot about this stuff and i really hate
encouraging you, but is there a first world nation with
a flat tax besides Iraq? |
| 2004/10/13 [ERROR, uid:34090, category id '18005#7.94375' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:34090 Activity:high |
10/13 Washington Post lead editorial on tonight's debate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28382-2004Oct12.html
"We'd begin with the selfish, even piggish behavior today's leaders are
showing toward the next generation -- in other words, with the budget
deficit and the growing burden that Social Security and Medicare will
place on young workers as the baby boom generation retires."
\_ If you're going to post a link that requires registration at least
include a generic uname/pw so that us lazy mofos don't have to go
bother and register.
\_ I can lynx there from soda without it asking for a username.
Does it work for you? (not sure if my cookies file is in use)
\_ Yes, lynx works. Lynx is not my preferred browser.
\_ Thanks, I thought the Post didn't check anymore. |
| 2004/9/26-27 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:33764 Activity:high |
9/26 What kind of secret service protection do senators receive? Also,
do presidential candidates receive special secret service protection?
\_ Um, this is kind of a strange question to ask on the motd, but
Presidential candidates all recieve SS protection... ever since
Robert Kennedy. I am pretty sure that the SS has nothing to do
with the Senate, but I know that Feinstein has some kind of her
own security detail. I don't know who pays for it.
\_ Thanks, but why is this a strange questino to ask on
the motd?
\_ Remember the Steve Jackson games case? The SS doesn't
take well to jokes or even idle curiosity.
\_ Enjoy Ashcroft's be-latexed fingers icily probing your rectal
cavity while you are denied access to counsel!
\_ You have Ashcroft all wrong. He'd never use latex,
he'd dive right in.
\_ Enemy combatants and people who format weirdly on the motd
have no right to lubricant under the Geneva Conventions. |
| 2004/9/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:33741 Activity:high |
9/24 Regarding the http://opensecrets.org link below, I'm really surprised that Bush doesn't get more donations from oil industries and instead get them from 'retired' people. Weird... \_ People begging for SS have a surprising amount of money to throw around. \_ It's not so much a widows-and-orphans welfare system as a giant pension system. Hell, Warren Buffet is eligible. \_ Well, yeah. Which is why it's stupid, now anyway. Why should old people be getting money? Aside from asinine health care costs, they have very few expenses. No children, no where to go, and usually, pleanty of money. \_ Old people are generally not poor in this country because of Social Securirty. There's a reason SS was created in the first place you know. Would you prefer we return to the days where the elderly mostly lived in abject poverty, and people would literally work themselves until their death for fear of retirement? \_ So you say. I think reality differs. \_ I think you're wrong. Look at the demographics of the poor from before SS and after. \_ Situation has changed since SS was introduced. A lot. \_ You're right. However, with the widening income gap in this country, it seems that we are rapidly going back to something approximating the '20s. \_ And social security is going with it. \_ Wow. So we agree! Thanks! \_ Well, the fact that SS is hozed and broken is hardly a secret. Nor is the fact that the Dems stole all the money from it. \_ Wow. Wrong on both counts. Way to go... \_ Care to back up that accusation? \_ I think it's rather the reverse. The Republicans have presided over the largest expansions in public spending. \_ Since LBJ was in the white \_ You are wrong. It was Reagan who proposed that the payroll medicare and SS taxes be doubled in the 80s. It was argued hat starting with the 80s, the surplus money generated by the higher payroll tax payments would be used to retire the government debt so that by the time the baby boomers start retiring, the government would be in a better position to pay their pensions. Yet, there hasn't been a single year during the Reagan era when ALL of the surplus payroll tax payments were not shamelessly used for purposes completely unrelated to the social security or debt retirement. It was actually Bill Clinton who cared about balancing the budget. Then came GWB has again run record decicits and also proposed record breaking deficits for future without any viable proposal for a viable SS reform. Most economists agree the this country will be broke soon if this doesn't change. \_ Pessimism never created a job! Just put your blinders on, go to Walmart and buy Britney Spears and let the folks in Washington deal with the bean counting! house. Pretty much that whole time was a Dem congress. http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA189.html |
| 2004/9/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:33450 Activity:moderate |
9/10 National Debt severely underreported:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200409080940.asp
\_ Oh, the irony.
\_ How so?
\_ Will everyone who thought they were getting SS in the future
please raise their hand.
\_ yes: ..
no: ....
\_ Back in high school when I researched it for a class I had an
'uh-oh' moment.
\_ Well, duh. We never had a surplus during the Clinton years if
you take into account SS/Medicare liabilities. But like the article
says, if you are in charge of the dollar it becomes really tempting
to abuse the dollar, especially since spending money gets you
reelected and saving it doesn't. |
| 2004/9/9 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:33430 Activity:nil |
9/9 Survey: Millions in LA County struggling with literacy
(Mexifornia here we come!!!)
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1210628/posts
\_ Or you can look at it the other way, millions of Californians
are illiterate in Spanish, which was the original official
language. I mean, there's a reason why it's called "San Jose"
and not St. Joe's.
\_ why should Californians care much about the language that WAS
the official language nearly two centuries ago? |
| 2004/8/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:33210 Activity:kinda low |
8/29 The man of the East cannot take Americans seriously because
they have never undergone the experiences that teach men how
relative their judgement and thinking habits are.
Their resultant lack of imagination is appalling.
\_ Excuse me, but WTF?
\_ Just an out-of-context quote.
\_ W00t!
\_ Europeans?
\_ Because they were born and raised in a given social order
and in a given system of values, they believe that any other
order must be "unnatural", and that it cannot last because
it is incompatible with human nature. But even they may
one day know fire, hunger, and sword.
\_ THEY CALL HIM JUDGE, HIS LAST NAME IS DRED
SO BREAK THE LAW AND YOU'LL WIND UP DEAD!
TRUTH AND JUSTICE IS WHAT HE'S FIGHTING FOR
JUDGE DRED THE MAN, HE IS THE LAWWWWWWWWWW!!!
\_ In all probability this is what will occur;
for it is hard to believe that when one half of the world
is living through terrible disasters, the other half
can continue a nineteenth-century mode of life,
learning about the distress of its distant fellowmen
only from movies and newspapers. Recent examples
teach us that this cannot be.
\_ RESPECT THE BADGE!
HE EARNED IT WITH HIS BLOOD!
FEAR THE GUN!
YOUR SENTENCE MAY BE DEATH BECAUSE
I AM THE LAW!!!!! |
| 2004/8/2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:32628 Activity:insanely high |
8/2 Someone posted a few days ago: "Too bad 58% of the people don't know
that the economy would collapse if the deficit was zero." I happen to
be among the 58%. Can you please elaborate? Thx.
\_ The trade deficit or the budget deficit?
\_ I think it was the budget deficit.
\_ I think the OP of the quote meant the debt and not the
deficit. If it was the deficit then OP is truly ignorant
because there have been budget surpluses in the past.
However, there has always been a national debt. If we
were to pay off that debt (which stands at $7 Trillion
currently) there may be certain financial repercussions
that economists aren't sure about. Greenspan commented
on this briefly a couple years ago when there was overly
optimistic talks about paying off the national debt
within our lifetimes based on extrapolating from the
surpluses we were getting from dot-com mania.
\_ Someone's an idiot?
\_ I seem to remember some discussion of financial chaos if the US
government bond market disappeared.
\_ US Bond market stops selling, Asian investors (and governments)
stop buying. They stop buying, they stop selling their own
currencies to buy dollars. That happens, the dollar starts to
deppreciate VS. the Yen and Yuan. That happens, and asian goods
becmore more expensive in the US, then asian exports start to
decline, which is a big part of their economy.
\_ US governemnt bond is the classic risk-free investment, and
some people like to invest in them. Also, aren't lots of
things tied to the price of a t-bill?
\_ Even if the government wasn't selling bonds, there'd still
be a t-bill market. The thing is prices would go up while
interest rates would go down.
\_ yea, but asia is becoming a big market itself, and asian
domestic consumption is rising fast in relative importance.
japan's economy was pulled out of its 10-year recession by
by china, for instance.
\_ Are there notable economies that regularly run a budgetary surplus?
Probably some of the oil states, Norway for example.
\_ China does not seem to have a trade deficit, and it's economy
does not seem to be collapsing. We had a budget surplus a few
years back and the economy was doing hell a lot better than it is
today.
\_ Historically, we run a budgetary deficiet, and budgetary
surpluses are by far the exception. And when we were running
the surplus, there was confusion among some financial people
re US governement bond market.
\_ Those who spread these kind of lies are republicans profiting from
the war, the oil, and everything else at the expense of the middle
class.
\_ We need partha for the definitive answer.
\_ The way I see it, it is similar to managing a household.
If you manage your household, then you will try not to run
into budget deficit, because you know if you borrow money,
you have to pay it back with interest. Now why does the
government runs a budget deficit most of the time? It's
simple, because those who spend the money are not
responsible for paying it back. Think about it this way, if
your household will be run by someone else 4 years later,
you might not hesitate to overspend, especially buying
expensive stuff from a store you own down the street. Most
households are more responsible about money because they
have to pay back whatever they spent. The government does
not. It depends on how corrupt they are. The democrats want
to spend the money on public infrastructure, on job
creation, on welfare (not everything I agree with). The
republican wants to spend money on defense (the big surplus
we had, geez, what can we do with all these money, how do I
get it into my pockets), and for that, they need to create
enemies and wage wars around the world.
\_ spending billions on missile defense systems that don't work
isn't defense, it's welfare.
\_ Don't forget other corporate welfare like crop subsidies,
ethanol programs, and tax cuts for 'job training' that
amounts to operating the cash register at Walmart.
\_ I figured I'd just post the most obviously fraudulent...
Now watch as the motd neocons try to explain to us why
deploying a system which was shown not to work
makes sense, even without further testing.
\_ Republicans also 'spend' surplusses by giving tax cuts, then
scream bloody murder when you try to raise taxes to cover the
defecit.
\_ BTW, what was the last time the national debt was 0?
\_ I am so happy no one is using such facts to lobby for deficits. |
| 2004/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:32591 Activity:high |
7/30 Mmmm... record deficits... where have we heard that before?
\_ Ray-gun!
\_ Do not mock St. Ronald.
\_ Mao the Pun!
\_ Did his son speak at a Democratic convention?
\_ Republican: when economy is good, tax cut, when economy is
bad, more tax cut. Tax cut is the solution to every
problem. When the rich have more money to spend, everybody
would be ok! Who cares about the deficit because they don't
have to pay it back anyway, it's the tax payer's problem.
How can you people vote for republicans and sleep at night?
\_ Democrats: when economy is good, raise tax, when economy is bad,
raise more tax. Blah blah blah ......
\_ Mmmm, someone obviously DIDN'T get the talking points. "Tax
and spend liberal" is old hat, now you have to talk about
"fighting terrorism."
Fifty-Eight percent of registered voters feel reducing the
deficit is more important than cutting taxes...refer to the
poll numbers at the bottom of this column:
http://www.slate.com/id/2104539
\_ We ought to be able to do both. Look at how much taxes
have gone up in the last 100 years. If we don't slow down
soon we will be living under communism.
\_ what's wrong with communism?
\_ But how much more money are we spending now on welfare,
stupid lawsuits, prisons for death-roll immates, and
providing services to the illegal immirgrants?
\_ Don't forget the much-larger military budget and
service on the debt.
\_ Kudos for hitting all the hard right hot buttons
simultaneously, but all of those are miniscule
in comparison to the military budget, Social
Security, and a lot of other thing. As far as
death row inmates go, the only way to save real
money on prisons is to decriminalize all drugs.
\_ anyone got any link as to the percentage of the
federal spending? What percentage is the military?
the prisons, education, etc?
\_ Most prison spending is at the state level, and
though the feds to provide some money for
education, a lot of that is also state and
local taxes.
\_ Yah, there are really very few federal
prisons. The majority of correctional
facilitiies are county jails, though I'm a
little unclear whether the state gives any
money for those. |
| 2004/7/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:32435 Activity:very high |
7/22 So, the thread got deleted, but I am curious what the people
who thought the fascism essay was well-informed and informative
thought about the author classifying militant anarchists/libertarians
as a proto-fascist movement? No one ever commented on that.
It was a really dumb thing to write.
\_ That is not what he said at all. He stated that they have
political alliances with some extreme right wing groups and
sometimes exchange ideas. I think that is correct. Where do
you think these "income tax is unconstitutional" types get
their thread of argument from? Certainly not from the
usual trailer trash White Patriot guy.
\_ Yeah, must be a right wing conspiracy feeding them these
arguments.
\_ All right I checked and he lump them in with the
\_ All right I checked and he lumps them in with the
"xenophobic right" which is kind of bizarre. But they
certainly deserve some of the credit for making
the Rush Limbaugh anti-government screed more
respectable. Why does it have to be a "conspiracy"?
They all go to the same gun shows, maybe they
realy do listen to each others arguments. What
is so nutty about?
really do listen to each others arguments. What
is so nutty about that?
\_ Wait, are you saying 'going to gun shows' is a stain on
one's character and intellectual integrity? Dude.
People go to gun shows. You know, to buy guns, and
look at pretty old rifles. You are a loon.
\_ No, I didn't say that, you inferred it. I am a loon
because I know that both libertarian types and
anti-government tax freedom nutters go to gun shows?
How do you think that I know that? I sure as hell
didn't find it out reading Salon.
\_ What sort of idiot is in favor of more government? All
intelligent people are anti-government. It's a huge
beaurocracy of the mediocre and uncaring. How can anyone
be in favor of that??
\_ Lots of sorts of idiots, I'd wager. I am personally
for better government and more government where I
I am pretty sure it would do better than private
enterprise, like the health care system, to start with.
Lots of idiots want better schools, roads, more
rapid transit, better fire systems, hospitals,
mental health care, etc.
\_ It never ceases to amaze me how people still believe
government control of any business (like Healthcare)
is ultimately better.
\_ There are plenty of studies that show that
countries with socialized medicine have much
better price/performance ratios on healthcare.
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002173.html
\_ I don't want better price/performance health care
ratios. I want the best health care. Period. Of
course a government run HC facility will have
better *ratios*! You can't get the newest medical
techniques and equipment! So you die but it saves
a lot of money. Brilliant!
\_ you can't afford the best healthcare period.
if you don't want to die, try exercising and
eating right, and not becoming a fat pig.
prevention health care has good price /
performance ratio. fancy equipment just
prolong your miserable suffering.
\_ National Health in the UK is a catastrophe--
it swallows insane amounts of money without
delivering much. Same with Germany. France and
Sweden have obscene income tax rates to support
their habits. Lots of Euro countries also have
massive public pressure to put hospitals in the
furthest corners of nowhere. It's not as obvious
as it seems. -John
\_ People I know in France and England feel
differently. They praise socialized medicine.
Also, speaking of Sweden, I find it very
interesting that on basically every study
related to health care, standard of living,
freedom of expression, happiness,
social tolerance, and other quality of life
issues, Sweden consitently ranks near the
top and usually higher than the US. -!op
\_ I have several friends in the UK, and they
moved to private healthcare the moment they
could afford it. French regional health-
care is high quality, but in cities it is
a calamity. As for Sweden, "quality"
perceptions are also largely a factor of
how much aid you receive. Students will
love it, most upwardly mobile individuals
I know from there try to move out. Not
to mention Norway, with similar services,
but one of the world's higher suicide
rates... -John
\_ This actually fits right in with yesterday's
bureaucracy discussion. Bureaucracies, by
nature, must impose rules over the whole
system. Any rule they put in place,
immediately changes the ecomomics of the
medicine. Suddenly it's not "pleaseing the
customer," it's "applying the rules directly
so I won't get sued," or, even more commonly
"gaming the system so I make more money."
Such rules obviously stifle innovation and
research. For any given problem, a lot of
little groups will solve the problem faster
than one huge bureaucracy grinding through it
with trial and error. Try a throught
experiment. Make up some law that would
probably be passed about new medicines. Then
figure out what that would cause in the market
place. I defy you to come up with a possiable
law that wouldn't screw everything and
ultimately result in either the end of most
medical research or massive corruption, or
both.
\_ I spent most of last night in the ER of
an American private hospital, and I just
want to say a big "fuck you" to anyone who
thinks the US system is anything but fucking
barbaric. I'm not arguing for a european system
or any other particular system, I'm just saying
that if anyone here doesn't think our system is
100% broken they can go fuck themselves.
\_ This is the result of HMOs fucking everything
up. Our health care system has already been
destroyed. We're arguing about bringing it
back to the way it used to be instead of
going even further towards the failed
socialist model.
\_ You're right. The problem is right now
we've got a kind of half and half
system. It's sorta private, but it has
a number of bureaucracies (HMOs,
Medicaide) that act like little
socialized Healthcare systems. Lawyers,
Liberals, and insuracemen have been
pushing in this direction for a long
time, and it's screwed us up. What I
don't is understand why so many people
think the solution to the problem is
MORE socialization. "Socialism didn't
work, obviously it wasn't enough! We
need communism!" Huh?
\_ Compare and contrast the Canadian model
with the American model. The Canadians
pay less and get more, no matter how
you slice it. They live longer, healthier
lives, with less infant mortality and
better health outcomes. And they pay
much less than US patients, both in
overall dollars and as a percentage
of GDP. Yet you refuse to even consider
that this might be because their
socialist system is superior in this
area. Faith based economics, anyone?
\_ Socialism makes baby Jesus cry.
\_ How did these words get in my
mouth? _I_ didn't put them
there... OH! you did! I'm sure
it's better in that area. Never
said it wasn't. But I think
you're leaving out a lot of
variables and important factors.
For example, how much medical R&D is
done by Canadian compaines? How
many Canadian crack fiends are
there per capita? What's the
average wait for important care? etc.
\_ Fewer crack fiends, more beaver
junkies.
\_ Which words did I put in your
mouth? "Socialism didn't work..."
But you said that! OH!
I have studied where money is
spent in health care, in both
countries. In niether one do
crack babies count for even
1/10 of 1 percent. In the US
50 percent of lifetime spending
occurs in the last three months
of life.
\_ It's interesting how people who are in favor of
open source and the whole "lots of eyes" concept
to solve problems are so often in favor of big
government one-stop-fits-all 'solutions' to
real world problems. I don't get it. I guess
it really comes down to they want free stuff,
and don't really believe the rest of the open
source philosophy.
\_ I don't know about this private or public thing.
One thing I know is that health insurance should
all have higher deductibles and have the customer
pay a percentage of the charges up to a
significant limit. I see too many colleagues
abuse health insurance by visiting doctors,
chiropractors day in and day out for very minor
conditions, and their doctors are happy to comply.
American natives are especially good at bilking
the system like this. They also eat like pigs
and don't exercise, increasing health insurance
costs for everyone. Just look at Rush Limbaugh
or Dick Cheney, both too fat! Health INSURANCE
should be an INSURANCE, not free healthcare! |
| 2004/7/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:32428 Activity:insanely high |
7/22 After giving it some thought, I think the real issue isn't 'communism'
or 'fascism' but 'bureaucratism.' Large, soulless bureaucracies are
something Big Government and Big Business have in common. In fact, the
two Bigs are so similar, I am surprised people can be so vehemently
opposed to one and not the other. The issue is that people are small
pack animals, they don't like big ant hill arragements, and so they are
unhappy working as a part of a bureaucracy. Ask anyone working with
(or for) one of the above Bigs. I think what's needed is to make
our society more like a collection of packs and less like an ant hill,
or to make us more like ants biologically. -- ilyas
\_ Theory indicates that ant societies are as cohesive and
altruistic as they are because siblings share 3/4 of their
chromosomes, not just 1/2. Humans do not have this interesting
reproductive scheme.
\_ Interesting sidenote: in african mole rat societies (they are the
only mammal to evolve eusociality), the 'worker rats' cannot
breed because, apparently, they are too stressed out by the
bossing around they receive from the 'queen rat.' -- ilyas
\_ Awsome! I've tried to convince you of this repeatedly, as have other
poeple on the motd. Now, the next step is to recognize that the
libertarian stance that big business should have no restrictions
on it is just as dangerous to individual rights as statism,
particularly since the big business interests and the statists
generally work hand in hand.
\_ The problem is, your solution to Big Business is to sic Big
Government on it. I am a little sceptical of this, for obvious
reasons. The libertarians believe Big Business should have
restrictions, btw, same as everyone else. They shouldn't trample
on people's rights. My point is a wider, I think, point about
what kind of society it takes to make people happy. Even if
Big Business was perfectly well behaved, I think people would be
unhappy working for it, and dealing with it. We as humans just
don't like large hierarchies very much. -- ilyas
\_ Ah, but libertarians admit that big government is needed
to defend against foreign enemies, even if it is a necessary
evil. This is totally analogous. When a corporation with
hundreds of thousands of employess is killing people by
dumping toxic waste into the water table, using big gov't to
fight them in court is exactly analogous to using it
to fight a foreign enemy who is trying to kill us.
\_ You seem to know a lot about libertarians that I, a
libertarian, find very new. Are you sure you aren't
confusing libertarians and republicans? -- ilyas
\_ don't most libertarians vote republican?
\_ Libertarianism seems doomed as a practical model of
governance, because it is based entirely on ideal
models. In this way it is very much like communism.
\_ ... moved.
\_ I didn't! I don't think ilya is using motdedit,
so his posts are getting intermingled as he
edits them. This happens to people a lot.
\_ Tell us about the ant-people, ilyas
\_ Read Hellstrom's Hive by Frank Herbert. A really creepy book.
-- ilyas
\_ There is no such thing as society, only collections of individuals.
-- some stupid old bitty
\_ How can rational people be pro-Big-Government and
anti-Big-Business? Because they believe the former ultimately
takes care of them, but the latter works them to death in pursuit
of the Almighty Dollar. How can a person be anti-Big-Government
and pro-Big-Business? By believing the former takes advantage of
hard working folks, benefiting the lazy; and the latter is a
creation of hard working people and raises the standard of living
for everyone. But everyone knew all of this already, right?
\_ I think neither of those beliefs is very rational. The two
Bigs are not very different in their structure. Their only
difference is mandate (Big gvt can use force). -- ilyas
\_ That 'difference' is B.S. Big business can always get the
government to use force for it. If there was no government
then business would just have private armies.
\_ While you think that these beliefs are not very rational,
rational people do hold these beliefs. (There is a subtlety
in that sentence.)
\_ You may wish to consult this entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
\_ Naturally you can find rational people who are anti-both.
I was addressing ilyas' "surprise" at people being pro-one
and anti-the-other.
\_ Don't expect people here to understand what
is a logical fallacy and what is not. Reading
comprehension is not a general forte here.
\_ I is a college student!
\_ People don't like feeling like they aren't in control of their
lives. People by nature think large hierarchies reduce their
freedom. Big business and big government are both large
hierarchies, so both are bad. We should have smaller hierarchies.
I think I've just summarized your thesis.
\_ It's a pretty good attempt. I would only add that even in
situations where people understand that their freedom must
be voluntarily given up (say to sit in a cubicle and program
for a day), they will still be unhappy due to the incessant
rain of little stupidities and injustices that you would get
working in some large org. Also, not only do 'people think that',
it's actually true. -- ilyas
\_ You could have just said:
Large hierachies *do* reduce happiness, and this occurs
whether people are voluntarily part of the hierarchy (as in
a company) or forced to be in it (as in subject to the federal
government).
\_ I think the voluntary aspect is important. If I am truly
free to leave to form my own group or join another then
I can potentially be happy working as a group I believe in.
If economic pressures are too harsh then freedom will
depend too much on competitive advantage.
\_ I don't think it's always true. I work for a large corp. but
operationally the only concern is my immediate group. There
is a common business hierarchy with a boss/director/VP. Any
time you have any kind of hierarchy there's potential strife.
Even small tribal societies, or wolf packs for that matter,
may operate seemingly ideally but are not free of strife.
I think this sort of strife is reduced when there are social
elements in place to avoid huge differentials in wealth and
power, fundamental rights are guaranteed, and power is
representational. Then there is a size beyond which this
power loses some meaning, and probably the US federal gov't
has grown to a size and power that is uncomfortable.
"But I was now escaped out of the shadow of the Roman empire,
under whose toppling monuments we were all cradled, whose laws
and letters are on every hand of us, constraining and
preventing. I was now to see what men might be whose fathers
had never studied Virgil, had never been conquered by Caesar,
and never been ruled by the wisdom of Gaius or Papinian." |
| 2004/7/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:31167 Activity:high |
7/5 Read a detailed transcript of Cheney's comments to Sen. Leahy:
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/062504.asp
\_ woot!
\_ w00t!
\_ Wow, that's almost clever. |
| 2004/7/2 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:31147 Activity:nil 66%like:31139 |
7/2 With Social Security everybody wins!
http://www.ssa.gov/kids/kids.htm
\_ I am a Grasshopper.
When I saw my friends relaxing, I said that we had to store our
money away for the winter. Sure none of it will go to _our_
retirement because the system will go bankrupt, but at least that's
money that won't go into a 401(k), ensuring a solvent retirement
for our generation! |
| 2004/7/2 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:31139 Activity:nil 66%like:31147 |
7/2 With Social Security everybody wins!
http://www.ssa.gov/kids/kids.htm |
| 2004/7/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:31107 Activity:insanely high 72%like:31117 |
7/1 Liars and cheaters have bigger brains:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996090
\_ They need them, keeping track of all the lies.
\_ Explains why Democrats are "smarter" than Republicans.
\_ Republicans use their money to buy their lies, and cheat
people out of their money.
\_ In monkeys and apes. |
| 2004/6/4 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:30591 Activity:very high |
6/4 How did Asians and Pacific Islanders get in the same "racial
grouping?" There's no cultural connection at all.
\_ They're all colored folk, duh!
\_ Read a book. Race is based on genetics not how you party.
\_ Ok, then give me a reasonably strong genetic link between
Pasific Islanders, Indians, and Japanese. Oh, and where do
guys like Aboriginies fit in? They're black but not
african.
\_ Australia and the Pacific islands were all settled by
people from southeast Asia.
\_ He was trying to make a point and you had to bring some
trivial and easy to find facts into this. WTF is wrong
with you? Why are you taking away his right to hate?
\_ Sheesh, so was North America, what aren't Native
Americans considered asians? Heck, if you're gonna
argue about origins, we all came from Africa.
\_ NA aren't asian because they go too far back to
that link and due to isolation have become a distinct
people not just on a grand scale but between major
tribal groups. The Navajo of today has very little
in common with his Asian ancestor of 5k to 10k years
ago. Origins count but drift due to time and
isolation creates new races. If you really want to
be that way about it, there is no such thing as race.
Humans like to classify things even if they are
artificial. However, since we know from medical
research that difference races react differently to
different drugs and other procedures there really
are different races which most believed formed after
the out-of-Africa event or time period.
\_ If you are really interested in race, there is a good SciAm
article on it recently, that is well worth reading. I think I
was able to find a non-pay link to the text at one point. i'll
see if i can dig it up. -phuqm
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/medsoc/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1 |
| 2004/4/21-22 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:13324 Activity:nil |
4/21 This administration stole $700mm from Afghan budget to attack Iraq.
The public needs to know about this. Email Hiatt@washpost.com
Tell him to cover the story, and tell him it's front page material.
\_ I don't think this is true, because it would indicate this
Administration has a clue.
\_ they stole the election, stole from SS and medicare...hmmmmmmm,
sounds like a pattern, but not enough care. So bizness as usual. |
| 2004/3/4-5 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:12516 Activity:nil |
4/3 Republican Congressman Godwins himself!
http://csua.org/u/6a0 (radio news link)
\_ Someone should remind Mr. Cole that for a long time before our
entry into WWII, many Americans did indeed support Hitler.
\_ "Many"? Bullshit. There are always stupid people in large
groups. I'd *love* to see you cite the term "many".
\_ "Cole is quoted as asking what Hitler might have thought had
Franklin Roosevelt not been re-elected in 1944."
The difference being that Roosevelt was a Democrat and a social
progressive.
\_ And a war monger who got us into WWII on a pretext that caused
the lost of hundreds of American lives and a big chunk of the
U.S. Navy.
\_ I also don't think the Japanese were too thrilled one way or another
when Churchill got ousted in April '45. |
| 2004/2/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:12412 Activity:high |
02/26 http://polls.yahoo.com/public/archives/57019568/p-quote-312 But that isn't how Social Security calculates initial benefits, at least since 1977. Instead, lifetime earnings are indexed by the annual change in average national wages--a procedure called wage indexing. Sound like a small technical difference? In fact, some authors have pointed out, the entire projected Social Security shortfall of 25 trillion dollars can be shown to disappear, merely by switching these two techniques. \_ it's on yahoo. Go post there if you care. \_ So instead of basing SS payouts on income earned, it becomes based on the cost of consumer goods. So under a new system: as things get cheaper, your SS payout gets smaller. Under the old system: as wages rise, so does your payout. \_ It doesn't sound like a small technical difference at all. Under the old system, SS had to track your success in life. Under the new system, SS merely has to track the cost of subsisting you. This is a HUGE difference, morally, considering the huge chunk of people's (generally rising) wages that have to be contributed to SS. Of course under this new system SS will not be bankrupt -- it just takes your money but only provides subsistence in return. How about we change SS so participation is voluntary? This will fix it instantly. -- ilyas \_ [Someone deleted the nifty anti-socialist troll.] \_ no, no, no, we can't have voluntary participation. how else will we reach socialist nirvana if we don't soak the people who work the hardest to support the least capable? [deleted again] [restored because I like seeing socialists cry and whine after they get put in their place on the motd] \_ Except that you didn't restore the part where YOU got put in your place. Selective restoration is even more dumb than selective deletion. Goodbye. \_ You're a big baby. I restored the parts I have from my own files. If you added something else after that which I never saw, tough shit, babycakes. \_ Uh, huh. Whatever, big boy - I'm not the one throwing around the word "socialist" like a big club... \_ Shaddup troll. \_ Die, socialist scum! The opposing view isn't a troll, it is the opposing view. If you had something worth saying on the topic, you'd say it. You don't so stop wasting bits. \_ Die socialist scum? Who's wasting bits? \_ Just playing along with the theme. The rest of what I've said in both comments above remains true, accurate, and unrefuted. Get a sense of humor. [restored because I like seeing socialists cry and whine dumb than selective deletion. Goodbye. after they get put in their place on the motd] \_ Sigh. What's wrong with wanting a society where every man, woman, and child is guaranteed nutrition, shelter, healthcare, safety, and a decent education? Social Security is just one small step in the right direction. Don't trash the idea just because the current system needs overhauling. \_ The problem is you want to coerce someone else to take your view at gunpoint - that is what is 'wrong'. Also recognize that those individuals using the same code words as you - Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao... - were directly reponsible for overhauling. 10's of millions of deaths in the 21th century. Shouldn't that be of some concern? \_ There is nothing wrong with wanting something like this, but you have to accept the consequences of the means you would use to achieve such a society. The problem is, I can keep expanding the scope of entitlements that would be good (what if I want to guarantee decent nutrition for all pets, or some minimum level of prosperity for every human being, or guaranteed college education, etc. etc. etc.) Eventually you end up extinguishing property rights altogether, but at least everyone has some minimal level of something or other. Is the price worth it? Everyone becomes a pauper. It's also worth it to think about _why_ SS needs overhauling. Is it an accident, or a pattern? -- ilyas \_ Any system, whether socialism or libertarianism makes no sense when taken to ridiculous extremes. You just have to hope that the people in control (hopefully voters) have enough sense to choose a happy middle ground. \_ Well, I am an optimist. I d like to believe that the best society isn't just some arbitrary middle ground between competing ideologies, twitching in some state of unsteady equilibrium, subject to vagaries of the election season and voter mood swings. -- ilyas \_ Ilya, I think you're an "idealist" rather than an optimist. The problem with idealists is that reality never conforms to an ideal. \_ When I lost my idealism I stopped being a libertarian. -- !ilyas \_ You are not an optimist, you are a kook at best, an extremist at worst. \_ But he's our kook and we love him. \_ But he's our kook and we love him. \_ They are not exclusive. You can be both. \_ They are not exclusive. You can be both. \_ Lenin would have called you a 'useful New Zeeland, The Netherlands all started in this idiot' \_ You keep claiming this ilyas, but can you give an example of any society anywhere in history that went down this slippery slope? Sweden, New Zealand, The Netherlands all started in this direction and have since then cut taxes and social benefits as they see the longterm cost to their economies. -ausman \_ This is a weak argument for two reasons. (1) We might not have given enough time to Western socialism. Eastern socialism is older, and collapsed. (2) Even if you are right, and it will never happen (or at least not any time soon), would you really want to live in a society where the only thing stopping complete soviet style income redistribution is expedience and voter inertia? How do you know these forces, which the pragmatic relies on so much, will not give out one day? -- ilyas \_ Where did Sweden makes cuts? New Zealand? \_ Maybe he meant Germany. I think the point is, these countries haven't gone headlong into full socialism or communism and don't appear likely to ever do so. It's true that their taxes harm their economic competitiveness. But life is about more than cold efficiency. \_ Harm the economy enough and there won't be enough wealth available to support the system. These sorts of supplemental assistance programs are draining off the economy. I don't believe in cold hard efficiency but I don't want to see the whole system suffocate in it's own feces. \_ Okay maybe Sweden is a bad example. I seem to remember The Economist claiming they had cut their social benefits, but if you look at government spending as a percentage of GDP, it has gone down in New Zealand, economies. -ausman efficiency but I don't want to see the whole system suffocate in it's own feces. citizenry, and you don't have to privatize all basic services in order to support a prosperous economy. Germany and The Netherlands over the last decade. http://csua.org/u/66p -ausman \_ The real point is this: Sweden, New Zealand, and Switzerland are positive examples of places that have great social benefits _and_ still support businesses. You don't have to abolish all property ownership in of supplemental income system so poor old people who are no longer able to work don't have to eat catfood. That's not order to provide the basics for your citizenry, and you don't have to privatize all basic services in order to support a prosperous economy. \_ For a generation such a system \_ The fact that you think this is actually important is at the heart of your ridiculousness. can exist, especially when national defense is paid for by Uncle Sam; these are already showing signs of decay and have < 20 years before bankruptcy. \_ I guess it depends on whether you see SS as a retirement system or a safety net. It was never really designed to be the former, but politicians have found it politically expedient to keep expanding benefits and including more and more people in it. The only way it works fiscally is as the latter. This is what it originally was intended as. Eliminate the survivor and disability benefits and the system would work fine. \_ You're trying to tell the motd about the need for safety nets? Good luck, dude. \_ Makes a lot of sense to me, SS as a safety net, not a retirement system, and I'm a libur'l. \_ I'm a conservative. I'm in favor of safety nets and some sort of supplemental income system so poor old people who are no longer able to work don't have to eat cat food. That's not what the current system is about today. It's a publicly known fact for many many years that the system *can't* last as it exists now. I've never expected to get a single penny from the system. I see it as part of my federal income taxes and nothing more. All out-go, no come-back. \_ Can you summarize your (conservative) position in some small set of principles? -- ilyas \_ The fact that you think this is actually important is at the heart of your ridiculousness. \_ Yes, I think principles are important. Sorry, I ll try to be less kooky next time. -- ilyas \_ No. Life is more complicated than that. That's one of things that is wrong with the libertarians and the various smaller one-item political parties. --conser. \_ I can - I believe it is incumbent on every individual as it exists now. I've never expected to get a single penny \_ Can you summarize your (conservative) position in some small set of principles? -- ilyas \_ catfood is a good deal more expensive price/nutrition-wise from the system. I see it as part of my federal income taxes and nothing more. All out-go, no come-back. \_ Can you summarize your (conservative) position in some small set of principles? -- ilyas \_ No. Life is more complicated than that. That's one of things that is wrong with the libertarians and the various smaller one-item political parties. --conser. (except for the retarded or disabled) to take responsible actions throughout their lives and live with the consequences. This is called 'freedom'; the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. I believe in equal opportunity, not economic equality by government fiat. The rule of law; a government of laws and not men. \_ Providing for a minimum economic floor is not the same as economic equality. Why should those retards get a free lunch when even millions of below- average people "fail"? The fact is that even with best efforts people can fail. And others can do well enough to get by most of the time... but how many can become independently wealthy? Your freedom is just greed. "i'm fine, fuck the losers". \_ No, I am a huge proponent of charity, faith based or otherwise. You instead, want to coerce me at gunpoint to pay to assuage your conscience. You are thief backed up by government fiat; that's tyranny. You are elitist statist and what Lenin would call a 'useful idiot'. American used to be place of rugged indvidualists who would balk at the idea of a gov't handout; now we have weak paintywaists who believe they have an enshrined constitutional right to cradle to grave care from an authority figure. Here's a great exegisis: http://csua.org/u/66u \_ Tell us, little chile, of the old Americans. Which John Wayne movies did you learn of them from? \_ cat food is a good deal more expensive price/nutrition-wise than human food. Go go marketing... \_ I don't think that was always the case. Anyway, dry dogfood is quite cheap, if you buy the right brand. |
| 2004/2/26 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:12411 Activity:nil |
2/24 General question for anti-gov't-program types: Do you think it's ok
to just abandon those that are unable to properly care for themselves?
For example: retards, invalids, elderly, children of incompetents,
incompetents, etc.? How would you propose dealing with them?
\_ I'm one of the most conservative people on the motd. I propose that
society takes care of those who truly can not take care of
themselves. Our society moves too fast, is too dispersed and no
longer fit to deal with charity cases with charity. However, I do
not believe "the elderly" belong on your list of those unable to
care for themselves. There is nothing about simply being 'elderly'
that puts a person in the same category as the mentally disabled or
those truly physically unable to care for themselves. They fall
into the welfare-state socialism-is-a-failure i-hate-big-government-
waste category. Social security was never intended to be the sole
support for old people. It is/was a socialist policy designed to
supplement an old person's other income. That "other income" is
the old person's responsibility. They had an entire lifetime to get
their act together. I don't feel responsible for people being
wasteful or stupid with their lives. I would make ilyas pay a tiny
amount of his income (less than 1%) to support the truly needy but
wouldn't take a penny from him for "the elderly".
\_ Well I put them there more as "incompetents". Or people who for
whatever reason aren't smart enough or are unfortunate enough so
wind up being economically unviable. We don't have a full-
unemployment economy like Kucinich wants. So bottom line, do you
just let them wander around homeless, spreading disease, and die?
Who decides whether someone "truly can not take care of
themselves"? That could be faked right? Or self-induced... I've
been around mentally ill people. Sometimes they could sort of
function, but not enough to compete. Or they might be stuck with
the mind of a 10 year old, which is enough to appear coherent but
not enough to really survive. If nothing else they could put
themselves in jail. Isn't it perverse? At least with socialism,
people who have some normal human ambition will strive to achieve
while the rest are provided some simple support. (I'd also favor
a more limited immigration policy. And I don't believe in giving
"asylum".)
\_ You are a conservative, but when the rubber hits the road you are
a pragmatic first, a conservative second. The problem is, I can
always make a case that more people need to be included in the
entitlement you are creating (what about old people who
immigrated from North Korea, who had no chance to improve their
lot, etc. etc.) The real issue here is whether property rights
trump 'right to not die.' I believe so (I also believe there is
no such right as 'right to not die'). Once you are willing to
redistribute money from specific people to other specific people
(as opposed to servicing certain kinds of 'global goods') using
force, it's all a matter of sliding down a gentle slope from your
position to orthodox socialism. -- ilyas
\_ I propose to rely on charity and culture of compassion (or if you are
more cynical, peer pressure of compassion), rather than on forcing
people to be compassionate. If confronted with a scenario where I
have to choose between letting someone die and forcing someone to
take care of them, I would choose the former. -- ilyas
\_ in WW2 Japan, the old people were deemed
useless because they took away precious resources (rice, time,
etc) that could otherwised be used for expanding their
empire. So, they killed many of them for the greater good.
\_ nippon bansai!!! nippon ichiban!!!!
\_ There is a difference between a safety net and socialized
retirement / medical care. Do you want to inculcate
government dependency (as if we haven't already)?
\_ so... if there's a safety net then how do you prevent people
from treating it the same as socialized blah? once most of these
people fall in they probably can't get out anyway.
\_ fuck em. let em die. |
| 2004/2/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:12402 Activity:nil |
2/24 Greenspan: Consider Social-Security Cuts
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1701048
This is the price you and I need to pay for a war which is not
needed to be fought.
\_ (1) Get your tenses straight. (2) Social Security is a pyramid
scheme and everyone knows it. This would have happened without
the Iraq war.
\_ I like how Greenspan was a big deficit hawk during Clinton, and said
nothing about this. But now with Bush he won't say mum about the
huge tax cuts which have helped create this mess - instead, we've
got to cut Social Security benefits! Where was this advice in the
'90s, Al, hmmm?
\_ Greenspan is experienced enough to know not to say anything
nor making any drastic interest rate move during an election
year. He is still a deficit hawk, even if it means abandoning
dividend tax cut which he favors.
\_ tax cuts didn't make this mess. it's been known since before you
were born. this wasn't news to anyone who has read a newspaper
in the last 30 years.
\_ The SS problem is from now- or soon-to-be-retiring baby boomers.
So I assume the "war which is not needed to be fought [sic]"
you're referring to would be WWII?
\_ Social Security system was flawed fundamentally, but we do had
a fiscal surplus which we could of fixed it. Instead, we blew it
on tax-cut for the wealthy and the corporation *AND* war on Iraq.
\_ 'Could of?' You can't be bothered to learn to form
sentences, but you are a political critic already?
\_ Lies there was never a surplus. It was Social Security
receipts being used for general expenditures. Guess
under whose administration this was started - Johnson.
\_ You're so blindly distracted by Iraq and very recent tax
cuts. Was 2003 really your political awakening? None of
this was news today. It has been known for decades and
some would say since SS was started that this would happen.
It's a Ponzi scheme. Go vote for Dean and let the clued
worry about the issues. |
| 2004/1/23 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:29756 Activity:nil |
1/22 Are people who support "pro-free-downloadable music" conservatives
or liberals?
\_ doesn't enter into it. the industry has failed by not recognizing
basic facts about the material. check out http://magnatune.com.
\_ In the sense of RPG alignment, I'd say they are Chaotic, not Evil.
\_ Nah, they are Neutral or even Lawful. They just don't care
about that law too much. They'd rather not break it, but it's
pretty minor and they obey most other laws. It's hard to make
the case they are really hurting anyone so it's not Evil.
\_ I said they're not evil, but since they are breaking the law
as a matter of course, they are NOT Lawful and probably Chaotic
An otherwise moral filesharer would probably be Chaotic Good
\_ Not to elevate this into an Iron Geek contest, but breaking
s few minor laws doesn't make a character Chaotic. Most
people are just opportunistic. Ok, they're not Lawful. But
if they're otherwise regular folks who fit in with society
they're not Chaotic.
\_ I agree. otherwise moral filesharer is Neutral-Good
\_ when "minor" laws are broken in large numbers, it becomes
a major problem.
\_ can you please refresh my memory? Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic, ...
\_ two axes: one of good-evil, and one of lawfulness-disregard
\_ Very roughly: Lawful=Act on principles or laws
Neutral=Balanced motives
Chaotic=Act on pragmatism or impulse
for law: L-N-C, and Good,Neutral,Evil, so every character is
one of G-N-E, and one of L-N-C, for a total of 9 different
personality types.
\_ They are the fallen paladins of the 'net, the blackguards if you
will.
\_ I suppose in the strictest sense of the definitions, a true
conservative would say it is illegal, and a true liberal would say
the laws should be changed. You know, conservative = conserve the
status quo. Liberal = liberalize laws or social norms.
\_ but don't liberals want to protect the rights of artists?
\_ I was just speaking as to the original meaning of the words,
not what they mean in common parlance. I don't want to open
that can of worms, unlike the OP.
\_ What if you support it, but you don't do it?
\_ what if you do it, but don't support it?
\_ play the monkey-spank game until you change your mind
\_ I'm conservative and support a total reexamination of IP law. |
| 2004/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Reference/Tax] UID:11869 Activity:nil |
1/20 [18-hour rule for debated threads enforced: political thread restored.]
Finally a tax cut the Republican's don't like:
\_ The apostrophe doesn't mean "an s
will follow"
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif _/
One that helps the middle class most, of course.
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003060.html
\_ typical... the rich & poor are taxed the same amt of SS due to the
$88k+ cap, so reducing SS tax helps all $80k earners the same
dollar amount, but of course $6k is pennies for the millionaire
while it's 2 months mortgage for normal folks.
\_ If you're paying $3k/month mortgage and/or making $88k a year,
here's a big fat fucking hint: YOU'RE NOT POOR!
\_ And that cap used to be $70k not that long ago.
\_ Yeah, let's kill social security sooner. Funny how it isn't called a
tax, but rather SS when it's supposed to be put into a 'lockbox'.
But when we want to shift the tax burden even higher it's called a
tax. -emarkp
\_ Did Bush raid the "lockbox"? Yes, he did and he used it to
handout tax cuts for the rich.
\_ Sh. Maligning the Pres. isn't allowed in Del Paso Manor.
\_ Pyramid scheme.
\_ Last I checked, my SS rate was still the same. -emarkp
\_ Rate, yes, funds available, no.
\_ Are the funds available >= the funds needed? -emarkp
\_ Well they would have been, if they had not
all been spent. Good enough until 2038 at least.
\_ So you're claiming that we're deficit spending for
SS? That is, that outlays of SS are higher than
collections? If so, I'd like to see something to
back up the claim. -emarkp
\_ No, I am claiming the opposite. Though the
outlays are projected to pass income in 2013
or so.
\_ So what precisely is your objection to moving
SS money around if there's a surplus? -emarkp
\_ I think the money should be used to
pay off the debt, not pay off GWB's
campaign contributors. Silly me.
\_ I don't see why any of you give a shit about SS. Not one of us
is likely to see so much as a penny from it after paying into it
for decades. People are living too long, getting too much out,
and not putting enough in to cover any of us.
\_ Hear hear... SS will be bankrupt long before we retire,
probably after the substantially increase taxes and
retroactively tax retirement savings.
\_ http://csua.org/u/5mh
"As critics have long noted, that means that someone earning [$87,900]
pays the same Social Security payroll tax as Microsoft's Bill Gates."
"For example, a filer earning between $40,000 and $50,000 pays 12.2
percent of his income in payroll taxes and 8.5 percent in income
taxes, according to a study by the Tax Policy Center.
By contrast, a worker earning more than $500,000 pays 3.5 percent of
income in payroll taxes, and 27.3 percent in income taxes."
\_ Worse than that, the combined rate is higher for people
making $87k/yr than it is for people making 88k-300k.
Guess how much I make?
\_ You do understand that federal income tax and social security
are wildly different things, right? The only thing they have
in common is that they're deducted from your salary (SS even
deducts from your company equal to the amount from your salary,
so you're really getting twice the shaft).
\_ They seem the same to me. The federal government takes
a bunch of my money and spends it. What is "different"
about them?
\_ You understand that people get the same amount out if they put
the same amount in? BG is not going to get more out of SS than
someone who made exactl $88k every year. If you think SS taxes
are so unfair to the poor then let's let the max contribution
rise all the way up and then we can pay BG a billion or two a
year when he hits 67 (or whatever) because he'll have put so
much in over the years. That makes sense, right?
\_ you're an idiot.
\_ thank you. now I know I've hit a nerve when that's the
only response to a factual description of how the world
works.
\_ You are wrong. Say two guys pay the same amount in and one
dies at 65 and other lives to be 100. They do not get the
same amount out. Your statement goes downhill from there.
\_ here's where I get to say "you're an idiot". Must I also
explain why the sky is blue? Please take your anal
retentive self and find a rock to crawl under. You're
the only one here who didn't understand the very basic
gradeschool concepts being applied here. In this case,
there is nothing the government can do if you drop dead
too early, however, it is obvious to any child that if
you live the same length of time you'll get the same amount
out as BG, assuming you're the same age, start drawing at
the same time and have been making at least $88k for most
of your working life. There, I did it. I fed the Mighty
Troll Of Anal Retention. Have a cookie.
\_ Thanks for the cookie, but you are still wrong. There
are thousands of scenarios where people who pay the
same amount in get differing amounts out. Your payout
is based on your highest five years of earnings, so
someone who makes 30k/yr his whole life gets less
back than somone who makes 10k/yr his whole life,
except for that 5 year period where he made 100k.
Is this fair? I dunno, maybe you have an opinion.
There is no way to design the system that is not
"unfair" to somebody or other.
\_ As an aside, I think the name "Social Security" should be changed
to "Welfare for Seniors". That way people wouldn't think it was
a retirement plan, we wouldn't have this nonsense about privatizing
it, and people wouldn't think that you should get out an amount
proportional to what you put in. If you're intelligent, lucky,
or thrifty you can prepare for retirement far better than
Social Security. The reason I support SS is that I don't want
to see stupid, unlucky, or spendthrift seniors starving living
in poverty. Finaly, naming it "Welfare for Seniors" would
probably make people realize the stupidity of making SS a
regressive payroll tax.
\_ What's the rationale behind the government providing MANDATORY
retirement plans to all US workers? I can understand rationale
for providing welfare type benefits(Redistrib. of wealth, etc.),
but SS has the guise of a "retirement plan:" you pay in young,
you get back when old. Firstly, anyone with income above $50k
should be able to provide for their own retirement, esp. with
federal tax savings plans like IRA's, Roth IRA's, 401k's, etc.
Secondly, anyone who is forced to live paycheck-to-paycheck
belongs in the poor category eventually, and will end up on
welfare or some other government freebie. |
| 2004/1/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:11641 Activity:high |
1/1 Is Welfare Unconstitutional?
http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/constitution.html
\_ This is silly. The way to attack welfare is to note it is
immoral, not unconstitutional.
\_ brilliant. what a fucking genius. someone give this guy an
honorary law degree! I particularly like his dollar bill
ribbon campaign.
\_ I didn't see the dollar bill campaign. Was it on the
front page?
\_ his site is so badly organized, it's hard to tell what's
intended to be the "front page." The dollar bill thing is
http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/capitalism.html
\_ No. It is not. It is also not what you meant to ask. The
relavent question is: Is FEDERAL welfare unconstitutional?
The answer to that is also 'no'. -crebbs
I haven't considered that question, but I would tend to doubt
it. -crebbs
\_ But...but...but...everything written by lonely cranks on the
Internet is TRUE, right?!
\_ Anyway, the Supreme Court has ruled that since every single
thing in the universe is somehow related to inter-state
thing in the universe is somehow related to inter-state
commerce, the feds can make whatever laws they want so long
as the supreme court likes them. Also, if you want to start a
constitutionality troll thread you should start with something
where at least one reasonable person will be on your side.
Here, I'll help. (see above) -crebbs
\_ But...but...but...everything written by lonely cranks on the
Internet is TRUE, right?!
\_ Oh, and anyway, the Supreme Court has ruled that since every
single thing in the universe is somehow related to
inter-state commerce, the feds can make whatever laws they
want so long as the supreme court likes them. -crebbs
commerce, the feds can make whatever laws they want so long
as the supreme court likes them. If you want to start a
constitutionality troll thread you should start with something
where at least one reasonable person will be on you side. Here,
I'll help. (see above) -crebbs
\_ Yes. We need fewer liberal activist judges on the Supreme
Court. Too much legislating from the bench going on, not
enough respect for the founding document of this country. |
| 2003/12/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:11607 Activity:moderate |
12/29 In my background check, my social security number seems to have
been associated with another name in 1998. What should I do?
\_ Associated by who? A credit bureau? Tell them to fix it. The
Feds? Then it's a black line agency that's taken over your
identity and you'll cease to exist in a few minutes. You don't have
to do anything in that case.
\_ Tell me your name and SS number and I will find out for you.
\_ Birthdate and Mother's maiden name too if you want it faster. |
| 2003/11/25-26 [Health, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:11227 Activity:moderate |
11/25 Cato Institute:
"Cato's director of health and welfare studies said, "Today's
passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill represents a return
to 1960's Great Society-style big government. Congress has failed in
its responsibility to reform Medicare, choosing instead to simply
throw money at the problem. It is our children and grandchildren who
will bear the cost of this massive new entitlement program."
http://www.cato.org/pressroom/index.html#medicare
\_ More importantly, they chose to throw money at the money-grubbing
HMOs, which lobbied very hard for this one.
\_ It's also a big chunk-o-welfare to drug companies, as the
government will be paying the full asking price for drugs.
Not only will more people be taking patented drugs, but those
who move from HMO coverage will bring more money to BigPharm, as
the HMOs can negotiate prices, but the gov't cannot.
\_ I told you before: republican bill bad, democrat bill good.
\_ Yes, you told us before, but you're just an obvious troll and
you're not saying anything of substance.
\_ It's not a troll if it's true. And who on is here saying
anything of substance? The typical response is, "you're
wrong and I hate you because you don't believe what I do
and I won't respond further because I don't like your
sources because I don't like their editors". You're so
damned self blind and clueless. |
| 2003/11/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:11194 Activity:moderate |
11/22 Any thoughts on the medicare bill on the house? There was lots of
discussion on the energy bill, but little on this one. Good/bad?
\_ The democrats are opposed and republicans in favor: it must be bad.
\_ It has this really curious feature where beneficiaries with very low
bills and very high bills are given lots of coverage, but those
with bills within the median are given much less coverage.
Anyway, both sides can go stick it where the sun don't shine - this
is just more expansion of the entitlement system for immediate
political gain, when they should be taking much more important
(and of course, politically painful) steps to reform the system.
Neither the Congress nor the President have displayed anything
approaching the courage and integrity necessary to make that happen.
--motd liberal
\_ What is a liberal doing bitching about an entitlement system?
You're no liberal. You sound more like a libertarian.
\_ Yup, agree. -- another motd libertarian
\_ I consider myself a liberal because of my opinions on social
issues and the workings of the justice system. I recognize the
need for serious reform of our entitlement system for the
elderly, however. From what I have seen, those than consider
themselves libertarians would like to dismantle the entire
entitlement system, rather than change the way that it
functions. Also, I think corporate welfare (i.e, the ethanol
subsidy which amounts to a direct transfer of taxpayer money
to ADMs executives) is equally in need of reform, but I haven't
heard the same from many libertarians. Not every liberal is
a raving Marxist/ANSWER loony, just like not every
conservative is a jingoistic dittohead. BTW, the Economist
has a very nice graph on what may happen to the budget
deficit in the next 10 years:
http://economist.com/images/20031108/CSF889.gif
--motd liberal
\_ Whoa there, bucko. If you haven't heard that corporate
welfare is bad from libertarians, you haven't heard from
any libertarians.
\_ that's the biggest load of shit on todays motd.
Libertarians blather about this, but when you look
issue by issue, they clearly favor the rights of
corporations over individuals, which will always lead
to corporate welfare. Libertarians are quite possibly
the biggest threat to american society today. if
libertarians continue to destroy the government,
issue by issue, they clearly favor the rights
corporations without any legal or ethical restraint
will rule our lives. [formatd, big time]
\_ Please point to ONE single instance of
libertarians, or even the libertarian party
supporting "the rights of corporations over
individuals". Libertarianism is ALL about the
the rights of individuals. You don't know what
the hell you are talking about. Your irrational
fear of what you clearly know nothing about is
disturbing. -phuqm
\_ read their fucking platform
http://www.lp.org
in particular, see
http://www.lp.org/issues/program/health.html
Yeah, I can't wait till we eliminate the
evil FDA so we're free to take whatever
drugs the pharmas feel like marketing.
\_ Health Care is what i assumed you would say.
I didn't consider opposition to the FDA.
I didn't realize that not being able to buy
drugs that have been legal in Europe for ages
was one of the "rights" of individuals that
you would be concerned with.
For the record, I personally believe a Food
and Drug admin. could play a valuable role
in society. But THE FDA is a net loss even
In terms of "rights" I don't see how any
you just have no standing whatsoever. Exactly
in terms of absolute benefit to society.
In terms of "rights" I don't see how you
will rule our lives. [formatd, big time]
drugs the pharmas feel like marketing.
can make any argument whatsoever. Exactly
WHICH "individual" right do you think is
being threatened by this position? -phuqm
\_ Just because you SAY libertarians favor the rights
of corporations over individuals, doesn't make it
true. Personally, I am not even sure all
libertarians are willing to grant corps legal person
status. At any rate, the libertarians don't
trust government much in the same way your amusing,
ranty little self doesn't trust Big Business.
Big Business is motivated by money. What is
of corporations over individuals, which will always
lead to corporate welfare. Libertarians are
quite possibly the biggest threat to american society
today. if libertarians continue to destroy the
government,
corporations without any legal or ethical restraint
\_ You're not the only one, you should
http://www.freerepublic.com Lots of libertarians.
will rule our lives.
Big Government motivated by? Think about that.
Big Government motivated by? Think about that.
\_ this libertarian thinks it's insane that corps have
legal person status and the rights that go with it.
that was a *huuuuge* mistake we'll be paying for
forever or until changed.
\_ agreed. It was primarily libertarians railing about
this in the motd previously. (e.g. me). It is also
mostly libertarians fighting eminent domain
abuses, where government orgs steal private
entity's property to give it to other (invariably
richer) private entities. -phuqm
\_ You're not the only one, you should
http://www.freerepublic.com Lots of libertarians.
\_ nice graph. looks like we're just repeating the same
numbers as the clinton glory years of economic health.
anyway, it's easy to knock something. how would you
reform the system if you had the power?
\_ Just politicians spending more of the taxpayers money to
buy votes.
\_ Isn't that what all entitlement programs are? |
| 2003/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:11090 Activity:nil |
11/15 http://www.stopthecartax.com/petitions \_ voting themselves largesse from the public treasury? \_ no. you're thinking of welfare and other 'entitlements'. you have it totally backwards. |
| 2003/10/21 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:29582 Activity:high |
10/20 Great Libertarian party statement re: Rush Limbaugh's drug habit:
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=652
\_ I'm unimpressed. Even Pat Buchannan occasionally has a good
point. Libertarians are, overall, far more evil and influential
than Buchannan and his neo nazi buddies will ever be in this
country. Fuck the libertarians.
\_ err...libertarians are influential? since when?!!
\_ http://www.cato.org
\_ err...libertarians are evil? since when?!! |
| 2003/10/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:10724 Activity:high |
10/21 What if you are conservative on some issues, and liberal on others.
Do you call yourself liberal or conservative? How do you
make the distinction?
\_ Then you could be authoritarian or libertarian.
\_ authoritarian sounds too negative. Is there a more positive
term? And what if even on economic issues, you have
both liberal and conservative views?
\_ There's a reason Authoritarian sounds negative; because it
IS. Anyway, if you are a pussy who is afraid to take on
a negative label, why label yourself at all. Why not just
be a whiney "If you label me you negate me" liberal -phuqm
\_ It's not an absolute. You can have some liberal and some
conservative views, but still be overall a conservative
or a liberal. If your views are split about halfway, you
are a centrist. The libertarian party has a useful (although
a bit simplistic) tool which is a square with each apex
representing liberal, conservative, libertarian or
authoritarian. Most people fall somewhere between
those extremes. Take this:
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
\_ I'm pretty sure the quiz is biased and makes people
tend to describe themselves as libertarian.
\_ I took this quiz at the Top Dog at 51st and Broadway.
At least I got a hot dog there. What do I get from
the website?
\_ Why do you need a label? Politics isn't a fraternity, or at
least it shouldn't be.
\_ I'm just discussing self-identification. We are social
creatures.
\_ Like Governor Arnold you call yourself "fiscally conservative
and socially liberal" - or vice versa.
\_ 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal' = 'libertarian'
We have a libertarian in office! Yay! -- libertarian
\_ then you grow up and learn to define yourself by what you
do and what you believe and not with soundbite friendly
labels that mean nothing.
\_ Look, labels are useful. They aren't 100% accurate and they
aren't needed once you have a better understanding of the person
in question. But, like most generalizations, they are useful.
Someday you may "grow up" and realize this, but i'm by no means
sure of that. -phuqm
\_ based on your motd posts, i can think of several labels for
you, but I'm pretty sure none of them are useful.
asshole and moron come to mind, but that's just not
useful.
\_ Still wrong. "asshole" is a perfectly reasonable and
"useful" lable. I apply it to myself all the time.
For example, if you have friends that are as stupid as
you are and who think similarly, you could say "that phuqm
is an asshole, don't bother with him" That would very
likely be useful to them. (And better it would probalbly
serve me too). -phuqm |
| 2003/10/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:10718 Activity:kinda low |
10/21 Stock market performed better under Democratic presidencies.
http://polls.yahoo.com/public/archives/57019568/p-quote-273
(Yahoo! Finance)
I thought Republicans are the pro-business ones.
\_ the difference is statistically small. On the opposite end you
could argue that Democratic Presidents start more wars than
Republican Presidents by a proportion of five to one.
\_ "pro-business" is different from "pro-market". Compare corporate
welfare and coddling protectionism (handouts) to the kind of
regs that enhance competition (regulation) like the wireless
number portability rule that will soon make cell phone companies
actually compete with each other. "Pro-market" is good for
consumers because it enhances competition. "Pro-business" is
usually just big corporate donors getting cushy perks, bought
and paid for. --aaron
\_ I've heard this theory that the more gov't leaves business alone
the better business does. Maybe the dems, by not changing much
to do with business, didn't fuck them up?
\_ don't think Republicans are "pro-business" as much as they are
pro-corporate executive profits. ... if you look at it this way,
clearly this attitude will adversely affect business (enron, etc)
\_ Ah, got it.
\_ What? No snide comments from the self proclaimed "real"
conservatives? Here's a thought: a good economy makes life
easier for most people, but a bad economy with big tax cuts
for the very wealthy is only good for the very wealthy.
Republicans don't give a shit about small to medium size
businesses, an assertion proven by the current republicans
in the white house and in congress.
\_ Well, I was going to comment, but you seem to be carrying
a nice conversation with yourself, so I ll leave you to it.
-- real conservative
\_ Gov't is statist on both sides - who he pays receives. So do you
want bigger government (more of the same) or less? But the
first sentence 'A 2003 paper looked seriously at the 18...',
and the last 'Other writers have confirmed a performance
difference in favor of Democratic administrations,
though one that was too small to be statistically significant.'
suggest 1) the sample size is too small 2) the article / paper
are overreaching. |
| 2003/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:10562 Activity:nil |
10/9 Texas Republican Party Platform for 2000:
http://csua.org/u/4o6
How can Democrats be "left wing loonies" and yet Republicans that
propose platforms like this are moderate and reasonable? Check out
especially the bits about abolishing the income tax, taking away the
Supreme Court's ability to determine the Constitionality of a law
under the bill of rights, and the bit about re-annexing Panama.
Look here for a good summary:
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002393.html
And here for a California Democratic Platform for comparison:
http://12.158.174.200/Platform.pdf
\_ Sounds like the AIP platform. Wow.
\_ What's wrong with abolishing the income tax? It's an abomination,
at least in its current form. -John
\_ Why is it an abomination? It needs to more progressive,
especially the SS payroll tax, but other than that I don't see it
being worthy of that particular adjective. Besides, John,
aren't you in Europe, home of the VAT and the 45% marginal rate?
\_ The 2002 platform (a pdf), contains a ringing endorsement of the
Pres.'s "War on Terrorism," concluded with an exuberant Texan
"LET'S ROLL!" Yeah, they're all level-headed.
\_ " we urge our legislators to fully investigate and prosecute,
where appropriate, any breeches in national security"
I hate it when pants end up in the national security, too.
Sheesh, can't these guys afford a proof reader? |
| 2003/10/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:10498 Activity:nil |
10/7 Secrets, Lies, and Atomic Spies
PBS- Nova Special
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/622675/posts |
| 2003/9/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:10102 Activity:nil 50%like:10616 |
9/5 Damn you, rich motd censor!
\_ Just restart the debate:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/000984.html |
| 2003/8/1 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:29201 Activity:nil |
7/31 When someone dies before reaching the age for social security, does the
spouse or children get anything?
\_ Yes, they do. Read your SS statement. Kids get money until age
18 and the spouse receives extra money monthly at retirement. |
| 2003/7/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:29050 Activity:nil |
7/15 NEEEEEEEEEERDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!
\_ Bad emphasis. Needs more Rs, fewer Ds and Ss. Grade: C-
\_ And more !!!!!!! C- was too giving. |
| 2003/5/19-20 [Computer/SW/Security, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:28490 Activity:nil |
5/19 My refinance showed someone (LA) is using my SSN. What can I do?
Who do I report this to? This is a serious question. thx.
\_ First contact the police. One of the things they will do is
give you a form with a lot of different crdit agencies to
contact. Contact all major credit card companies as well.
Although you can get a free credit check if you suspect fraud
you get the wimpy version, so you want to shell out 25 bucks
for the full one you can double check. Hell, you probably want
to do it every couple of months for the next half year or so.
Yes it is a bitch, I've been there before, but it the long
run things got corrected and the person stopped using my SSN.
\_ Call your local SS office. They will give you the number of the SS
Inspector General. That office handles stuff having to do with SS
fraud and criminal activity.
\_ And the IRS. When you contact the three credit agencies,
ask to put a freeze or a fraud report on your listings.
\_ See if you can get an address and kill them. |
| 2003/3/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:27876 Activity:nil |
3/26 unconfirmed Russian sources stated that Vice President Cheney's
oldest daughter is in Jordan right now intended to be part of
the human shield bound for Bagdad.
\_ what, the gay one?
\_ must you put a label on everyone?
\_ I believe you're assuming I think being gay is a bad thing.
\_ No. I think you're putting a label on her. You could
have described her in so many ways but you chose to merely
reduce her to a label. "the gay one". As if that's all
she is. I made no assumptions.
\_ Speaking of Dick Cheney... His awesome neo cold war policy is
going to cause WWIII. I'm just glad we're going to get a second
chance. I was afraid I'd never see it in my lifetime after the
USSR fell apart. From CNN: http://csua.org/u/bac
\_ Glad to know you've got this all worked out and it's going to
WW3. Who exactly is going to be engaged in this war? Did you
ever consider dropping out and going straight into the State
Department so you can save us all from this madman? Please
bring your vast experience in world affairs to the global stage.
The world won't survive without you leading the way!
\_ This is EXACTLY what all the wackos said about Reagan. Is it
necessary to remind you of the result?
\_ multi-trillion dollar debt?
\_ Which payed for all of the military hardware we are
now using. Reagan presented a balanced budget every
year.
\_ But that darn Republican congress just couldn't
resist loading up with pork, right:
http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
\_ Dems have controlled Congress since FDR. Reagan
had two years of a Republican controlled Senate,
half of Congress. Why do you libs pretend
that you want smaller government, its silly.
\_ it's the republicans who pretend they want
smaller government, and use phrases like
"big gubbiment liberals". Now we have
a Republican president and Congress--how
much would you like to bet that the
deficit and the national debt both rise
signifcantly over the next two years? -tom
\_ Conservatives wants smaller governement.
Liberals want larger government. Do not
confuse political parties with political
philosophies. It's overly simple.
\_ Ex-frickin' zactly. The largest gov'ts
has been created by Republican efforts
with Democratic backing. The Reps like
their big gov't in the form of a vast
military state, is all. The Dems pretty
much do, too, since the bases are "good"
for their constituencies. It's all good
You'll all be able to get jobs working
on military projects locally soon so
stop complaining.
\_ And people wonder why I talk about
moving to alaska to get away from
all this gov't bullshit? Both parties
are guilty of bloating up the gov't.
\_ Who created Social Security? Who allowed
access of Social Security receipts for
general expenditures? What VP then cast
the deciding vote in the Senate to tax
Social Security. Who proposed and almost
passed a balance budget amendment, defeated
only by one senator?
\_ do you want to bet or not? -tom
\_ Unfortunately Bush is Clinton-lite,
however, this is far better than
electing socialists. 800 billion
+ goes to Medicare, who created these
programs? I'll stick to try to
making the Reps more conservative,
thanks.
\_ Isn't it a "shooting gallery" along the highway to Baghdad? Seems
like the only thing she'll shield is a blown up motor vehicle. |
| 2003/2/19-20 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:27460 Activity:high |
2/19 http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html To those of you who got your secondary education outside the U.S.: Are things really fundamentally different elsewhere? \_ Russian education tries to educate, so there is social selection based on academic performance. At least when I was there. I think this guy is right on. \_ "You failed. Off to Chechnya with you!" \_ In Soviet Russia, butt wipe you! \_ In Soviet Russia, school teach YOU! \_ Yes and no. My experience in China had a lot of overlap. A diff. was that coolness was less exploited by the industry and less extreme, though that must be changing very much toward the direction of the U.S. now. Still, the popular kids would turn out to be dumb, and the smarter ones (not necessarily nerds) would get bullied. I had suicidal thoughts but not attempts. I actually did not dislike my short U.S. high school experience. I was not much involved with the other kids and left alone. The coursework the U.S.). This gave to me time to explore my own interest but I am sure those who actually need feeding did not learn much. was extremely easy (at supposedly one of the best public school in the U.S.). This gave me time to explore my own interest but I am sure those who actually needed feeding did not learn much. I also had some experience dealing with people who did their H.S. in soviet/russia in academic circles. They have a reputation of being smart almost by default but are not particularly impressive in real world accomplishments. \_ HS here was easy for you because we don't take education too seriously in this country until college and mostly not even then. Everyone gets the education they strive for. \_ That's mostly ok, except for math and sciences which require more work during earlier years. End result is that only ugly no-life nerds make it in science and engineering in the US. \_ what is your explanation ofor American dominance in science and math research and tenchology? us "nerds" have done pretty damn well for the last 100 years or so in this country in spite of a nonfunctional education system. \_ Those of us with the balls took it upon ourselves. And it doesn't hurt to have highly educated parents as well. \_ Meaning you had an unfair advantage over others? The educational playing field should be level! \_ That's easy: an over abundance of ugly nerds! What else are they going to do? |
| 2003/2/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:27452 Activity:insanely high |
2/18 Bush plans to replicate the "Chilean experiment" in Social
Security reform:
http://www.umwa.org/journal/VOL113NO4/jul4.shtml
\_ united mine workers of america? heh. i wonder where they stand
on the issue.
\_ why, they'll undermine it, of course.
\_ undermine? mine workers? hahahah.. you're so clever. not.
\_ i thought it was funny.
\_ me too
\_ The plan is optional. Congressmembers have the same option -
shouldn't citizens?
\_ No. It's a Bush plan so it must be bad!
\_ actually, yeah that is exactly how i think lately.
please prove me wrong.
\_ What president in recent history has inherited the
problems Bush has? Depite the fact he is too liberal, I
am increasingly impressed his management acumen. Except
WTF is up with his budget. [formatd]
\_ It isn't that he's too liberal, per se. It's that
he isn't a true conservative. Maybe in thought, maybe
not, but not in action. I understand the political
need to compromise but some of them are really
painful. I console myself seeing the country swing
generally to the right. I know we won't have another
Clinton for several decades, if ever in this century.
\_ Contraraily. Not only were they non-compromising,
they were lazy and had bad attitudes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/opinion/19FRIE.html |
| 2003/2/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:27445 Activity:moderate |
2/17 social security -> wall street
http://www.harpers.org/online/trillion-dollar_hustle
\_ 5 pages of op/ed with minimal fact or backing going on and on about
the evils of the current administration.
\_ Crappy writing too. Nose in the air.
\_ I expect crappy writing in op/eds. |
| 2003/1/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:27133 Activity:nil |
1/16 Puerto Rico governor says U.S. shouldn't close Vieques base
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/823977/posts
freep what you sow. |
| 2002/12/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:26743 Activity:nil |
12/6 http://csua.org/u/673 Isreali settlers endure life on the front line. \_ so why don't they move back behind the Green Line? oh and just bait the freeper guy, the pittsburgh tribune-times is owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, the guy who bankrolled the right wing conspiracy \_ okay, I give, what does freeper mean? \_ a freeper is one who frequently reads the site http://www.freerepublic.com \_ Pshaw, that's not Freeper bait, this is Freeper bait: http://csua.org/u/676 Scaife implicated in suicide of internet critic. \_ that's pretty good |
| 2002/11/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:26671 Activity:insanely high |
11/29 Yup it's those darn terrorists... (not those tax cuts at all...)
http://www.kstp.com/article/view/62595
\_ At least the president was able to find money for his own $200k
pay raise, and $60k/year increase for each conressman, even if the
$186/year for the average worker was out of reach. Funny, the
total cost of the two packages is on the same order of magnitude.
Congress and the White House could have saved half the pay raise
of the average worker by forgoing lining their own pockets...
\_ Sorry. The across the board pay raise would cost $11 billion
using the 1990 plan outline, and $13 billion using the 1997
additions Clinton was able to afford. The total salary of
the congress doesn't measure up even close to that. That
said, blaming this on terrorist rather than the failed
economic policies and general economic depression is a
blantly self-serving deception. -mel
\_ idiot. the tax cuts have nothing to do with it. they're so tiny
compared to the size of the federal budget. get a clue before
mouthing off stupidly. better to keep one's stupidity to one's self
than open one's stupid ignorant mouth and demonstrate one's idiocy.
\_ *sniff* *sniff* Poor overpaid, lazy goverment workers. Never
do get a fair break.
\_ overpaid? where? have you compared civil servant salaries
to the private sector counterparts? Or are you talking straight
from your ass again?
\_ no bonus, no raises, 60k/year pretax for 8 years experience
doing systems development work. name the employer.
answer posted on monday.
\_ they get paid for what they do. people in the private sector
have to actually work sometimes to earn their money. this is
something a government worker bee slacker troll like you can't
understand. work isn't something you'd know how to do. the
people in private sector are lucky to have jobs right now.
no one is bitching about not getting a bonus for god's sake.
you're so selfish and ignorant and greedy it makes me sick.
go back to surfing and stop insulting people who actually do
work for a living. when the federal government slackers are
at risk for random layoffs, no raises, no pensions, no bonuses
and have to actually put in an hour's worth of work a month to
suck money from my pocket then they'll have something to whine
about. they get low pay because they don't fucking work.
\_ I've typically gotten excellent service when dealing with
federal employees.
\_ Hate to tell you this, but federal 'slackers' *are* subject
to layoffs. They call them Reduction In Force. Of course,
they make an effort to find you a job somewhere else, like
maybe, Alaska, if you're willing to move. Furthermore,
I'd bet that gov't workers have about the same ratio of
people who work hard to slackers. It seems to me like a
6 to 1 ratio of people who work to people who are worthless.
If the govt workers don't work efficiently enough for you
it's probably because they're hobbled by extreme red tape.
Also, fed workers don't get pensions anymore, they get
social security, like everyone else, no sweet
retirement pensions, and they'll match your contribution
to your retirement savings account up to 4.5% of your
salary
\_ Except this is exactly what Presidents / Congress have done
since 1990. Exactly how does one 'slash a pay raise'?
AP is full of stupid liberals. Of course this won't change
much, Bush is more pro-big government than Clinton.
\_ Not true. This is the first time in history that the
'serious economic conditions' rule was ever invoked. Note
The it completely eliminates cost of living adjustments in
New York, San Francisco, and Boston. Sounds like a punishment
for voting against him. |
| 2002/11/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:26425 Activity:high |
11/5 Wow, if only the Green party had done the right thing, the Democrats
might've won and the world would be a better place....
\_ Er. no. if only the democrats had actually talked about the
shit that the current administration has pulled, and continues
to pull, in the corporate and foreign policy circles. but the
democrats have their heads too deep in just as many people's
pockets to do that, so... welcome to hell. --scotsman
\_ So what you're really saying is the Democrats don't have a real
platform other than "the Republicans are eeeeevil so vote for
us!"? Is that what you're saying? Maybe the Senate will finally
do it's job and pass some bills and confirm some judges instead
of playing politics with important issues.
\_ I am so waiting for some independent billionare to put a
bounty out for scandalous material to sink all of these bastards.
--erikred
\_ Oh the horror - tax cuts, school vouchers, privatizing
Social Security. I've heard these are all signs of the Armageddon,
can anyone confirm this?
\_ I'm pretty sure Nostradamus said something about this.
\_ 47th quatrain. Something about Caesar rendering under to
the people that which is theirs leading to the earth opening
and fire and brimstone rising to cloud the sun.
\_ No, but it's a step in the right direction for a Cyberpunk
future. |
| 2002/11/3 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:26389 Activity:high |
11/2 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/20INEQUALITY.html Ok freepers out there, you can all start ranting about this now. \_ Why would anyone bother ranting about a NYT article? It's the NYT. Everyone knows in advance what they're going to say on any topic, so why bother? \_ and the same isn't true for the Free Republic? what's your point, anyway? |
| 2002/9/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:26052 Activity:high |
9/30 What does "neo-liberalism" mean?
\_ google "what does newliberal mean", "I'm feeling lucky":
http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/sp/barrios/themeA2a.html
Essentially I think it means economically liberal... which means
a hands-off type approach to economics... so free-market-type
stuff. I think this type of liberal ecnomic policy is now
considered somewhat conservative (as "liberals" believe in more
hands-on type of economies), hence the term "neo-liberal". This
is essentially what libretarians are: economically conservative (eg
neo-liberal), but socially liberal (in the tradtional sense).
\_ I think a better term for libertarians is "nutcases"
\_ another term is "half of the csua"... sad but true, computer
geeks love ayn rand.
\_ I never read Ayn Rand in my life. Does that mean I'm not
a computer geek? I don't even know what her beliefs are.
\_ There's nothing wrong with the basic libertarian premise of
minimal government. They just take it too far. That's the
nutcase part. Sort of like how democrats would have a 100%
confiscatory tax or republicans would allow big business to
bring back slavery if allowed free reign.
\_ Some libertarians are more extreme than others. It's
obviously equally silly to equate the entire movement
with the fringes, for democrats, republicans, or
libertarians. A conservative libertarian is very hard
to tell from a moderate republican.
\_ No, that's not what 'libretarians' are. Libertarians believe
in a hands off approach both economically and socially. Ayn
Rand is an objectivist, not a libertarian. All objectivists
are libertarian, but not all libertarians are objectivists.
And incidentally, you are all uninformed morons. -- libertarian
\_ your attitude illustrates why most people dislike
libertarians. it's not just an ideological difference,
it's that most libertarians seem to be assholes.
\_ Better to be an asshole than wrong. That's the whole
premise of being a libertarian. |
| 2002/5/16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:24857 Activity:nil |
5/16 New Russian Weapons versus Old American arsenals
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/682491/posts |
| 2002/5/12-14 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:24800 Activity:nil |
5/12 Anybody know how the social security and medicare deduction in the
paychecks work? Is it always a fixed % regardless of what tax
bracket you're in? With federal income tax you can withold a lot
at the beginning of the year and stop it altogether when you've paid
enough (by adjusting the exemptions). Can you do that with SS or
medicare? Thanks.
\_ Yes, Social Security taxes is 6.2% of your GROSS pay, Medicare
is at 1.45%. The cap for SS taxes is around $80K, in which any
amount above $80K will not be deducted for SS. Yes, the %-age is
fixed across all tax brackets and it's static for each paycheck
i.e. you can't elect to have more withheld from any check. But
then again, there is no advantage of having it withheld at certain
period since you have no control of how it's being invested by the
gov't, unlike your 401(k) account. Hope this helps! - jthoms
\_ Yes. Yes. No.
\_ until you hit the cap. |
| 2001/9/17 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36320 Activity:nil |
9/17 http://www.workingforchange.com A more well-rounded perspective than most news sites. \_ Well rounded my ass. 'Here is an idea: tax the rich, and large corporations fairly.' (As if there was such as thing as fair selective taxation). \_ Is one man's right to a Porsche more important than another man's right to eat? Perhaps one thing we could learn from Islam is that we should donate 1/5 of our income towards helping the poor. (Not like Gov't uses that much of our income to do so anyways.) \_ You are always welcomed to donate your income to \_ No one has a _right_ to {food|car|housing}. You have a right to pursue those things in peace, though. Liberals never did understand the concept of rights. \_ Many disagree with you on this, including FDR. \_ You are always welcomed to donate your income towards helping the poor. You don't have to do it through the government. In fact, it is your obligation if you are a Christian. \_ Quote from the article: "Already, there have been reports that CNN's video of celebrating Palestinians is the same tape played during the Gulf War." Has anyone seen any other news source mentioning this? \_ the above was first reported on http://www.indymedia.org but CNN has denied it and I think it has been retracted. one of my more sports fanatical friends noticed the footage had a guy in a tshirt of a football team that didn't even exist during the Gulf War. - danh \_ Good. That T-shirt is solid proof then. \_ Good. That T-shirt is solid proof then. (Unless someone goes as far as saying the whole footage was just acting in a studio.) \_ I'll bet that CNN took the old footage and DIGITALLY PAINTED THAT SHIRT onto an INNOCENT MAN in order to cement their position as the MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN, PULLING THE LEVERS OF PUBLIC OPINION!!!1!!1!!!! |
| 2001/8/26-27 [Industry/Jobs, Politics, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:22266 Activity:high |
8/26 brits out!
\_ http://www.perkel.com/nerd/nlm.htm
\_ These smarties should put their intellectual ability
towards find some social skills.
towards finding some social skills.
\_ Or at least some basic grammar lessons.
\_ But someone set up them the bomb because they have so much
accurate |
| 1999/11/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:16900 Activity:nil |
11/16 Where is a place to check how much of my tax dollar is put into
road construction, health care, welfare, defense, education, etc?
Is the this information public?
\_ The IRS prints a high level chart each year in the 1040 instructions. |
| 1999/6/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Reference/History/WW2] UID:15954 Activity:high |
6/13 Garbage's Version2.0 kicks ass! Are there any other albums out
there that I should check out? (i.e. not neccesarily by Garbage)
\_"happy hours, golden showers"
\_ 101 Incoherent Communist Drinking Songs, by Bryan Harvey
\_ Most people who think they're commies really don't know what
communism really is. Most people are really just egalitarianists
like John Locke. Communism is actually about achieving
industrialization through totalitarianism, mind control, and
ruthless beatings like what Stalin (and to some extent, those
McCarthy dipshits) did. At any rate, BH isn't a commie, no
matter how much he thinks he is (and neither is GNU or FSF).
\_ BH isn't a true Ruskie commie. They were smarter than that and
understood communism is a failure and *can't* work.
\_ Communism works. Disneyland is a communistic entity.
You pay for the rides you want to be on with time.
\_ idiot. communism works. ENFORCED communism doesn't.
\_ Silly. Communism is contrary to human nature. It only
works in text books and eco-political theory classes.
Where has your unenforced communism ever worked for a
substantial period of time? In fact, other than the drug
culture created sex oriented pseudo communes in the 60/70s
in this country I can't think of an unforced communist
community anywhere. It's non-functional. Put up or shut
up. And no, don't try to pin the counter point on me. I
never said I was in favor of free for all zero-control
capitalism. Where's your successful unenforced communist
state?
\_ works better on a smaller scale. like collective
businesses, co-op organizations. i have direct
experiene with this stuff. and yes, enforced
communism sucks ass and won't work. in recent human
experience, what's called communism has really been
a totalarian state - not a recipie for success in a
world with such global communications as today.
\_ saying "theres no country that does this, so
it doesn't work" is NOT a proof against it.
And your "against human nature" stuff is just as valid
for nixing welfare, charity tax credits,
\_ It was stated "communism works". Prove it. I'm
in favor of "nixing" welfare. What of it? Humans
in general are greedy and selfish and jealous
(like me and proud of it).
\_ welfare is so easy to hate when you're a
privlidged berkeley student. ++clue please.
\_ the opposing viewpoints are: 1) getting
shat on is a great motivator because there's
no welfare, vs. 2) you couldn't help it,
welfare is a safety net
\_ be sure to recognize the warning signs, kids!
\_ Yeah, like viewing the world as it is might
be a bad thing. Better to stay in the
\_ it's not (a bad thing)
Ivory Pot Sticker Tower Of Self Deluded
Stupidity. Get out those rosy glasses.
\_ prove communism doesn't work.
saying "china,USSR, etc failed at communism" is
like saying "The USA is a prime example of
why democrasy can never work".
None of the above countries are truely an
example of the policical scheme they claim
to be.
This is contrary to the needs of communism. Find
a few hundred thousand Saints and communism might
work. Personally, I've been trying to get Angels
to dance on the head of a pin which seems more
useful than trying to make a functional communist
state. So far, I've gotten as many as 8 Angels to
dance at the same time which is a better track
record than communism has. Still waiting to see
an example of working unenforced communism.
\_ INFIDEL!!! HERETIC!!1! I fondly remember taking
162 from bh. Especially those nights when we'd all
gather around the big, silent bulk of the PDP-10 in
the machine room, heads bowed to its greatness . . .
then bh would pour the vodka, and we'd munch on
potstickers and talk for _hours_ about the imminent
coming of the Glorious People's GNU-LISP Revolution
that would sweep like a cleansing wave! Some nights
we'd watch Animanics and listen to the Beatles until
dawn. Then we'd shatter our vodka glasses against
the wall and weave our way home, staggering up the
middle of Hearst singing Russian peasant drinking
songs . . . I didn't learn much about operating
systems, but damn, I learned about _life_.
\_ This always summed it up perfectly. Thanks.
\_ yes, whether communism works or not is less
important than the humor value it provides now
\_ on a kibutz where everyone agrees to be there communism
has worked!! The key is that the people involved must
agree to it. Your family could be considered a small
version of communism, one goal for all of you with a
common pot of money . . .
\_ family is a dictatorship, not communism. It IS
sort of socialism, though.
\_"Complete", Minor Threat
\_ URL please.
\_ let's get your login and froge a mail to BH!!
\_ That won't make communism work. Does he now
require his students to adopt his failed
philosophies to get an "A"? When I was in school
we only needed to eat pot stickers with him.
\_ Kinda makes you wish we live in a theoretical world.
There would be no physics problems left in that case.
\_ Oneida Community. Look it up.
\_ When did they release this album? I went looking for it on
amazon and cdnow, and couldn't find it . . .
\_ Wasn't this thread about a rock band? Anyways, someone should
buy "Looking Out for No. 1" by Robert J. Ringer and put it in the
CSUA library
\_ Their first album
\_ Cardigans' new album. It's not really anything like their one-hit,
Lovefool.
\_ I don't know what this "Garbage" is, but you should check out
"Don Ho Gold", by Don Ho. It's got *all* the hits! |
| 1998/6/23-25 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:14235 Activity:high |
6/23 What is the best (easiest) way to satisfy the American Cultures
requirement together with the Humanities and Social Studies
requirement for the College of Engineering? -ax
\_ College of Engineering has the easiest Humanities/Social Science/
American Culture requirements a Cal student can have. How easy
do you want it to be?
\_ Anthro 163AC with Dundes was really really good. He tries to
scare you off at the beginning, but if you stick with it, he
grades really easy and you get to research anything from yermom
jokes to stories told by welders.
\_ An EECS-C Jr. transfer needs to know. She'd probably e-mail
you if you had a good answer and signed your post. -ax
\_ Hmmm...is she pretty?
\_ and is she nice, or is she a mean b?
\_ History 7A or 7B satisfies American Cultures and List A, and
\_ Don't take weeder history courses. For that matter, don't
try to satisfy *any* requirement with a lower division
course if you can help it.
they're great basic American History courses -- esp. if taught
by Litwack. Be prepared for 2-hour sections, and a "white
people are evil" version of history similar to what you will
find in _A People's History of the United States_. -agee
\_ Lose your virginity now (American Culture), test your latest
medicine invention on your dog (Humanity), and have sex with
yermon (social science).
\_ This was funny? Clever? Were you just really tired when
you wrote that?
\_ Thanks for all the answers everyone!! I think she has
enough to go on. -ax |
| 1993/9/26 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:31404 Activity:nil |
9/26 GGGGGG OOOOO BBBBBB EEEEEE AAA RRRRR SSSSS
GG OO OO BB BB EE AA AA RR RR SS
GG OO OO BBBBBB EEEE AA AA RRRRR SSSSS
GG GGG OO OO BB BB EE AAAAAAA RR RR SS
GG GG OO OO BB BB EE AA AA RR RR SS
GGGGGG OOOOO BBBBBBB EEEEEEE AA AA RR RR SSSSS |
| 12/24 |