Is Rick Perry's take on Social Security refreshing or ridiculous?

While I’m all for entitlement reform, in the sense that the system as it is currently built will not sustain itself…. I am in complete disagreement with his stance that it is a “ponzy scheme” and I would assume he wants it scrapped entirely.

Perry is crazy, he rails against Federal spending and points to his own budget in Texas as a blue print… leaving out the point that they filled huge budget shortfalls in Texas by getting over 14 billion in funds from the Fed…. and to top that off they still have the largest state deficit coming into this year… More than oft maligned California even.

If Perry is elected I will legitimately consider fleeing this country.

Let me put it this way:
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954

(argument from authority, I know)

Bernie Madoff said the entire goverment was a ponzi scheme. Maybe we’ll just start throwing the phrase around more until it’s like the Hitler reference in an internet debate lol.

But there’s no problem with entitlement reform, tax reform, or any reform as long as it’s realistic.

Reform is a serious issue because it will have an effect on a lot of people, liberal and conservative. There’s a lot of people that need the governments help, and I think people are afraid to admit that the government is useful and a lot of people depend on it. There’s too many people in general, and there’s too many people that are simply struggling.

I don’t think anyone really knows what to do about reform because of the effects it will have on so many people.

“I’m going to be honest with the American people.”
Puleeeze! No politician knows the meaning of the word.

@tedd You don’t have to assume…he said…
“For younger workers, we must consider reforms to make Social Security financially viable.”
[snip]
“We must have a frank, honest national conversation about fixing Social Security to protect benefits for those at or near retirement while keeping faith with younger generations, who are being asked to pay”

Of course he has not yet offered what this “fixing” entails.

@ragingloli I have not yet heard him articulate abolishing SS, so far he just wants to “fix” it.

@Cruiser :: It is pretty safe to bet his plan is to push the money into the stock market so his hedge fund manager buddies can skim billions off the fund.

@johnpowell That is a pretty evil and nefarious game plan of his. Hopefully this will get exposed before he goes any further! Rachel Maddow will be all over this one.

He is ridiculous.

It seems pretty clear that there is a problem and some kind of reform is needed. Yet any mention of reform brings out the crazies. Any plan to fix it is labeled as an attempt to kill it before the plan is even heard. Any reform is bad and no reform is bad. We have a cunundrum.

Personally, I’d like to hear a plan before I shoot it down.

Perhaps he thinks a prayer meeting would be an allowable substitute.

Any honest politician would be nice…..I agree with @Jaxk about hearing the plan before deciding that it is untenable.

So this is like McCain’s secret plan to get Bin Laden? A brilliant plan but he will only share if he gets the job.

He’s 100% correct. Social Security is the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme. We’re in effect eating our own children!

The average monthly social security payout is $1177 per month. Damn those old people snorting lines of coke off their colostomy bags.

Bwahaha…

I think he is dead right about social security being a Ponzi scheme and find it refreshing to hear a politician actually say so.

@Jaxk Hey I’m all for hearing his plan. But if past statements and stances are any indication, I’m not going to be a fan of it at all.

@YoBob Wow. Just wow.

@captainharley Yah we’re ruining our kids by making it so they don’t have to care for the huge chunk of their parents that are unable to support themselves when they get old. How terrible of us to not leave our children with a decision about whether or not they want to be financially burdened with their parents well being, or let us just die/live in abject poverty so they can achieve other life goals. Just awful of us.

@tedd

The definition of a Ponzi scheme is an investment structure that uses funds collected from new investors to pay dividends to older investors.

The dividends that social security currently pays out are not funded from return on investment of the money collected during the working years of those who are currently drawing benefits, but rather from the money being paid in by those currently working (aka. younger investors).

So… can you tell me how that is not a Ponzi scheme?

@YoBob You left out the part about a Ponzi scheme where the schemer steals huge chunks of the money off of the top. You also are ignoring the fact that Social Security invests the money it receives, they actually own a huge chunk of the US debt (like 1/8th of it or something) as well as stock in companies worldwide.

The reason Social Security is slowly becoming ineffective is that it’s currently based on a model from what, 20 years ago? People are living longer, more medical treatments are available (and they’re sadly more expensive, but that’s another argument). We also aren’t seeing as many new people being born (by ratio). When Social Security was first enacted in the 30’s, there were 15 working people paying in for every 1 person pulling out. Today that ratio is down to 3–1. The system needs to be reworked, but removing it would be an incredibly foolish thing. It’s one of the cornerstones of our country being as great as it is.

@tedd

“You left out the part about a Ponzi scheme where the schemer steals huge chunks of the money off of the top.”

That is not a feature included in the definition of a Ponzi scheme. However, in most cases those who run a Ponzi scheme do collect an administration fee, and last I checked the administration of our currently broken system costs we taxpayers a significant chunk of change.

As for investment, the program does park money in various financial vehicles. However, those investments are not where the bulk of the funding for the program comes from. It comes from those who are currently paying in, which is, by definition, a Ponzi scheme.

However, regardless of how one chooses to label it, I think we can both agree that the current system is broken and in need of fixing. Thus far I haven’t heard any candidate even hint at removing it.

@YoBob It’s not a ponzi scheme if the person behind it isn’t taking money. I mean hell, do you have any idea how many companies decide to sell more stock to bring in money and keep the business afloat? And yes the administration part of SS could use to be reworked so it’s more efficient, but you could completely cut it out and just magically distribute the money to people, and that still wouldn’t fix the problem.

Your premise is based on an incorrect definition of ponzi scheme. And you haven’t heard a candidate hint at removing it, but you just espoused your loving of Rick Perry supposedly suggesting it’s a Ponzi scheme that needs to be removed earlier in this thread.

From the World English Dictionary:

Ponzi scheme (ˈpɒnzɪ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
a fraudulent investment operation that pays quick returns to initial contributors using money from subsequent contributors rather than profit

Hmm… don’t see anything in the definition about skimming off the top….

Also, the statement in question reads:

“I am going to be honest with the American people. Our elected leaders must have the strength to speak frankly about entitlement reform if we are to right our nation’s financial course and get the USA working again.”

I see where it calls out reforming our current system. However, I don’t see anything about removing it.

How about we just cut the Pentagons budget by 25% and use that money for Social Security?

@YoBob If that’s the definition for Ponzi Scheme, then I’ve got bad news for you, the entire stock market is one gigantic ponzi scheme.

And the whole premise of the thread was to point out that we think Rick Perry is going to try and just strip out SS all together. You didn’t come in here and deny that and say he just wants to reform it, you came in and applauded him for his “refreshing” plan.

@YoBob There are several problems with the dictionary.com definition you cited. One is that Social Security does not provide a quick return. The second is that one’s return is not made up entirely of money from new investors. Third, the fact that we cannot choose how much to invest in Social Security means the part about luring investors into greater risks cannot be unsatisfied. Fourth, the definition is antecedently normative: it defines a Ponzi scheme as, at least in part, “a swindle.” If we are to use this definition, then, we must know whether or not Social Security is a swindle before we can decide if it is a Ponzi scheme. Yet the whole point of calling it a Ponzi scheme is to convince people that Social Security is a swindle. This is viciously circular.

Alternatively, we could use Wikipedia’s definition:

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

This still won’t help you make your case, though. Social Security does not fit the legal requirements for fraud, pays out in part from profits made through the interest earned from initial investments, does not give short-term returns, does not try to entice new members, and is guaranteed by the federal government (for now, though the people who would undermine that are the program’s interlocutors; letting them press this point, then, would be like letting an arsonist go free because he also killed all the witnesses).

The only real place to push on here is exactly the point where all sides are agreed: the current investments cannot themselves guarantee future returns. Thus we have two live options. The first is to take money from elsewhere to fund the program, while the second is to change the system itself. Everyone knows this, so presumably it is not the point of dispute (though pretending otherwise might be a useful rhetorical tactic). This one point, however, is not enough to qualify Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.

It was true 30 years ago and its true now. Difference is when it was said 30 years ago, it was “so ridiculous” it did not even draw a comment.

@CaptainHarley SO RIGHT….GA

@johnpowell Maybe you could stay on topic….whatcha think?

Lets see…

Social security is operated by the government.
The government is payed to run it.
Tax dollars pay the government to run it and pay additionally into SS.

Now, the alternative….

The citizen keeps his/her tax dollars.
The citizen invests into (without paying anyone to run it)...
CD’s(Certificates of Deposit),
T-Bills (U.S. Treasury Bills),
Money market & many others.

The citizen not only pays no fees(pays no one to run it), but ends up
doubling, tripling, his/her money over the course of a few years.

In summary,
Option 1 – Pay the government to run a system & force you to pay additional tax dollars into the program.
Option 2 – Keep your money, invest it for free into the various investments, and double, triple your money.

Yet, to no surprise, a lot of people still prefer option 1.
Then again, there are a lot of people who also still prefer huffing turpentine and sniffing glue.

@woken That assumes that one has enough income to do so. I mean, if I kept the money I pay in, odds are that I would invest in getting my teeth fixed and some repairs to my old Toyota. Now, if you already have good health, enough to eat, a car that isn’t in need of fixing, and all that, then yes. However, many people are far worse off than me and would take that money to pay bills. Not frivolous stuff either; I’m talking rent, food, medical, utilities…

Remember, just by having internet access that isn’t from a public computer at the library, we here on Fluther are better off than millions of Americans. Until you’ve slept in an old panel truck in the middle of a New England winter or even stopped eating for three days just to have the money to make rent, I’m not sure you can grasp that.

Yes, the system needs reform, but I have to agree with @tedd that the odds are that Perry’s proposed changes are not good. If nothing else, his track record is, at best, mediocre.

@jerv,

I forgot to mention something. There is a hidden tax on top of the other taxes when you start to receive your social security. So not only are you paying someone to run it, and paying into the program, but you’re also getting taxed again after you receive it. Thus, you’re losing more money then you put in.

If you’re working, then you’re being taxed. If you’re being taxed, then a sum of money is being taken away from you. If that money was not taken away from you, then it would be enough to make investments, or save it on the side and build it up to make future investments.

If you need the money that is being taxed and taken away from you, to pay for your health, food, car, teeth, then why would you support such a system? That money could have been in your hands to help pay for these things.

Also, if you’re so fond of the government to force responsibility, then why don’t you instead support a system where the government forces you to invest into the various investments that I listed, thus saving and doubling your money rather then losing it to the government?

Another thing is that you’re arguing that people would use their money to help themselves, rather than invest it to save it for a rainy day, well, this is called personal responsibility. You taking responsibility for your life’s choices.

If you think your computer and internet is more important than your teeth, then fine, but don’t be surprised why your teeth fell out.

SS is inconsiderate of the many responsible people who invest properly, who make good choices.

About the only reform that SS needs is to have an opting out option. If you want this system, fine, you pay for and into it, but if someone doesn’t want this option, then he/she should not be taxed for it and not have to pay into it.

@tedd

WTF? This doesn’t make sense:

”@captainharley Yah we’re ruining our kids by making it so they don’t have to care for the huge chunk of their parents that are unable to support themselves when they get old. How terrible of us to not leave our children with a decision about whether or not they want to be financially burdened with their parents well being, or let us just die/live in abject poverty so they can achieve other life goals. Just awful of us.”

Rick Perry is a jackass. Social Security was fixed by the end of Clintons term in the White House.
W stole money from it to pay for his wars. It can be fixed again.

It wouldn’t take draconian measures to reform SS and make it solvent again. It’s been reformed multiple times since it’s inception. It needs reform again. I wish it wasn’t such a hot button issue. Such reactions seem dumb to me.

Oh, and yes, Rick Perry is a jackass. Did you know he used to be a Democrat? That asshole is a pure pandering politician. He’ll say whatever he thinks people want to hear. Like a lot of politicians.

Milton Friedman said it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCdgv7n9xCY

@woken It’s not nearly that simple. Let’s take it piece by piece…

“I forgot to mention something. There is a hidden tax on top of the other taxes when you start to receive your social security. So not only are you paying someone to run it, and paying into the program, but you’re also getting taxed again after you receive it. Thus, you’re losing more money then you put in.

If you’re working, then you’re being taxed. If you’re being taxed, then a sum of money is being taken away from you.”

Sounds like many other investments so far.

“If that money was not taken away from you, then it would be enough to make investments, or save it on the side and build it up to make future investments.”

I earn close to the median US income, and for the first time ever, I am actually in a position to sock 5% of my gross income away and take advantage of the company match on my 401k. However, if you look up the definition of “median”, you will see that a rather large number of Americans don’t have that luxury.

“If you need the money that is being taxed and taken away from you, to pay for your health, food, car, teeth, then why would you support such a system? That money could have been in your hands to help pay for these things.”

That is the trickiest part, if for no reason other than a false presumption on your part. Lets just say that it’s less fucked up than the alternatives I’ve seen thus far… and considering how fucked up our current system is, that’s saying something!

“Also, if you’re so fond of the government to force responsibility, then why don’t you instead support a system where the government forces you to invest into the various investments that I listed, thus saving and doubling your money rather then losing it to the government?”

Another false presumption, and one with a tinge of hypocrisy as you seem to be a proponent of forcing responsibility yourself.

But lets put that aside for a moment. Bear in mind that you and I are actually more astute than many people. Look at the high school dropout rates, or the low math scores on standardized testing, or just look around you and you will see a lot of people who don’t know the first thing about math, let alone economics. If they can’t even balance a checkbook on their own or shop for the best price per pound at the supermarket, do you really think they can figure out investments? Hell, even many otherwise intelligent/educated people lack the aptitude to do it effectively!
That means that instead of paying government to do it, we pay for-profit companies to do it for us and take their commission; at best, that renders cost moot.

“Another thing is that you’re arguing that people would use their money to help themselves, rather than invest it to save it for a rainy day, well, this is called personal responsibility. You taking responsibility for your life’s choices.”

Yes, I chose to be laid off and unable to land a job in a highly competitive job market for over a year. I chose to miss time from my last job when my car blew up and waste money that could have gone towards my retirement to fix it. I chose to go to the ER and rack up a few hundred dollars worth of copays.

See, one of the things that makes it very, extremely difficult to take people like you seriously is that many of you insist that EVERYTHING is a choice. Now, I’m not claiming to be a victim of circumstance, and I will admit that I have made a few mistakes (like not starting to save for retirement when I was 14) but that statement right there demonstrates a very shaky grasp on reality.

“If you think your computer and internet is more important than your teeth, then fine, but don’t be surprised why your teeth fell out.”

If only you knew….
I won’t go into too much detail, but suffice it to say that just one crown costs more out-of-pocket than every computer I’ve ever owned combined, or over a year’s worth of payments to my ISP. My insurance covers the cleanings and such, but there are certain things that are not covered. I’ve done the math.

“SS is inconsiderate of the many responsible people who invest properly, who make good choices.”

Life isn’t fair to those who can’t afford to invest, nor to those that can but either don’t or do so foolishly.

“About the only reform that SS needs is to have an opting out option. If you want this system, fine, you pay for and into it, but if someone doesn’t want this option, then he/she should not be taxed for it and not have to pay into it.”

Let me first quote a couple of passages from The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

(Article 23, section 3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(Article 25, section1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

To my mind, your argument is pretty much negating government in it’s entirely though. That opens the door to a la carte taxation. Fine! I think that there is too much spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, so I opt out of that and will invest that tax savings into my retirement. I;m not a fan of the TSA either; opting out and investing that as well. Hell, I don’t think Congress should be paid; more money for me! You probably have your own list of things you don’t believe in and would rather not pay taxes to support too. But at that point, we really wouldn’t have a government, and surely not one that serves and protects it’s citizens.

Screw it; the way DC has been for the last decade, I’m thinking maybe we should try it your way; no government at all. No regulation, no taxes, total personal accountability… it’s your dream, even if you don’t know it!

@cockswain Do you remember the days when CNN used to be known as the Clinton News Network?? Now they are worshiping the ground Perry is walking on. The bottom line is a good politician thinks like his constituents and if it means switching teams to bring home the bacon…you can bet they will do this and so will the money machine cable networks. The last thing I want is an elected official hanging on to some ideologue just for the sake of party loyalty while we struggle.

@Cruiser

Ideology is a curse. It makes you believe that there is one approach above all others that is “the Answer.” This is one of the reasons why I like libertarianism. It’s a workable approach based on tired and proven actions and processes, rather than ideology.

@CaptainHarley One libertarian to another: how does that answer not sound like ideology?

@filmfann Would you mind just going to Amazon and buying one of the very helpful books on how SS works? Clinton did not fix it and Bush did not use it for “his wars”. The very first recipient of SS benefits paid $24 into the system and received just under $100,000 in benefits. She lived to be 100. SS has NEVER ever been a funded system. It has been, since it’s inception, a political football as well as a fact of life. We are not going to do away with it, but neither are we going to give the Seniors what they are “entitled to”. They are entitled to whatever Congress decides to send them.

Two measures would fix the system for a very long time into the future, perhaps permanently if Congress has no access to it, and they are draconian measures for we have a draconian problem. Raise the retirement age to 72 for all who are now over 50. Include the entire wage base for determining SS taxes.

@SavoirFaire Think of it as a Zen koan.

@CaptainHarley True. That is why I think being jaded and cynical is an advantage; it leads one to believe that there is no “magic wand” solution.

@Cruiser Calling something that’s paid out benefits to all participants for 75 years a Ponzi Scheme is a bald-faced lie. It’s not a Ponzi Scheme. Calling it a dismal failure is a lie. It’s probably the most popular government program we’ve ever had.

Now, is lying refreshing when it comes from a politician? Hardly. What’s truly refreshing is when you find one that, even when asked the hard questions that require unpopular answers, won’t lie. And Rick Perry is about as far from that sort of guy as humans can get.

@jerv,

I’m not quite sure how you’re equating taxes with investments. When you’re investing, you’re willingly giving up your money. You’re also investing it to double/triple it over the years. You’re not paying anyone to operate it.

With SS, you’re paying the government to operate it, you’re then additionally paying into it SS, and on top of this, once you receive the money back from SS, you’re being taxed again for it.

Again, median or no median, if you work for a living, you get taxed. Even if you’re in the lowest tax bracket, a certain amount of money is being deducted from your income, thus, that money could have been put away into a savings account, despite how small it is. After a few years, that money would multiply, and then one can invest that money into the various investments that I listed, and after a few years, that money is doubled/tripled depending on the method.

You’ll have to explain why/how you think SS is less screwed up then CD’s, T-Bills, money markets, and the various other investment options. Explain also how SS is more beneficial then these investment options.

Let me get this straight, because I advocate for freedom of choice, I’m actually forcing responsibility upon the people? If so, I guess I can’t disagree with you there, but the alternative is a government that has a monopoly over violence and uses violence to force responsibility and pretty much anything else it deems fit. I’ll take freedom of choice.

Now, you’re arguing that most people are uneducated, and don’t know how to manage their money, therefore, the government should manage it for them. That’s fine for them, but what about the people that do know how to manage their money and are educated. Fuck them? This would easily be a non-issue if you let those who’re not interested in the government system to be able to opt out. Case closed.

You may have not chosen to get laid off and have your car blown up, but what good are these excuses? So maybe it wasn’t your fault, and? Now what? You follow up with more excuses about expenses. Fine, and?

A government should be there to only prevent and stop people from killing each other. That’s the only thing you need to prevent chaos. All that is required to achieve this is an army, police, and a court system. I fully agree, the army shouldn’t be fighting wars overseas. It’s there for us, and us only.

A government with such limitations won’t cost much in taxes and won’t lead to much corruption because its power is limited.

@plethora The very first recipient of Social Security was Ernest Ackerman. He paid in five cents and received a lump-sum payout of seventeen cents. You are thinking of Ida May Fuller, who was the first person to start receiving monthly payments. She paid in $24.75 and received a total of $22,888.92 (which is much less than $100,000).

@ETpro Not to get into a big debate here, but the argument for 75 years of success in paying benefits as a sign of success is pretty weak, when you consider that Bernie Madoff just one single individual ran a successful Ponzi Scheme for 20 years or so.

The gov’t could easily run it’s Ponzi Scheme forever, but the decline in population growth is a huge problem in doing so. If it were a FUNDED plan, decline in population growth would have little effect on it.

@SavoirFaire I stand corrected until I can check my source. I see your reference on a SS History page online. Thanks.

@woken You overestimate the ROI by enough that I can’t even read the rest of your post. You would be correct if we were all Methuselah, but since I will likely be dead within the next 30–40 years, there isn’t enough time for compound interest double any investment unless you are wiling to put up with enough risk that you may wind up penniless.

Now, I am going to go get the laughter out of my system before I even attempt to read the rest.

@plethora Thanks for the opportunity to explain what’s different about Bernie Madoff ‘s Ponzi Scheme and Social Security. The only reason Madoff’s scam ran so long is that due to great confidence in it being a top-flight investment, hardly any of the people putting money in took any back out. It fell apart when people needed funds and started asking for a check.

Social Security doesn’t work that way. Virtually everyone that puts money in takes it back out. Further, Madoff took most of the money to line his own pockets. Nobody is getting filthy rich skimming off nearly all the contributions taxpayers make to social security. Even when Social Security runs short of full funding in something like 2037 (if the economy stays foul) it will not be broke. It will just not be able to pay 100% of what is intended now with cost of living increases. The way Social Security is set up, it can never go broke unless the US suddenly stops collecting any funds for it.

You may dislike Social Security. You may argue that private investment accounts would be a better idea. You may argue that we should leave retirement income or starvation in old age up to each individual. But you cannot honestly argue that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme,. Look at the definition. It doesn’t fit.

@Jerv,

No, Jerv, you underestimate the ROI.

Also, even if you don’t invest the money, you still could have kept it in a savings account without paying anyone to operate it and can use it whenever you need too. There already is the main advantage over the government.

You wouldn’t be able to touch SS until retirement and you would be constantly paying the government to operate it.

Hey Jerv, how much are you collecting from SS. $150—$200 a month?

I’m sure it’s doing wonders for you, laugh. Great system, wink.

@woken I am perhaps biased because I’m collecting SS now. If I’d had what money I could spare in the market in 2007 when I turned 65, I would have had to live oin a starvation diet or work. Fact is I like working, and still do at 67. I own the company, so I don’t plan to make me retire. As to what benefits you get, depends on how young you are when you first begin collecting. I get $1,503 a month. If I had to, I could live on that. Not at the standard of living I now enjoy in an exclusive area of downtown Boston, but I could live on it.

I do understand why young people looking at the system when they retire are concerned, but we can VERY easily fix the system so it remains fully funded in perpetuity. The fix would be relatively painless for all Americans. It just takes the political will to do it.

@ETpro,

The types of investments I listed, and there are many more, are not affected by market conditions. They’re much safer investments.

All you have to do is not touch the money.

I’m sure you can live on $1500 a month, but how well would you live, especially when inflation rises?

Think of what all that money in SS could have done for you if it was properly invested. You missed out.

In fact, you lost more then you put in with the hidden taxes.

Of course we can fix the system by allowing people to choose where they put their money.

Why do you have such a problem with people opting out? I don’t get it…

@woken I could have bought gold and be fine today. But the fact is that most people either can’t or won’t invest to cover their future. If we go to a system where they either become wards of the state or starve, that’s a great leap backward in my eyes. Social Security works to provide a decent standard of retirement for all. It costs us very little in annual contributions. And we’re all still free to invest in any way we wish.

I would not chose to fix the system by privatizing it or making it a choice. Some people make bad bets. Some people are born with IQs o low they don’t know what investment means. I want to see the present system fixed by raising the cap so that all citizens who are able to work are covered by it.

@woken You never saw housing prices or the cost of living in Boston :D

“As of August, 2011, average apartment rent within 10 miles of Boston, MA is $2116.

One bedroom apartments in Boston rent for $1708 a month on average and two bedroom apartment rents average $2071.” – Source

@ETpro,

I never said anything about privatization.

I said, if I’m educated enough to invest my money properly as well as anyone else who wants to be independent and have self responsibility, then these people, and I should be allowed to opt out of SS.

You want SS, then fine, continue getting taxed and pay into the system. Enjoy.

I want out as do many others. We don’t want to be part of the collective. It’s very simple.

Show us some respect by not taxing us for something we don’t want, and not forcing us to pay in to something we don’t need.

@woken And there are things I don’t want to pay for either. Your point?

@jerv

Well there you go….ET’s monthly SS bill is just enough to pay for rent.

How great SS is, laugh.

@jerv,

If you don’t want to pay, then you shouldn’t have to be forced too. Very simple.

I don’t see how this equates to chaos. This equates to a limited government.

I should add that the people who ran/run our economy were/are also quite educated. Look at how well that worked out!

@jerv Ha! I’m glad somebody feels my pain. That said, I choose to live here. I could move to Ofdamap, Wyoming and buy a 10,000 acre spread for what it costs to live here. But then, this is a GREAT place to own rental units. :-)

@woken This is a democracy. We vote on what our laws are. Some people want to run Ponzi Schemes, too. It’s a great business for the guy who launches it. But because so many people get hurt in such scams, we choose to make it illegal. Most states won’t let you drive if your refuse to buy auto insurance. You might say you will invest and self insure with your wealth, but that won’t cut it with the state. Too many people say that, but fail to follow through.

Here’s respect. If you can’t stand the rules a democracy sets for you, you are perfectly free to move to a place with rules more to your linking.

/facepalm

@jerv

Hey jerv, you do know the Constitution protects an individuals liberty from an oppressive majority?

The majority doesn’t have a right to outvote the minority if it violates his/her right of choice.

There is no concept in the Constitution of the collective good over the minorities.
It’s about the individual.

@ETpro,

That applies to you too, etpro. ^^

@ETpro,

Last time I checked, the majority of the people voted congress into the house, and if the people vote republicans in 2012, then the people are tired of SS and the other democratic policies.

Shouldn’t be complaining then about Mr. Perry.

If Ron Paul ever gets elected then the majority of people are tired of the entire nanny state.

So you shouldn’t be complaining about that either. Leave or like it.

@woken Social Security has been upheld as constitutional. I see no violation of the Constitution in it. And the Constitution is all about securing the collective good. It’s about ensuring individual rights and establishing a more perfect union.

If the people do vote to end Social Security as Republicans so desperately want to do, then so be it. I will respect that. I do hope that we at least elect to honor the commitments made to all those who’ve spent their entire careers paying in, though. But remember what happened to George W. Bush when he tocuhed the third rail of Social Security trying to privatize it after the Supremes elected him.

@ETpro,

Something can still be unconstitutional even though it’s currently constitutional.

Slavery was perfectly acceptable as well at some point.

It’s no longer an individual right if I have to pay into some program that I don’t want to have anything to do with. The Constitution is no longer protecting my life’s choices.

It’s no different then if the majority decided one day that I should be hanged, or perhaps something less severe, like having my property be shared by the public in honor of the collective good.

If the Constitution upholds it, then it’s perfectly fine. Wonderful.

@woken We’ve drifted off topic of Rick Perry’s quotes, but it is Social, so last work on this from me. Have at a Constitutional challenge. As conservative as the court is today, who knows what they’ll see in the Constitution next?

Well, the court was very liberal in the 1930’s, so you had your run.

If we’re supposedly, as you say, leaning more conservative in the court systems, and the majority of people vote for the abolishing of the nanny state, then you can either leave this country, or enjoy it, as you suggested for me, right?

The truth is, it really doesn’t matter what system you’re in because success is a choice. Being poor is a choice.

I do very well in this rotten system, but that isn’t a reason for me to not advocate for improvements so that I can do even better. I’ll lobby my ass off in hopes of seeing this country revert back to the founding father ways. It’s a good investment.

You want America the way it was in the 18th century? I don’t. Nuf said.

@ETpro,

Hah, funny you don’t compare 18th century America to the rest of the world at that time. It was paradise in America in the 18th century when compared to what Europe experienced.

Nuff said, Indeed.

@SavoirFaire

Perhaps I should have made that more clear. An ideology is based on preconcieved notions about the world, rather than a more empirical approach which attempts to use only those processes and procedures, laws and regulations, which have proven to be effective.

Those basing their behavior on empericism will change their approach when it is proven to be ineffective. Those basing their behavior on ideology will continue to make the same mistakes because they believe their ideology is correct even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

@CaptainHarley…which is why I hold many of the views I do. Oddly, we think alike and yet butt heads on politics all the time :/

LOL! Weird! [ music from The X-Files ]

@ETpro I think what many people here are failing to recognize is that Perry used the words Ponzi scheme is to get attention. True, by the classic definition of Ponzi scheme SS does not exactly fit , we know this and Perry knows this. He just took a very direct approach to call attention to a serious program previous administration have preferred to sweep under the rug because SS is the sacred cow of a significant part of our population.

I could not help but notice in last nights debate when this subject was again debated the the people in the audience clapping the loudest for Perry when he answered this question were retired folk. Americans are smart enough to know the realities of this problem and Perry skillfully is making the most of this problem and he is picking up this political football and running with it and IMO will score a lot of points with it.

@plethora Thanks for the reading suggestion, but I already know, very well, how Social Security works. I have been contributing to it since the 1970’s.
That first year, I didn’t put in very much; probably a couple hundred dollars. Many of my working years I maxed out on my contributions. I hope to retire in 4 years, but if I die before that, I won’t have seen a dime from it.
If I retire at 59, I will start drawing SSI at 62, and won’t receive more than my investment till I am in my 70’s. I hope to see that, but I don’t expect it.

@Cruiser Actually, if you read some of the arguments above, a lot of people don’t know that SS doesn’t fit that definition. I think that that right there casts doubt on whether Americans are smart enough to know the realities. One of those realities is that the more points Perry scores with the type of people that normally attend a Republican debate (namely, Conservatives and Republicans), the more he loses from the other end of the spectrum.

@filmfann Don’t bring logic into this!

@ETpro Au Contraire. The SEC basic definition of a Ponzi Scheme fits perfectly re SS

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue.

It is legal for the govt to run this Ponzi scheme and it is regulated, but Ponzi scheme it is by the SEC’s own definition.

@woken I feel your pain and it would be wonderful if it could work voluntarily. But in the US, I see no way that it would. We have the lowest savings rate in the world. Some of us save money, but most of us don’t. Even if they did, virtually no one knows how to invest for the long term. I am in the business of convincing CEO’s that their 401k plans do not work, that the individual employee fails to save enough to come close to retirement and that even if they did, they have neither the tools nor the expertise to do the investing.

Some DO. But most DO NOT.

@jerv I really think it goes both ways depending on how you want to spin the argument. Clearly there is less money going in than coming out and that is a fact…and one that was until now off of most’s radar screen. I knew that day would come 40 years ago when I first got my SS card…being the tail end of the baby boomers the numbers simply don’t add up. So for the last 30 years I have only heard about how SS will run out of money and nobody seems to want to take hold of the problem and have simply kicked the can down the road.

And I don’t agree this is going to be a Dem vs Rep issue as it will become increasingly clear the there are few solutions to the problem that will undoubtedly affect each and every one of us. And the biggest thing for me is knowing all this time I was forced to give money to a sinkhole that more than likely will be a shadow of it’s former self and could have invested that money myself and had a nice chunk of change I knew would be mine when I retire. So I have had to double down with my own IRA’s and believe me I would have loved to have that money to buy other things I feel I have earned for all my hard work but alas have had to invest cover for my Governments mishandling of SS.

This is a bi-partisan…heck tri-partisan issue that is here for all of us to deal with and I agree with Perry that the time is now to address it.

@Cruiser Like many other things, it’s not about fixing the problem; it’s about which side is right. I agree that it’s long past time we addressed the issue, but I think it will become a partisan fight. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but politicians are not exactly mature people working solely for the good of the people. And if the last couple of years are any indication, I see fillibusters based on spite, as there have been for measures that finally passed by margins like 92–8.

As for being forced to put your money into a sinkhole, I will pretend you already know where that statement went wrong and move on.

@plethora,

I offered a compromise, but it was ignored.

I said, how about the government forces the people to invest into the secured investment options? Basically, people would report every year to the government that they put some of their money aside into these investments, or perhaps just simply keeping up a quota in the savings account depending one’s salary.

This way, you don’t have to pay the government extra $$ to operate SS, & you don’t get taxed again after receiving your SS, and… you end up doubling/tripling your money over the years.

Also, if you really think most do not know, or want to save, then explain why there is such a push to abolish the SS, and if you go with Ron Paul folks, to abolish the the whole nanny state, period?

Obviously people are learning that a government is not the solution to their problems. The mindset of the 1930’s is dying down slowly.

Ron Paul is a lot more popular then he was in the previous elections. That says a lot about the mindset of the people. They’re slowly growing up and embracing personal responsibility.

@jerv I stand by my choice of “forced” as I did not and do not yet have a choice of contributing to SS and there is little point now to having a choice at my stage of the game.

@Cruiser Just as I am forced to pay for things like GE’s negative tax liability, a poorly run War on Terror, TSA agents groping people without actually making us safer…

lol @jerv I guess it just will never end! ;)

@woken Yes Id go for that if you could sell it. It would be a multistage process to get there.

@woken The devil is in the details. I can see how such a system could work, but the real problem is the transition. Re-training the chimps in government, figuring out how to deal with people that are halfway to retirement, selling it to the voters. The biggest reason I am wary of changing the system too drastically is a major fear that it will cause more problems than it solves.

I like the idea of a hybrid system in which the people invest their money and the gov’t absorbs the bulk of the risk. However I would be extremely skeptical that the administrators of such a system wouldn’t be corrupted into choosing certain investment funds over others. So you’d need (gasp) GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT!!! Of some sort. Some sort that would actually be effective and not bloated.

@jerv,

You always have that risk, but to sit around and tolerate a rotten system is equally unacceptable.

@cockswain,

Well, create the system in such a way where the government has no say where you save or invest your money, just as long as it’s being saved and/or invested.

Who’s watching the regulators? Oh that’s right, no one.

You keep putting authority figures above you, and grant them power, and then you whine about corruptions.

And to solve corruptions, you want to add more authority figures in addition to the ones already there only to have more corruption to follow.

Don’t you realize that any time you put someone above you and grant them power, you’re always going to get fucked? There are plenty of history lessons to prove this.

This is the price you will always pay for setting up the few to rule over the many, all because people can’t handle personal responsibility.

I get your logic, yet this becomes the crux of the problem with our current gov’t system. First of all, we can’t count on everyone to be responsible because they aren’t. If someone is careless and screws themselves over, human nature is not to watch our neighbor die because he didn’t save enough for food or healthcare. While some people may let them suffer, most will help.

Second, gov’t regulation is an absolute necessity to some degree. Without it, we would have more numerous disasters than we currently do. But I get that a bloated gov’t regulation can become inefficient, wasteful, and even hamper economic growth. So there needs to be some kind of balance, right? And striking that correct balance in today’s political climate seems even less attainable than ever because of the extremists.

Truth be told, Obama is a pretty moderate president, yet he is demonized by the far right of things that would be acceptable if uttered from the mouth of a member of the GOP. This is really the bs of politics in general. Jon Huntsman seems pretty similar in a lot of his philosophy to a moderate liberal, yet he is a member of the GOP. Similarly, if Obama says we need to cut taxes, there are plenty of liberals who would suddenly find that to be justified.

So yes, I get your slippery slope point of who watches the watchers who watch the watchers that watch the watchers. I certainly wouldn’t characterize my position as whining. I just know that a fully libertarian system would fail to a similar extent as communism.

People aren’t perfect. They screw up big time all the time. They create good and bad systems of gov’t. Our current system needs reform and just about everyone realizes that.

When someone screws up and requires assistance, does he grab something that belongs to someone else, or does he ask for help?

In a government system there is only taking by force, not asking nicely. Also, the government takes from everyone, but not everyone is in a position to give due to their own problems, but the government does’t care.

In a non-government system, the individual assess the situation and see’s if he/she is in a position to give, if he/she has enough assets to spare a little.

I’m fairly certain, that if one can barely feed his/her kids, he/she would not be in a position to help someone who is in trouble due to their irresponsibility. You can’t reduce yourself to zero in order to help someone a little.

Therefore, the most likely person to help, and the most likely person to ask for help, is someone in a better situation. It doesn’t have to be someone rich either. This is the difference between government and the individual.

I disagree that there would be more damage done if we had no regulations. False presumption. Putting the few to rule over the many, but who’s watching the few? No one.

I’ll give you a good tip on making money & the general view of SS, and the policies.

Human nature is dynamic. Markets are dynamic. A government is static. Government regulations are static. How can you have static control something dynamic? You can’t.

The result will always be instability and the inevitable crash.

Keep this always in mind, and you will make money in the most rotten of systems.

I can only imagine what your ideal gov’t would look like given the current state of human nature.

I disagree that there would be more damage done if we had no regulations. False presumption.

To keep things simple and brief, do you think that there would be more or less building fires if there wasn’t regulation about aluminum wiring? Could I build and sell you a house in which I space the studs 4 ft apart? You won’t see the sag for a while. How about if I don’t use pressure treated lumber in the appropriate places? Can I charge you full price for a house that will fall apart in 10 years? You don’t think these simple and specific regulations prevent more problems than they cause?

There is no ideal government. There can never be one because human nature is dynamic, and a government is static. That’s why you will always have instability. I’m a capitalist, not an idealist.

Do you know what Capitalism means? It’s a voluntary transaction between the buyer and seller. Did someone have a gun to you head to purchase the home? No, you wanted to buy it from the seller. When you purchase a product, you examine it, you learn about it, before buying it.

If every transaction is done voluntarily between a buyer and seller, then why the hell do you need a regulator? You don’t.

I think you’re taking an unnecessarily condescending tone.

I don’t feel you answered my question very well. So if you were to buy a home that was built 3 years ago, you would open the drywall in various places to check the stud spacing, or try and use a stud finder? Would you peel away the lapped wood siding to inspect the foundational lumber?

I’ve bought more then a few homes, and I did exactly that. I read about the various materials and structures of homes, and then I went and took samples of the home. I checked out the beams, the plywood, the type of screws they used, etc…

And you know what, I never had any problems because I purchased a quality product.

Congrats to you for being conscientious, I’m the same way.

But do you think you and I are typical or abnormal in both having patience to learn about these things and then having the intelligence and skill to apply them to purchasing a home? My contention is most people do not. So what do you think it would do to the housing market if word got out that there were lots of crappy homes for sale? Wouldn’t average people be discouraged from purchasing a home?

@cockswain,

Again, you’re looking for a concrete answer to a dynamic question.

Coca-Cola was caught by the people (not the regulators) for some shady practices regarding their product. It was well known that they had harmful crap in the drink, yet, why is it that everyone still drinks Coca-Cola, why is that Coca-Cola had record earnings, and why is it that people still looking to work for Coca-Cola?

See what I mean, if Coca-Cola is so bad, then the people would have abandoned it long ago, but they don’t/didn’t.

But the point is, it’s the people that control the market, not some stupid regulator who is just getting lobbied by the Corps to turn a blind eye.

Look at google products, all the millions of reviews that people contribute to the various listed products. If the product is shit, then they will make their voice heard, and the company will pay the price for it. Etc…

Can’t set a fixed policy on something dynamic. You just can’t, it never worked.

No, I’m looking for a concrete answer to a concrete question at the moment. You’re jumping ahead to something we shouldn’t discuss until later. If we don’t agree about even the most fundamental value of regulation, I think it will be difficult to not give up in frustration later on.

Does regulation regarding home construction give the buyer confidence and thus stimulate the housing market? If not, please explain why.

No, it doesn’t help the buyer because more and more people are starting to realize that regulations are a gimmick. It’s just an illusion, just for show. The practical though, is useless.

The housing bubble really woke people up about how regulations are nothing but gimmicks.

I’ll give you a good example of why it’s a system issue, not a cultural/nature issue.

Capitalism was implemented in West Germany and West Berlin following World War II.
West Germany and West Berlin prospered and living standards blossomed.

Socialism was implemented in East Germany and East Berlin following World War II.
East Germany and East Berlin stagnated and living standards deteriorated.

The split turned Germany into a laboratory. Germany became an experiment for 44 years.
It consisted of a classic scientific ‘control’ group (in the two Easts) and ‘test’ group (in the two Wests). We witnessed (or you can review in historical documentation) the result.

Why didn’t the regulators catch Coca-Cola’s harmful practices – it was the people.

Why didn’t the regulators catch Bernie Madoff – it was the people.

Why are a lot of the regulators working for the Corporations instead of against them after being captured through lobbying?

So why should the consumer have confidence in any of the regulations?

I could go on and on with this stuff. If a person doesn’t understand yet, then obviously he will be naive enough to build up some confidence over the supposedly regulated products, but since more people realize that the regulations are bullshit, the less confident the buyer is.

There were independent studies that found cancer causing food still being sold to people, yet the regulators say it’s fine. Awesome.

Why are people still getting sick from ecoli outbreaks once in a while, where were the regulators?

Like I said, on and on.

There is a fundamental concept here and that is you think adults are children and need supervision, and I think adults are adults and don’t need supervision. Perhaps even if I thought that adults are children, I’m still not responsible for them, however, if I’m able to help someone out, I’ll assess the situation and help them, but not at the expense of myself or my loved one’s. They should learn from their mistakes which is the best type of learning. You don’t reward failures.

After this fundamental concept, everything else that follows will seem logical.

My son was bumming around the house for 5 years after graduation. Just playing video games, watching movies, partying. I showed him some mercy, poor choice on my part.

One day, I started gradually warning him to shape up or ship out, yet it didn’t sink it.
He had no responsibilities because I took care of everything.

So one day, as he walked in to the kitchen, I walked in to his room grabbed the $4000 TV I bought him and through it out the second story window into my backyard. Before he had a chance to run into the room to hear what the noise was, I took his $6000 custom computer that I also bought him, and as he walked in, I through it out the window.

Prior to this, I packed his clothes and opened up a bank account for him which I funded with enough money for him to live off of for a few months on his own.

After experiencing a horrible reality with a filthy roach infested apartment, bad neighborhood, not enough money for nice clothes, food, etc… he started working not just one job, but 2 to 3 at some point.

Fast forward years later, he’s a walking success and thanked me for what I did to him.
Regrets that I haven’t done it sooner. I share the same regret, but he’s 32, so it’s not so bad.

This is the best type of lesson you can give someone. You don’t reward him for his failures. You punish him until he realizes what needs to be done. The nanny has left the building.

@woken
Ey yo, careful with Germany there.
Since its inception, (West) Germany had what is called a “Social Market Economy”. Meaning strong unions, strong regulations and comprehensive worker protection legislation. Furthermore both telecommunications and public transport were for a very long time completely government owned (now that the rails are partly privatised, people are complaining about deteriorated service and late trains).
Plus we have such gimmicks as a strong social safety net and universal healthcare.
Did any of that hold us back? No. We are the strongest Economy in Europe, we are the second largest exporter (China overtook us in 2010) and when comparing exports to imports, we are running a trade surplus (more export than import), compared to the USA’s massive trade deficit.

@ragingloli,

I’ll answer you a little later on Germany, but I’ll give you 3 more examples in the meantime.

North Korea (socialism) – Stagnated – They barely have electricity there.
South Korea (capitalism). Prospered, one of the best.

Japan(capitalism) – Prospered, one of the best.
India (socialism) – Stagnated (they switched to capitalism when socialism failed)

Hong Kong (capitalism) – Prospered – The best in the world.
Cuba (socialism) – Stagnant.

Based on this, it is showing that the system is the issue, not culture/nature.

What is and was being practiced in so called “socialist” countries like North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. is not socialism, but state capitalism, which one of the initial pioneers of actual socialism, Friedrich Engels, described as the final stage of Capitalism, where the state controls the economy and operates like one single corporation.
Actual socialism is ownership and administration at the base, by the workers themselves (see Worker Cooperatives for an example of actual socialism). And that has never been practiced on a nation scale.

From webster’s dictionary…

Socialism is defined as…

1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods,

2.
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

“North Korea has an industrialised, near-autarkic, highly centralized command economy. Of the five remaining Communist states in the world, North Korea is one of only two (along with Cuba) with an almost entirely government-planned, state-owned economy. The Central Planning Committee prepares, supervises and implements economic plans, while a General Bureau of Provincial Industry in each region is responsible for the management of local manufacturing facilities, production, resource allocation and sales.”

Well, North Korea, Cuba, former India seem to fit in with how socialism is defined.

Websters Definition of Capitalism

Capitalism is defined as….

“an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”

This definition does not fit in with the economy of North Korea, Cuba, and former India.

@woken Define “state” and “government”.

The argument could be made that US corporations influence the elected officials and ignore regulations and taxation to the point where the real power isn’t in legislature and court rooms, but rather, in boardrooms. Given that we are more tolerant of monopolies than idealistic theories suggest, it could be argued that the market is already centralized.

You also assume that the prices, production, and distribution of goods n America are determined by competition in a free market. With that, you are admitting that we do not have Capitalism here!

Webster’s definition of State

State is defined as….

1.
a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign

b: the political organization of such a body of people

c: a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state> <the welfare state>

2. the operations or concerns of the government of a country

3. one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government <the fifty states>

4. the territory of a state

Websters definition of Government

Government is defined as…

1. the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

2.
a : the office, authority, or function of governing

b: obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office

3. the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit

4.
a: the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it

b: the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out

5. the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization:

a: the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency

b: the executive branch of the United States federal government

c: a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs: (1) : such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry (2) : ADMINISTRATION 4b

The first part of your argument is based on false presumptions.

The second part of your argument doesn’t make sense…

Capitalism: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”

So yes, I assume the bold line is what we have here in America, and that is the definition of capitalism.

And this is for anyone who excuses GE, Exxon Mobile, and any other Corporation of not paying taxes.

Official Sec (Regulators) Filings – Must be public records…

GE – Income Statement – Balance Sheet – Cash Flow

Exxon Mobile – Income Statement – Balance Sheet – Cash Flow

@woken You seem to operate in a different world; a world of theory where rhetoric is fact. You don’t even see where you contradict yourself, you are incapable of getting a point, at least beyond finding something to refute.

A picture is worth a thousand words

I’m fairly certain I’m in the right reality. I’ve made nothing but factual points.

Just because I disagree with you and attempt to refute what you say, doesn’t mean I don’t understand your points.

I don’t know why me disagreeing with you is so unbearable.

You’re right, a picture is worth a thousand words & Picture2

Yep But at least in the land of Captalism, our starving children are not naked like the ones in Africa. . And given teh growing nequlaity of wealth and income we have here, it’s almost a moot point.

However, it’s not the fact that you disagree with me though; it’s the way in which you do so. A way that further reinforces my opinion about you and those like you; incapable of seeing your own inconsistency, hypocrisy, and inaccuracy. Blinded by rhetoric, illogical in that you confuse correlation with causation, and just generally impossible to communicate with.

I stuck around this thread for this long only out of boredom, but I’ve found better things to do than talk to walls. Hasta.

Yet, I just scrolled up and noticed you haven’t pointed out one inconsistency, hypocrisy, and inaccuracy in what I wrote. So that would be false accusations on your part.

Growing inequality? Haha. Let this explain you something because you’re completely blind at this point.

“You, personally are barely making ends meet. You’re renting an apartment and driving every day to a dead-end job that ‘s going nowhere. You work your 40-hour week, and have nothing to show for it but rent receipts and credit card bills. You hear about all of these people getting sick on cruise ships, and grouse that you don’t have enough money to even get on the ship, let alone throw up on the poop deck.

So, just why aren’t you rich? Why don’t you have a fancy car? Why aren’t you tossing your lunch on Caribbean cruises? Why do you make rent payments instead of mortgage payments?

The last thing you want to do is to admit that this all may be your fault. Your poverty couldn’t possibly have anything to do with your decision to forego college for that great job at the mall. You’re also convinced that your decision to hang out with your friends at night instead of getting some more education at the local community college was the right one. Hey! You work hard and deserve your fun, right?

And just why should you have to work more than 40 hours a week? That’s what you’re supposed to work, right? Forty hours, no more. After all, you’re not a slave, are you? What about your huge car payments? Sure, you could be putting that money into an investment account, but you need that fancy car, right? And the rims? Hey! A guy’s gotta be cool, you know what I’m saying?

So … those rich people? Did they get that way doing the things you won’t do? Working the 60-hour week, continuing with their education, buying cheap cars with ordinary wheels and investing the rest? Do they have the nice homes and the fancy cars because they make good choices and aren’t afraid of taking a risk now and then?

No way! If a person could really get rich that way you would have done it already, right? No, that’s now how they got their money. These people are rich because they exploited people. They got their money by climbing on the backs of working people like you! They were lucky! They inherited it! They didn’t earn it. If it could be earned, you would have done it, right?

You have to protect yourself here, don’t you? If you accept that the vast majority of those you call “rich” got there through hard work, then don’t you have to ask yourself why you’re not one of them? It’s just so much easier to cast them as callous, selfish monsters and evil exploiters of the working class while preserving the mantle of goodness and righteousness for yourself. Hey, you may be poor, but at least you’re a nice person, right?” source

Keep making excuses for yourself and blaming everyone and everything except yourself, you’re going to go far in life.

There are books out there that prove those who advocate for socialism, communism, collectivism, are people who’re failures in life. Failed capitalists. People who’re poor, who’re sick, etc…

it’s very rarely that you would find a successful capitalist advocating for socialism, and when you see that, it’s usually to further take advantage of people like you.

@woken I get the feeling you just want to rant to get shit off your chest more than have a discussion with the people here. In response to me wanting to discuss the usefulness of various regulations (for which I’m certain you’ll try your best to find there is zero use for any, regardless of safety, just to make your point), you started giving wild examples of capitalist vs. socialist gov’ts. I’m not saying socialist gov’ts stimulate economic growth better than capitalist ones, and I don’t know why you jumped to that assertion. I was trying to discuss the amount of useful regulation that strikes a balance in between economic freedoms/growth but properly corrects externalities. You seem to want to focus on the extremes. I think that’s dumb.

But while I could get past that, you then go on to loosely assert with follow up posts to others that everyone who isn’t a pure non-regulation, extreme far-right capitalist is a socialist. And that any of these people are probably just whiny losers that haven’t won the capitalist game (supported by a World Net editorial by some asshole). For you to take the stance that anyone who isn’t sharing your beliefs must be a socialist and some sort of lazy, whiny, pussy is complete bullshit.

Capitalism is not “just 2 guys doing business”. To describe it like that is to knowingly misrepresent reality. It also falsely implies an equality between the two parties that simply does not exist.
The reality is that there is the singular individual individual of limited resources and information dealing with a large group with a lot of resources and a lot of information.
Corporations have access to comprehensive market research and personal information about their potential customers that enables them to adapt their marketing strategy to maximum manipulation of the potential customer to maximise sales.
Their financial resources also enable them to suppress any opposition, like people who criticise their business practices or products, with lawsuits and the threat thereof.
Back in the old times, before the advent of unions, they resorted to assassinations, too.

The customer on the other hand has barely any information about the company or the product at all, because all the information that he gets are from intentionally manipulative advertising and unreliable word of mouth. Information that would be useful for the customer to make his decision are conveniently “company secrets”.
The customer simply has no reliable way of knowing that the product he is about to buy actually works, is manufactured properly, is safe or if it even contains poisonous substances.
Just look at chinese manufactured toys. Full of carcinogenics. You would not even know you are poisoning your kids without independent public research institutions.
Did you know that companies used to sell radioactive materials as ‘medicine’?
Forget about warranty, too, because if it were not mandated, most companies would not give you warranty. It is just incurred cost with limited benefit, coupled with the fact that there are millions more of customers that will buy their products even if you never buy it again.
And thanks to their suppressive efforts, other customers may never know about your slight.

It does not look better for employees and workers either.
The same problem applies: David vs Goliath.
The employee is the one who risks starving to death if fired and if he complains to his employer about working conditions, hours, pay or safety, well, there are millions of others who will do his job and who won’t complain.
The corporation on the other hand, can do without that particular employee, both temporarily and permanently if need be, and it can replace him with a more “cooperative” worker from a readily available pool of millions. The same is true if the employee dies in a workplace accident or from unhealthy conditions at the work place.
The worker is expendable and has no actual leverage against the company.
The company on the other hand has every leverage.

And all this is by no means hypothetical.
Before regulations, workplaces were unhealthy and even deadly.
People died in fires because the workplace had no fire escape routes.
People were paid so little that the entire family, children included were forced to work, ruining the children’s health permanently.
(It still happens. In China, the country where most of the west’s products are manufactured.
Remember the story about the Apple factory where workers committed suicide because of pathetically low pay? They also work excessively long work hours 7 days a week.)
Warranty was not a common practice, and you had no legal recourse against the companies.
Union leaders, who attempted to rally the workers to gain some actual leverage, to bargain with the employer for better pay and conditions, got a visit from hired thugs to beat them into submission, or if that was not enough, dead, to intimidate the rest of the workers.

Without government regulations, corporations would fall back into these practices from the industrial revolution. I say this not based on theory, but on the fact that they already do in countries where the appropriate regulations are absent.

Equality doesn’t matter when the transactions are voluntary. No one has a gun to your head during transactions. The consumer wants a product from the seller, and the seller wants the consumer’s money.

As goes for your next point, it doesn’t matter about the consumers limitations, and that is also a false presumption that the consumer is limited in knowledge. What matters is the voluntary transaction of the consumer and seller. Again, no force involved here. It was free will.

Regarding manipulation, the consumer should’ve been responsible enough to understand what he/she is getting involved in. Before you buy a house, you should see if you can afford it, you should read the fine print of the contract, you should examine and learn about your product. Furthermore, if a seller offers a faulty product and screws over the consumer, then you simply take the seller to court because the contract stated one thing, and the product was something else. This is a violation of the contract which can be resolved in a court.

There is no reason to defame a Corporation if it can be handled in court providing you’ve genuine evidence.

What you can also do, and what many do, is that once they get defrauded, they boycott the product and spread the word of the harmful unethical practices of the business. If it’s just the product that is faulty, they post reviews and spread the word as well. See online reviews.

Furthermore, a Corporation needs demand in order to function. It requires consumers to be happy with the product and recommend the product to others. The corporation needs employees to help run the Corporation. If the consumer is dissatisfied with the product, then the employees will be the first to get fired, and the Corporations will be stuck with the supply. These employees are also potential consumers.

So to say that Corporations have intentions to manipulate you and harm you, is false logic.

How much harm was caused during the house bubble and Bernie Madoff?
Where were the regulators to stop the harm?

You’re still feeling the harm right now. How much people got screwed? Around half the country, on top of the already poor/sick percentage.

Speaking of fires and failed regulations, the hamlet chicken processing plant fire was an industrial fire in Hamlet, North Carolina, at the Imperial Foods chicken processing plant on September 3, 1991, due to a failure in a hydraulic line. Twenty-five were killed and 54 injured in the fire, trapped behind locked fire doors. In 11 years of operation, the plant had never received a safety inspection.Investigators believe a safety inspection might have prevented the disaster. So much for the awesome regulation, huh? Nice to see where my money gets wasted.

Also, it’s the consumer that prevented and punished Corporations as I described above, not the regulator. I gave a few examples above regarding Coca-Cola harmful practices. The regulators are the ones who get lobbied to by the Corporations and then end up working for the Corporations instead of against them. The more regulations, the more power a Corporation receives.

You deem the industrial revolution as a failed market system, but you ignore the current conditions around the world at that time. Had you done so, you would know that America was paradise compared to what Europe was experiencing at that time.

Oh yeh, not only do the regulations not work, but you’re spending billions for it which could have instead helped people pay their bills, but instead it reduces them to poverty, Excellent.

The problem is you don’t let the market sort out the problems, you quickly intervene.

Simple logic will tell you that if people are dying on you, it’s bad for business. The problem would have been fixed as equally as any regulation attempts to do.

Furthermore, taking one case, and generalizing it as market failures is negligible.

As I’ve stated in other threads, if one man guns someone down, then everyone should lose their guns?

You see the difference between handling a individual case, individually, rather then handling an individual case as a full blown attack on everyone.

Some guy pollutes, so everyone has to pay worthless regulations to monitor him, instead of handling it in court.

Mr. Bloomberg now wants to end the 2nd & 4th amendment rights. You just proposed his “blueprints”. Bloomberg cited the rampant gun violence by black gangbangers over the weekend, as a reason for law abiding citizens to give up their rights. Bloomberg wants the innocent unarmed, while the thugs will still have illegal guns anyway.

I’ll give you a recent personal example that I had. A Corporation, that will remain nameless, was pitching me expensive HDMI cables that costs more then $100.

So, I’ve done my research on the subject, and I told them to stop pitching me this garbage, because if you understand the technology behind HDMI, it’s either a digital signal, or it’s not. There is no difference between a cheap $1 generic and the expensive product.

So there you go, an entire Corporation vs me, and he hung up on me.

Regulations that are not enforced is the same as if there were no regulations at all, and it actually supports my argument.
When a tragedy happens because regulations are not enforced just confirms that corporations can not be trusted to do the right thing on their own.

”As goes for your next point, it doesn’t matter about the consumers limitations, and that is also a false presumption that the consumer is limited in knowledge. What matters is the voluntary transaction of the consumer and seller. Again, no force involved here. It was free will.”
So you are okay with people agreeing to being fucked over because they did not know (and had no way of knowing) that they would get fucked over.
I can see we have a massive difference in terms of basic morality and ethics.

”There is no reason to defame a Corporation if it can be handled in court providing you’ve genuine evidence.”
First of all, going to court costs money, and guess who will run out of it first.
Second, because of their financial resources, corporations can hire better lawyers than the other side, and the better the word twister, the higher your chances of winning, regardless of evidence, especially when juries are involved.

“So there you go, an entire Corporation vs me, and he hung up on me.”
You had the time and resources to do that. Most people do not have the time.
Do you do that for every product you buy? Do you research the manufacturing process, quality, treatment of workers, etc., for every tube of toothpaste, soap, razor, canned soup, meat, bread, battery, etc. that you buy? If so, you must have a lot of time on your hands.

Besides, there are several factors that influence the signal quality of a data transfer cable and that have a direct influence on the price, such as the materials used (using gold in connectors not only increases efficiency and signal quality, but it also increases longevity by minimising corrosion), the quality of the materials (low quality wires can increase resistance and signal degradation), how well something is shielded (signal interference from nearby electronic devices will degrade the signal, the less shielding a cable has, the worse it is), and how well it is put together over all (cheap products have the tendency to fall apart and fail after relatively short time).
So you were not actually informed correctly when you made the decision to tell them off.

But regulations were enforced, they just didn’t work.

The regulators were lobbied so hard that they just turned a blind eye to everything. You had Corporate guys working as regulators. High profile. You keep forgetting the government intervention and how Corporations use that to their advantage over the system without ever paying the price. Too big to fail doesn’t exist in a system that has no government intervention. All these Corps would’ve been toast and all these Corporations would’ve behaved ethically and morally if they knew no one would bail them out.

If a Corporation was not taking care of the business accordingly, then those types of Corporations usually go out of business due to the bad image they created for the consumers. Or they fix the problem in the same matter as the regulator would. Difference is regulations cost billions to everyone, and the Corporation fixing their own problem costs nothing for the people.

Who caught the problems? The consumer. Who wanted to take it to court? The consumer. Who failed? The regulators. Who cost everyone the most damage? The regulators. Billions were wasted on regulations and they did jack shit only to cost us more billions.

It’s an excuse and a lie to state that people did not know and had no way of knowing that they were being fucked over. They had all the information and time in the world to read and to properly investigate the product before purchasing or getting involved. This is a good thing by the way, because people learn from their mistakes especially when it’s a big mistake.

What you’ve have described about the court system is a complaint on the court system, not the Corporations. Reform the court systems by ridding it of the simpletons that serve as juries and you won’t have such issues with rhetoric over evidence.

Ah, so here I agree with you, that we should have our tax dollars fund at least a court system to defend people whose liberties were violated especially if the contract was breeched. The constitution demands this.

Again, to your last part, it’s a an excuse and a lie to state that you do not have the time and resources and it’s simply ridiculous to state that since one didn’t have the time to read up on the product, so it’s not his/her fault that it caused him/her cancer, or whatever. Absolute nonsense.

And yes, I research and read the fine print of everything I buy and get myself involved in. It really does not take that much time and it’s a small price to pay then to gamble with your life. That is called being responsible for your own life, so that you do not screw yourself over. This should be common sense as well.

As for the specifics of the hdmi, they informed me of the shielding that they use from EM and RF interferences, the gold plate, and the gas injections, but I read up on the product regarding this, and to some extent you’re right, you have less degradation and interference but very minor and unnoticeable at least over the course of a few years. Personally, I’ve tried both, and there was no difference. I’ve read various forums of user feedback that stated the same thing.

I’ll just add, it’s not only that regulations get captured through lobbying, but they’re also inefficient on their own. They don’t actually do their job well. They have a poor track record and yes, they’re enforced. The more that they get enforced, it seems the more damage they do.

But like I said, the main theme here is the voluntary transaction. This is the fundamental of capitalism. Pure free will in your choices.

When I want to buy a monitor of off my friend, I don’t need a worthless regulator to watch how we conduct our transactions. It simply costs me double and delays the transaction.

“In 11 years of operation, the plant had never received a safety inspection.Investigators believe a safety inspection might have prevented the disaster. ”
Never doing an inspection = regulation are not enforced.

In that particular case, no, it wasn’t enforced which mean all that tax money went to waste.

To claim that if you enforce it, it would have prevented the fire (as investigators said) is complete speculation on their part. Simply because the regulators could have easily neglected it or unnoticed it.

But that’s not the only point, is it? It was an individual case, therefore, it should be judged individually. You don’t punish every Corporation because one screwed up. You don’t punish the tax payer with a tax burden to boot.

And think about how much people were mentally effected over this incident and now re-thinking whether they ever want to trust this company again or the regulators for that matter, since they now see the tax money went in the toilet.

You just betrayed the tax payer trust, and now you want to revive the regulators again? No thanks, as this isn’t the first screw up.

@Cruiser Sorry to be so late responding. I have several clinets that need their work done yesterday. I haven’t even been able to log in for a couple of days now., Been working through to 3 AM or so.
Yes, I understand hyperbole.

But notice that I had been having a long debate with @woken who maintained in the face of all evidence to the contrary that Social Security is truly a Ponzi Scheme. Also, a Gallup Poll released last Friday found that about 1 in 5 Republicans actually think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The GOP has detested the idea of Social Security ever since it was introduced in 1935. Unless the party goes through some truly transformative change, they will never rest till they can either kill it or transfer all the money it brings in to Wall Street.