NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that the most insidious and dangerous lie was the myriad of falsehood about the 'coming social security crisis' and 'necessity' of privatising it.


However, the dumbest lie is the oft-repeated line about "fighting terrorists in iraq so that we dont have to fight them here."

No half intelligent person of any nationality takes somone who says that kind of garbage seriously.

I think that the most insidious and dangerous lie was the myriad of falsehood about the 'coming social security crisis' and 'necessity' of privatising it.


However, the dumbest lie is the oft-repeated line about "fighting terrorists in iraq so that we dont have to fight them here."

No half intelligent person of any nationality takes somone who says that kind of garbage seriously.

Wow! You really are the living end!

BTW do you remember oh about 7 years ago? Clinton and Algore were sort of talking about a looming SS problem. Or do you forget? I guess it just somehow fixed itself!

Wow! You really are the living end!

BTW do you remember oh about 7 years ago? Clinton and Algore were sort of talking about a looming SS problem. Or do you forget? I guess it just somehow fixed itself!


Looming? yes, decades off. easily remedied? yes.

making privatisation inevitable or even a good idea? Not a chance.


privatisation of social security = worse deficits = handout to the finance industry = cut in benefits = future budget crises (when bailouts become necessary) = bad news for the great vast majority of americans = great opportunity for fraud on a massive scale

really.. social security isn't in a crisis ? that in 20 years it will paying out more then its taking in ? .. that with the money we will only get 3/4 of the benfits we paid for. That the government will have to some how come up with the difference.. I pray he gets it through.. I want control over my own retirement.. not continally letting politicians play with my money

Just because he's against Bush's SS policies doesn't mean that he is liberal. I advocate the reform, not the destruction of the system.

Looming? yes, decades off. easily remedied? yes.

making privatisation inevitable or even a good idea? Not a chance.


privatisation of social security = worse deficits = handout to the finance industry = cut in benefits = future budget crises (when bailouts become necessary) = bad news for the great vast majority of americans = great opportunity for fraud on a massive scale

You really do know your economics, don't you? :rolleyes:

I guess being in charge of a little portion of your own money isn't a good thing. I guess history has shown that the US gov't is one the best money managers around. Why at those interest rates they get, we can all retire on our SS and live in a gold mansion, and buy limos.

Looming? yes, decades off. easily remedied? yes.

making privatisation inevitable or even a good idea? Not a chance.


privatisation of social security = worse deficits = handout to the finance industry = cut in benefits = future budget crises (when bailouts become necessary) = bad news for the great vast majority of americans = great opportunity for fraud on a massive scale

budget crisis.. like the 10 trillion dollar budge crisis when it collapses on its own.. what was kerry's great plan.. oh thats right.. leave it be. Hand outs to finance industry ? how so.. u mean as people actually invest in money managers ? I wish more americans would, maybe then they would save something instead of wasting every cent they get. Bailouts ? providing things go wrong.. i dont see how they will. bad news for a mjority of americans.. not if ur in ur 20's right now.. being in my 20's i see the bad news on the horizon in democrats hands

Just because he's against Bush's SS policies doesn't mean that he is liberal. I advocate the reform, not the destruction of the system.

the system is dated and inefficent.. I'd prefer something updated that gives me control and 100% assurance i get to keep my money, instead of putting patches on a hemeraging system

You really do know your economics, don't you? :rolleyes:

He seems to either have a better grasp of economics than the White House does, or isn't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

Or both.

I guess being in charge of a little portion of your own money isn't a good thing.

Are you suggesting that anyone wants to repeal IRAs, 401k's, and Keough accounts?

Or are you suggesting that they don't exist yet but will be invented by President Bush?

You really do know your economics, don't you? :rolleyes:

I guess being in charge of a little portion of your own money isn't a good thing. I guess history has shown that the US gov't is one the best money managers around. Why at those interest rates they get, we can all retire on our SS and live in a gold mansion, and buy limos.

Social Security is not, and never was, a program designed for investment, nor was it a place where you were supposed to become rich. Social Security is a program designed to insure that if you get laid off, the economy tanks, and the stock market crashes, you won't starve, or that you won't end up eating cat food in your retirement no matter what happens. Those are pretty laudable goals, and Social Security has done a spectacularly good job of making sure that people still have a fallback. However, you can't at once protect people from the ravages of the market, and at the same time invest into it; those are kind of mutually exclusive activities.

the system is dated and inefficent.. I'd prefer something updated that gives me control and 100% assurance i get to keep my money, instead of putting patches on a hemeraging system

. . .You're joking. Please tell me you're joking. . .

Social Security is a 100% assurance that you get to keep your money. If you pay into the system now, you are guaranteed to get benefits paid back to you in case of injury, disability, death of a family member, or retirement. Any and every other form of investment carries with it risk that you will lose every last penny of that investment. So you want to dismember the very system that gives you exactly what you want?

Social Security is not, and never was, a program designed for investment, nor was it a place where you were supposed to become rich. Social Security is a program designed to insure that if you get laid off, the economy tanks, and the stock market crashes, you won't starve, or that you won't end up eating cat food in your retirement no matter what happens. Those are pretty laudable goals, and Social Security has done a spectacularly good job of making sure that people still have a fallback. However, you can't at once protect people from the ravages of the market, and at the same time invest into it; those are kind of mutually exclusive activities.

funny.. i thought social security was put inplace to asure that all of our old people didn't starve to death after they retire.. seeing how american's dont know how to save. and remeber, only 10% is being put into investment accounts. And seeing how as a 20 year old today.. the current social security program wont leave me anything... the prospect of having control over some of that money i see being stolen from me in every pay check is not a bad feeling at all

the system is dated and inefficent.. I'd prefer something updated that gives me control and 100% assurance i get to keep my money, instead of putting patches on a hemeraging system
You want to keep your money? How about the system that was in place before the Social Security Act was passed?

. . .You're joking. Please tell me you're joking. . .

Social Security is a 100% assurance that you get to keep your money. If you pay into the system now, you are guaranteed to get benefits paid back to you in case of injury, disability, death of a family member, or retirement. Any and every other form of investment carries with it risk that you will lose every last penny of that investment. So you want to dismember the very system that gives you exactly what you want?

obviously u havn't been listening to economic predictions on the system right now, nor have been watching the trend within SS.

... ill tell what 100% assurance i have right now.. that when i retire.. i wont see a dime of all that money ive put in. and im betting, i could invest my money a hell of a lot better then the crap intrest rate my money is making in SS right now.. which is moot anyway since i wont ever get to see that money

The worst lie was saying that the government would never undermine family values, since he followed that up by calling for passage of a constitutional amendment that undermines LGBT families and denies them the same rights and responsibilities as all others.

Are you suggesting that anyone wants to repeal IRAs, 401k's, and Keough accounts?

You do realize what Bush is suggesting is essentially a 401k plan.

You do realize what Bush is suggesting is essentially a 401k plan.

somehow, the democrats dont seem to be catching that point.. no

the system is dated and inefficent.. I'd prefer something updated that gives me control and 100% assurance i get to keep my money, instead of putting patches on a hemeraging system

which means that you either don't know what social security is supposed to be, or are just calling for the abolition of it. the entire point is that you don't get to keep your money. you aren't paying for your own retirement, you are paying for people who are currently on social security. it isn't a fucking savings account.

As a 21yr old American I feel that SS needs fixing. However taking money out of the system is the worst idea I've heard. If congress hadn't used this money for years to help balance spending it probaly would've never needed fixing. Another lie is how we want to help people with the American dream, but if your gay and want to get married then your dream can't exsist. Another one, having government fiscal responsibility, wa sdiscredited minutes later when he was commiting 300m with Condi to go to Olde Arabia. And expanding Democracy to the Mid. East when Bush's Saudi oil buddies are a oppresive, cruel, oligarcy is ok. The fact that in iraq under Sadam women could become doctors and not wear headresses while in Saudi Arabia to this day no of this is allowed disgusts me. And when Bush daddy stood in a position to give democratic rule to Kuwait after the Persain Gulf war he missed the chance. We allowed all the rich oil princes and shieks who fled while Sadam was overrunning thier country were allowed to come back in and oppress their people once again.

which means that you either don't know what social security is supposed to be, or are just calling for the abolition of it. the entire point is that you don't get to keep your money. you aren't paying for your own retirement, you are paying for people who are currently on social security. it isn't a fucking savings account.

actually u dont seem to know what SS is meant to be.. it only happens to work in the way that I pay for other peoples retirement now.. but by paying into the program, im suppose to be garanteed my own retirement payout. It is suppose to be a savings account so people dont have starve after they retire.. and the way the system is structure now, im not going to get a payment on that garantee which essentially IS the problem

. . .You're joking. Please tell me you're joking. . .

Social Security is a 100% assurance that you get to keep your money. If you pay into the system now, you are guaranteed to get benefits paid back to you in case of injury, disability, death of a family member, or retirement. Any and every other form of investment carries with it risk that you will lose every last penny of that investment. So you want to dismember the very system that gives you exactly what you want?
There is no 100% assurance. There is no law that ensures you'll get anything.

As a 21yr old American I feel that SS needs fixing. However taking money out of the system is the worst idea I've heard. If congress hadn't used this money for years to help balance spending it probaly would've never needed fixing. Another lie is how we want to help people with the American dream, but if your gay and want to get married then your dream can't exsist. Another one, having government fiscal responsibility, wa sdiscredited minutes later when he was commiting 300m with Condi to go to Olde Arabia. And expanding Democracy to the Mid. East when Bush's Saudi oil buddies are a oppresive, cruel, oligarcy is ok. The fact that in iraq under Sadam women could become doctors and not wear headresses while in Saudi Arabia to this day no of this is allowed disgusts me. And when Bush daddy stood in a position to give democratic rule to Kuwait after the Persain Gulf war he missed the chance. We allowed all the rich oil princes and shieks who fled while Sadam was overrunning thier country were allowed to come back in and oppress their people once again.

just as a clarification point... how many people did the saudi's gas ? ... how many did they hang because people opposed them. How many were publically exectued.. so who was more cruel and oppressive ?

There is no 100% assurance. There is no law that ensures you'll get anything.

the law which put social security into place, garantee's benifits when you pay into the system. its as simple as that. And by ignoring the problem, like kerry wanted to do, we'd be facing a 10 trillion dollar deficit, not a 2 trillion in bush's plan.

If there was no garantee, the politicans wouldn't be scrambling to address the issue, if im not correct even Clinton brought up the crisis with SS

You do realize what Bush is suggesting is essentially a 401k plan.

So you're acknowledging that they already exist, and do so without defunding Social Security! Does Bush know?

somehow, the democrats dont seem to be catching that point.. no

You haven't been paying attention. It seems to be the Republicans that think 401k's need to be invented.

So you're acknowledging that they already exist, and do so without defunding Social Security! Does Bush know?

this is a government 401k plan.. we see how successful corporate 401k plans are... so why shouldn't we expect the same kind of standards from the government. And Yes.. Bush does know, which is why he is pushing us in that direction.. because he knows its successful so i can actually have that retirement supplment!

If there was no garantee, the politicans wouldn't be scrambling to address the issue, if im not correct even Clinton brought up the crisis with SS

Clinton, however, avoided the Chicken Little routine and also didn't propose chopping off its funding to "save" SS.

Clinton, however, avoided the Chicken Little routine and also didn't propose chopping off its funding to "save" SS.

because its more dire now today then it was in clintons time. Now its clear a massive change is nessesary.

this is a government 401k plan.. we see how successful corporate 401k plans are... so why shouldn't we expect the same kind of standards from the government. And Yes.. Bush does know, which is why he is pushing us in that direction.. because he knows its successful so i can actually have that retirement supplment!

You write comedy, don't you? ;)

Okay, let's all pretend that 401k's and IRA's don't actually exist yet, and GWB will invent them to save us from Social Security taxes.

because its more dire now today then it was in clintons time. Now its clear a massive change is nessesary.

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

I can see that Social Security's solvency is the new WMD.

actually u dont seem to know what SS is meant to be.. it only happens to work in the way that I pay for other peoples retirement now.. but by paying into the program, im suppose to be garanteed my own retirement payout. It is suppose to be a savings account so people dont have starve after they retire.. and the way the system is structure now, im not going to get a payment on that garantee which essentially IS the problem

no. it was never a government-run savings account. the entire thing was setup so that the currently working people would pay out to the currently retired. when they started it during the depression, they didn't just take people's money and hold onto it for them. they immediately paid it out as benefits. this is why it is going to run into problems - unless there are more people who are currently paying in than are withdrawing, it is utterly unsustainable.

privatizing it in such a way that you have control over your own retirement money is really a totally new and different program, and would actually just makes the whole thing hit crisis the very next month as there are no funds to pay out to current recipients at all.

besides, that would really just amount to a government madated savings account. which makes a certain amount of sense, but only because it always makes sense to put away some of your income for the future. but you would still have the problem of dealing with the people currently on the system. really they should just make the whole fica tax progressive instead of regressive. or at least make the damn rich people pay it on all of their income instead of just the first $90k.

barring revolution, anyways. we wouldn't have this problem at all if we instituted social ownership of the means of production and gave everyone social dividends.

So you're acknowledging that they already exist, and do so without defunding Social Security! Does Bush know?

The problem is Social Security exists in conjuction with those same 401k plans. Frankly 20 years may not matter to someone 70-80 but it matters to someone who is 19. Because Social Security will run out when my mother reaches the age to get those benefits. Then what? Two decades can go by in a snap in the political world. Many industrialized nations are facing this problem. I remember my economics teacher talking about why no one in the US tries to reform SS though. The AARP has more people vote than any other group out there.

Frankly whether the problem is big or small, the fact remains the problem still exists. If its as big as they say it is it needs to be fixed now, and not later down the line. If its a small problem, then fix it now before it becomes a larger problem. I gotta give Bush credit, he's tackling something no one leader is willing. Republicans are scared and the Demcrats are screaming murder.

obviously u havn't been listening to economic predictions on the system right now, nor have been watching the trend within SS.

... ill tell what 100% assurance i have right now.. that when i retire.. i wont see a dime of all that money ive put in. and im betting, i could invest my money a hell of a lot better then the crap intrest rate my money is making in SS right now.. which is moot anyway since i wont ever get to see that money



You dont know that in our social security program, the working generation's SS payments are payed back out to retirees do you?

It is not saved in an account for you.

no. it was never a government-run savings account. the entire thing was setup so that the currently working people would pay out to the currently retired. when they started it during the depression, they didn't just take people's money and hold onto it for them. they immediately paid it out as benefits. this is why it is going to run into problems - unless there are more people who are currently paying in than are withdrawing, it is utterly unsustainable.

privatizing it in such a way that you have control over your own retirement money is really a totally new and different program, and would actually just makes the whole thing hit crisis the very next month as there are no funds to pay out to current recipients at all.

besides, that would really just amount to a government madated savings account. which makes a certain amount of sense, but only because it always makes sense to put away some of your income for the future. but you would still have the problem of dealing with the people currently on the system. really they should just make the whole fica tax progressive instead of regressive. or at least make the damn rich people pay it on all of their income instead of just the first $90k.

barring revolution, anyways. we wouldn't have this problem at all if we instituted social ownership of the means of production and gave everyone social dividends.

god i can't belive i have to explain this... fine.

You do realize that the amount of money you receive in your social security pay outs is realitve to the amount of money you pay into it right ?

in this respect, they keep track of the money you pay in, factor in intrest over the period of which you paid into the system and then they calcuate how much your entiled to.

People who just move to the US become citens then suddenly retire simply dont get limitless SS for the duration of their retirement. It is solely based on how much they have paid into the program over the duration of their lifetime.

So the longer you hold off on ur retirement.. the more money you'll be entitled to (providing you live long enough to see it)

Taking this into account.. while the money you put in now is in fact being paid out to the current retirees... the fact that what you pay in is loged and kept track of and earns interets on shows that it is INFACT .... a saving program. And there is a "supposed" garantee that every person paying into SS will receive those benfits.. which is why it is such a large issue

damnit.. none of you people understand SS at all.. go ask your parents how it works.. they should know atleast

god i can't belive i have to explain this... fine.

You do realize that the amount of money you receive in your social security pay outs is realitve to the amount of money you pay into it right ?

in this respect, they keep track of the money you pay in, factor in intrest over the period of which you paid into the system and then they calcuate how much your entiled to.

People who just move to the US become citens then suddenly retire simply dont get limitless SS for the duration of their retirement. It is solely based on how much they have paid into the program over the duration of their lifetime.

So the longer you hold off on ur retirement.. the more money you'll be entitled to (providing you live long enough to see it)

Taking this into account.. while the money you put in now is in fact being paid out to the current retirees... the fact that what you pay in is loged and kept track of and earns interets on shows that it is INFACT .... a saving program. And there is a "supposed" garantee that every person paying into SS will receive those benfits.. which is why it is such a large issue

In a word, no, the amount of income you get is not relative to the amount you pay into the system. A person who worked as a janitor for forty years and Bill Gates will each receive exactly the same amount of money in Social Security when they retire. The guy you were critiqueing is correct in that it is not set away in some kind of private account, nor do they measure how much you put in when they measure payout. They simply say: are you a U.S. citizen (Y/N)? Have you paid federal payroll taxes (Y/N)? If Y to both questions, then you get Social Security. . .heck in some cases you don't even need to go that far. I'm pretty sure there aren't many beneficiaries of the death benefit out there who worked prior to beginning collection (collection of benefits terminates at 18).

In a word, no, the amount of income you get is not relative to the amount you pay into the system. A person who worked as a janitor for forty years and Bill Gates will each receive exactly the same amount of money in Social Security when they retire. The guy you were critiqueing is correct in that it is not set away in some kind of private account, nor do they measure how much you put in when they measure payout. They simply say: are you a U.S. citizen (Y/N)? Have you paid federal payroll taxes (Y/N)? If Y to both questions, then you get Social Security. . .heck in some cases you don't even need to go that far. I'm pretty sure there aren't many beneficiaries of the death benefit out there who worked prior to beginning collection (collection of benefits terminates at 18).

have you paid federal paroll taxes are simply a yes no qusetion ? so if a guy moves to america.. becomes a citzen works for a year, retires.. h e's gettign as much money in each check as the guy who worked for 40 years ?

In a word, no, the amount of income you get is not relative to the amount you pay into the system. A person who worked as a janitor for forty years and Bill Gates will each receive exactly the same amount of money in Social Security when they retire. The guy you were critiqueing is correct in that it is not set away in some kind of private account, nor do they measure how much you put in when they measure payout. They simply say: are you a U.S. citizen (Y/N)? Have you paid federal payroll taxes (Y/N)? If Y to both questions, then you get Social Security. . .heck in some cases you don't even need to go that far. I'm pretty sure there aren't many beneficiaries of the death benefit out there who worked prior to beginning collection (collection of benefits terminates at 18).

Um no. You have to contribute at least 40 "quarters" income before you are entitled to recieve SS retirement benefits. I forget how much an actual quarter is, but it represents a certain amount of dollars earned on which social security tax is paid. The dollar value of a "quarter" varies from year to year as it increases due to inflation to correct for "creep."

After you have accumulated 40 quarters you are eligble to recieve retirement social security at 65. (You can get even more now if you elect to work until 70).

The amount of social security you recieve when you retire is also related to how much you earned during you lifetime. (How many quarters you paid). However, as social security taxes are only paid on the first 90,000 of income (this cap also goes up anually to account for inflation) there is a maximum monthly payment you can recieve from the fund. In other words, someone who makes 1,000,000 a year recieves the same as someone who makes 90,000 as they both paid the same amount into the system.

So people do recieve different amounts of social security: A janitor that never makes more that $15,000 a year will recieve less than someone who makes $150,000. Also you are not automatically eligible for SS income from social security.

The problem is Social Security exists in conjuction with those same 401k plans. Frankly 20 years may not matter to someone 70-80 but it matters to someone who is 19. Because Social Security will run out when my mother reaches the age to get those benefits. Then what? Two decades can go by in a snap in the political world. Many industrialized nations are facing this problem. I remember my economics teacher talking about why no one in the US tries to reform SS though. The AARP has more people vote than any other group out there.

Frankly whether the problem is big or small, the fact remains the problem still exists. If its as big as they say it is it needs to be fixed now, and not later down the line. If its a small problem, then fix it now before it becomes a larger problem. I gotta give Bush credit, he's tackling something no one leader is willing. Republicans are scared and the Demcrats are screaming murder.

I don't see coexistence of 401k's and Social Security as a problem.

Bush is tackling nothing. He's overstating a problem in order to propose an irrelevant solution, like leg amputation as a remedy for tooth decay.

It could be fixed right now by raising the income cap on payroll taxes, the cap that makes someone earning $10,000/yr pay a rate many times higher than someone earning $1,000,000/yr does.

Um no. You have to contribute at least 40 "quarters" income before you are entitled to recieve SS retirement benefits. I forget how much an actual quarter is, but it represents a certain amount of dollars earned on which social security tax is paid. The dollar value of a "quarter" varies from year to year as it increases due to inflation to correct for "creep."

After you have accumulated 40 quarters you are eligble to recieve retirement social security at 65. (You can get even more now if you elect to work until 70).

The amount of social security you recieve when you retire is also related to how much you earned during you lifetime. (How many quarters you paid). However, as social security taxes are only paid on the first 90,000 of income (this cap also goes up anually to account for inflation) there is a maximum monthly payment you can recieve from the fund. In other words, someone who makes 1,000,000 a year recieves the same as someone who makes 90,000 as they both paid the same amount into the system.

So people do recieve different amounts of social security: A janitor that never makes more that $15,000 a year will recieve less than someone who makes $150,000. Also you are not automatically eligible for SS income from social security.

thank you...

I don't see coexistence of 401k's and Social Security as a problem.

Bush is tackling nothing. He's overstating a problem in order to propose an irrelevant solution, like leg amputation as a remedy for tooth decay.

It could be fixed right now by raising the income cap on payroll taxes, the cap that makes someone earning $10,000/yr pay a rate many times higher than someone earning $1,000,000/yr does.

the problem is more then just dollar wise.. its demographic.. how much more are we going to make those people earning 1 mil a year .. and how many people are there who actually makes that kind of money.. we went from 13 people paying for every 1 person collection to 3 people to every 1. You can't just fix the problem by making the richer people pay more.

the problem is more then just dollar wise.. its demographic.. how much more are we going to make those people earning 1 mil a year .. and how many people are there who actually makes that kind of money.. we went from 13 people paying for every 1 person collection to 3 people to every 1. You can't just fix the problem by making the richer people pay more.


Exactly. The system seems simple- all working people pay SS so that people can retire. The only problem is that it doesn't allow for anomolies like baby booms of older citizens that require money froma set amount of younger people or a lower birthrate that usually happens in industrialized countries over time.

Now, I'm not going to say that the SS system is perfectly fine. I would like to know more about this new system. Before we can slam something just because it is new however, shouldn't we compare the pros and cons like mature adults instead of making personal attacks? President Bush is President for 4 years-in more years, there will be a new president. What will happen to SS then?

barring revolution, anyways. we wouldn't have this problem at all if we instituted social ownership of the means of production and gave everyone social dividends.
Fucking grow up!

You say shit like this like it means something but whenever I've asked for something a little more specific, neither you nor any of the other commies manage to put anything forward. AFAIK, you have never bothered to define what constitutes "means of production" and what doesn't. And you've certainly never given specifics on how you're system would be achieved, how it would be maintained, or even what it really is. Not only do you have no concrete examples to describe what you're talking about, but you don't even have a theory. I try to not to get emotional, but this is starting to piss me off. :mad: You advocate a system that you cannot describe, and you do so loudly and often. That's damn irresponsible.

Exactly. The system seems simple- all working people pay SS so that people can retire. The only problem is that it doesn't allow for anomolies like baby booms of older citizens that require money froma set amount of younger people or a lower birthrate that usually happens in industrialized countries over time.

Now, I'm not going to say that the SS system is perfectly fine. I would like to know more about this new system. Before we can slam something just because it is new however, shouldn't we compare the pros and cons like mature adults instead of making personal attacks? President Bush is President for 4 years-in more years, there will be a new president. What will happen to SS then?

thats what this debate is about... debating the differences in the system. the only difference in the new system is that 10% of the money you put in is set aside and treated like a personal 401k account while the other 90% is treated exactly as it was previously. the only issues at hand are the discrepencies in benfits for those currently collecting. Now if my choices are a 2 trillion dollar hit today to reform SS or a 10 trillion dollar hit tomorrow when the system cracks, ill gladly take the former as an investment in our future...

Perhaps it's not a "lie"...but this statement was certainly dishonest...

"Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back, by irresponsible class actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year."

I'm sorry...maybe I missed something, but WHAT THE HELL is frivolous about claims regarding a substance once widely used in building, and is known to be carcinogenic and dangerous to people? And HOW is attempting to eliminate this threat to public health a "Distortion of Justice"???

I think the distortion of Justice would be something like the example where a terminal cancer patient dies in a risky surgery and the family sues for 30 mil ... its those ambulence chacers like edwards which have put our healthcare system in the state its in now

Exactly...I certainly think that limitations need to be placed on such lawsuits, I just think that asbestos was just about the worst possible example to illustrate the problem.

Come on Bush, you probably have 20 people in the back churning out your speeches...surely they can come up with something better than that.

Exactly...I certainly think that limitations need to be placed on such lawsuits, I just think that asbestos was just about the worst possible example to illustrate the problem.

Come on Bush, you probably have 20 people in the back churning out your speeches...surely they can come up with something better than that.

but asbestos claim cases where among the most friviouls as lawyers took advantage of every possible opprotunity on this occurance.. half the claims made arn't even legitimate. This is why the statement was made

The worst lie was saying that the government would never undermine family values, since he followed that up by calling for passage of a constitutional amendment that undermines LGBT families and denies them the same rights and responsibilities as all others.

And that opening comment about having a guiding ideal of liberty. Of course, I suppose that's only for heterosexuals.

And that opening comment about having a guiding ideal of liberty. Of course, I suppose that's only for heterosexuals.

how about poligamist ? and family members engaging in consentual incest?

but asbestos claim cases where among the most friviouls as lawyers took advantage of every possible opprotunity on this occurance.. half the claims made arn't even legitimate. This is why the statement was made

Hmmm, there is a filtering process for that you know. Most bogus claims get hardly anything, if at all. You don't just get a huge check because you once worked with asbestos and now you find it hard to breathe.

you know how social secuirty problems could be solved? HAVE THE GOVERNMENT KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF OF MY MOTHER EFFING MONEY. if youre not smart enough to not blow it all before you get old THATS YOUR PROBLEM YOU STUPID SIMP. with my health ill probably live to be 50 and never see a dime of the money the feds STOLE from me. this makes me angry.

Hmmm, there is a filtering process for that you know. Most bogus claims get hardly anything, if at all. You don't just get a huge check because you once worked with asbestos and now you find it hard to breathe.

its really more about the number of friviouls claims that actually come to hand.. so many frivilious claims come that the state ends up spending millions just addressing them and the system becomes backloged for years. As well the healthcare industry is forced to face these lawsuits, if not fighting them, then settling.. either way being burdend with these frivoulus cases increasing their insurance preimums which eventually effects everday people dramatically. And i think you give too much credit to that filting system.. while those plaintiffs actually get hardly anything, the lawyers recieve most of the payouts. That is where the problem is..

you know how social secuirty problems could be solved? HAVE THE GOVERNMENT KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF OF MY MOTHER EFFING MONEY. if youre not smart enough to not blow it all before you get old THATS YOUR PROBLEM YOU STUPID SIMP. with my health ill probably live to be 50 and never see a dime of the money the feds STOLE from me. this makes me angry.

exactly ^-^ ... let me control my own money and ill be just fine

its really more about the number of friviouls claims that actually come to hand.. so many frivilious claims come that the state ends up spending millions just addressing them and the system becomes backloged for years. As well the healthcare industry is forced to face these lawsuits, if not fighting them, then settling.. either way being burdend with these frivoulus cases increasing their insurance preimums which eventually effects everday people dramatically. And i think you give too much credit to that filting system.. while those plaintiffs actually get hardly anything, the lawyers recieve most of the payouts. That is where the problem is..

That's actually the fault of the judicary, not the law itself. If you ever have the displeasure of practicing in the defense bar (on the civil side), you'll find that judges are extremely reluctant to dismiss frivolous lawsuits early in on. It makes sense to a certain extent, in that the plaintiff needs time for discovery to develop evidence thorugh discovery etc, but on the whole they take it to far.

The other aspect is that judges tend to see it this way: There is an injured plaintiff (usually the plaintiffs do have some type of injury), and they figure someone should pay, so they pressure for settlement always. Even when as a matter of law, liability is virtually non-exsitent.

Not that I can let insurance companies off the hook here either. As sophisticated clients, they really are far more in control of the case than the average joe. Nevertheless, they are almost always extremely reluctant to try a case. In the vast majority of cases they prefer to settle just to clear the case from the books and to gain certainty about the outcome. Unfortunately this attitude makes them easy targets for palintiffs lawyers, who know that often they are prepared to settle a frivolous claim for the cost of the defense.

What makes it worse is that plaintiffs lawyers are in a bind, because they have to look like they are zealously representing their client. So even if they intend to settle from the get go, everyone has to go through the motions to make it look like a vigorous prosecution.

On the whole though, things are not nearly as bad as the media makes it seem, you tend to hear about the abnormal cases which don't really represent how things work. (And of course insurance companies complain about the cost, but they begrudge every penny they have to spend, many times people have to sue their own insurance companies, just to get the coverage they were promised.)

Taking this into account.. while the money you put in now is in fact being paid out to the current retirees... the fact that what you pay in is loged and kept track of and earns interets on shows that it is INFACT .... a saving program. And there is a "supposed" garantee that every person paying into SS will receive those benfits.. which is why it is such a large issue

no. it is a entitlement program. there is a difference. mainly in the fact that there isn't now, nor has there ever been an actual saving account for any individual funds. they keep track of how much a particular person puts in to the system in order to work out a fair system of payouts so that it can't be totally taken advantage of. but you are not going to get back exactly what you paid in. their formula just determines the amount of each check you'll recieve, not when they stop paying you.

and if you take some of the money that is currently being used to make payments and instead put it in actual individual accounts, you just create a funding crisis now rather than later. you cannot wave a magic wand at these sorts of things. the same way that you can't cut tax and increase spending without also increasing the debt.

the same way that you can't cut tax and increase spending without also increasing the debt.

Unless cutting taxes increases tax reciepts. That sometimes happens.

Fucking grow up!

You say shit like this like it means something but whenever I've asked for something a little more specific, neither you nor any of the other commies manage to put anything forward. AFAIK, you have never bothered to define what constitutes "means of production" and what doesn't. And you've certainly never given specifics on how you're system would be achieved, how it would be maintained, or even what it really is. Not only do you have no concrete examples to describe what you're talking about, but you don't even have a theory. I try to not to get emotional, but this is starting to piss me off. :mad: You advocate a system that you cannot describe, and you do so loudly and often. That's damn irresponsible.

misplaced anger much? i don't recall ever having an argument with you about anything, let alone me being unable to describe the system i advocate nor define the terms i use. why don't you trot off to one of the relevant anarchist threads and take a look at some of my posts. i've been rather detailed and explicit over the years.

but this isn't exactly the right thread to get into it on.

Unless cutting taxes increases tax reciepts. That sometimes happens.

well, yeah. but that requires something screwy in the tax collecting department. or at least the closing of loopholes and decreasing the benefits of exploiting certain features of the tax code.

1) Frivolous claims make up only a tiny portion of the amounts large companies pay out. They just get a lot of press coverage. In many cases the large companies underpay for the amount of damage they do. Look at Bhopal, where families of victims got a few hundred dollars each. And medical claims were terminated after a few years even though many have lifelong problems. Though that was in India, our government and corporations pressed the Indian government to settle. How about Love Canal? Big business got off lightly on that one too. The truth is, lawsuits are the only thing that works to keep large corporations from doing more damage, especially since most regulations are toothless.
2) Social Security is currently solvent and will be until 2042. By that time we have the choice of continuing without a tax raise and cutting benefits to 80% of what they are now. Or we can raise SS deductions another 2%, which will keep it going until arund 2080.
3) Stocks are not guaranteed money makers. If you lose your retirement savings in the stock market, are you then going to be content to starve under a bridge? I think not. You will suddenly become a great fan of government social programs.

well, yeah. but that requires something screwy in the tax collecting department. or at least the closing of loopholes and decreasing the benefits of exploiting certain features of the tax code.

Sometimes. Sometimes cutting taxes just increases revenue because the growth pattern of the economy changes. It happened in the eighties in both the UK and the US.

Also methods of compensation change as the marginal tax rate alters. For example, in the seventies it wasn't worth working overtime because of the highly progressive tax system. Similarly some employes would choose other perks (more vacation time etc.) over larger raises. If the marginal tax rate is lowered that might not be so.

Also people do less to aviod tax. Tax shelters, even if they are not closed in reform, just become less attractive.

Granted the above is not always true, lowering taxes could have the opposite effect. But the same problem goes with raising them. That's the problem with economies and tax rates, no-one know what will happen really, whatever they tell you. (GWB and JFK both teh liars 'cos they claim to have a "plan").

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050201/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/social_security_7

Actually, the estimate actually became a bit more optimistic and pushed back to 2052. Seems like its fine to me ever since politicans have been harping about its inevitable depletion...