2012 Presidential Campaign

[RedKingGold]

Vote Whig Party.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

One could argue that social security is worse. First of all to have a "victim" of a ponzi scheme like Madoff's it requires someone choose to get involved in a situation to looks to good to be real. So basically they have chosen to forgo treasury bonds or conservative investments for the big score. So while Madoff and others are definitely creeps it really is hard to feel too bad for their victims,.

Social security on the other hand is not a choice. If you work you get to be a part of this setup even if you don't want to. And if the shit hits the fan there isn't going to be any money. Why? Because the Congress decided to raid the fund to spend it on wars and other programs that the money wasn't intended for. So you are correct that it isn't a Ponzi scheme but in the end does it really matter what we call it? If they keep spending money on everything under the sun from endless war, endless "security", corporate welfare, unemployment... the money one day will actually disappear. And you can say it isn't a ponzi scheme still, fine how about a US Congress scheme?

The SS trust fund is fine until 2037. And then it can still cover 75% of costs. Problems with it aren't because of "massive spending", it's from people living longer and demographic shifts in our country.

The money also doesn't disappear. Spending money on wars, corporate welfare, or whatever else doesn't technically come from Social Security. Bonds are paid back.

Your entire argument is that Social Security is worse than an investment scam because of some made up scenario you created in your head where we won't pay back treasury bonds to ourselves.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The SS trust fund is fine until 2037. And then it can still cover 75% of costs. Problems with it aren't because of "massive spending", it's from people living longer and demographic shifts in our country.

The money also doesn't disappear. Spending money on wars, corporate welfare, or whatever else doesn't technically come from Social Security. Bonds are paid back.

Your entire argument is that Social Security is worse than an investment scam because of some made up scenario you created in your head where we won't pay back treasury bonds to ourselves.

You're so right, we didn't take money out of the social security trust fund for all that other shit. Oh, except we did. Even your liberal friends admit that. (Sorry I forget sometimes when you proclaim to be independent)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

At what point does the debt make it literally impossible to pay back the bonds?

Never. We print the currency. Now there are other problems with that approach, high inflation for one, but we can't default unless there's a political decision to do so.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Never. We print the currency. Now there are other problems with that approach, high inflation for one, but we can't default unless there's a political decision to do so.

I'll admit that the doom and gloom of the current Republican party saying our system will collapse within the next couple of years is a little extreme but your answer is like JbMagic's blackjack approach combined with a complete misunderstanding of exponential growth. Unless everyone is going to make a trillion dollars a year and all people who save will be living in ghettos there will be a few more problems than high inflation and bad politics.

[JPhillips]

But as long as we print a fiat currency it is literally impossible to run out of money. That's the big reason why we can never be in a situation like Greece unless the politicians decide to put us in that situation.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

At what point does the debt make it literally impossible to pay back the bonds?

I think that some things are missing when people are discussing the massive debt load. I think that it was largely mismanaged in the 80's and 90's even during the recessions during those years. The massive escalation of the debt over the past 3 years has more to do with the collapse of the economy and the global economy as a whole, and our attempts to keep it from a 25-30 year cycle of 0.3% growth, ala Japan.

If I can use my own example, right now, I make shit for money as far as being a pilot is concerned. I have a house, support 3 kids and a mostly stay at home mom. We put our family and kids lives first.

As a result of that, we spend on our kids and our lives frugally, but we try to make sure that we still provide fun things, opportunities, vacations and generally the positive things that you remember as a kid growing up. The result of that is that we pile on CC debt to make it work. Can I afford it right now? Not really, but I want our family bond strong and I want it built through those things.

So am I doomed to years of hard labor and a whole I can't dig myself out of? No. Like I said, I make shit right now. My income expectation over the next 30 years is significantly higher than it is right now. And while I project my expenses to increase as my youngest ones move closer to their teen years and college, eventually my income will outstrip our current expenses and we can begin to get out of the hole that we are in.

I don't like it for sure, but it's the choice that we have made.

The govt is not only in a down cycle as far as income goes, but it is also spent to try and prevent an even bigger disaster. Which 30 years of 0.5% growth would be.

At some point, income has to rise again. Taxes have to rise again, and the govt needs to begin to put some of that money back. If they fail to do that, which if we still have the same divisive political structure we do now, they very well might, we can revolt. But you can't take the last 3 years and say that one moment has and will lead to the eventual destruction of the US as we know it today. Which is what I keep hearing in a presidential campaign where they think they have a bigger impact in the right here, and now, than they really do.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

You're so right, we didn't take money out of the social security trust fund for all that other shit. Oh, except we did. Even your liberal friends admit that. (Sorry I forget sometimes when you proclaim to be independent)

The money in the trust goes to buy special treasury bonds that it earns interest off of (like everyone else who invests in them). No real economic assets are being drawn from the fund. Saying things like "taking money out" shows a complete lack of understanding as to not only how SS works, but how investments are treated.

Using your line of thinking, if your 401K is invested in anything but cash, you are broke.

I didn't understand that reality vs fiction had party lines. Your statements are patently false no matter what party you support or think I support. You are trying to label me as something because it's easier to say that then try and defend a point that is based in myth.

[PilotMan]

dola

not to mention all the large corporations that carry way more debt than the yearly income they produce, which is higher than the current US ratio. We aren't hearing about Boeing, IBM or Dupont about to go out of business anytime soon.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

At what point does the debt make it literally impossible to pay back the bonds?

Never. It's a loan to yourself where you control the revenue and the money supply. There isn't a secret bank on one end of Washington fighting to get paid back from the other. It's the same government, it's a loan to ourselves.

The only way it wouldn't get paid back is if we made a decision to no longer fund Social Security and to back out on the bonds. The bonds are paid back as long as people want Social Security.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The money in the trust goes to buy special treasury bonds that it earns interest off of (like everyone else who invests in them). No real economic assets are being drawn from the fund. Saying things like "taking money out" shows a complete lack of understanding as to not only how SS works, but how investments are treated.

Using your line of thinking, if your 401K is invested in anything but cash, you are broke.

I didn't understand that reality vs fiction had party lines. Your statements are patently false no matter what party you support or think I support. You are trying to label me as something because it's easier to say that then try and defend a point that is based in myth.

I see... so Obama was just full of shit? Because that fund is just sitting there completely unraided in your world.

Obama: No guarantee for Social Security checks - CBS News

[JPhillips]

Well that pretty much sews up the nomination.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

I see... so Obama was just full of shit? Because that fund is just sitting there completely unraided in your world.

Obama: No guarantee for Social Security checks - CBS News

It's in Treasury Bonds. If we choose not to pay back Treasure Bonds, there is no money. The only way SS is not funded is if we actively choose not to pay back our Treasury Bonds.

Do you truly believe that unless your money is in cash that you have no assets? In your world, our 401ks are at $0.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

At what point does the debt make it literally impossible to pay back the bonds?

Until it stops being bought?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well that pretty much sews up the nomination.

Yep. We all know that no one will show up to the primaries other than PaulBots.

I guess it's Go Obama Go from here on out.

[larrymcg421]

I'm starting to think Perry is the Dean to Romney's Kerry. He peaked too soon and now is the target of everyone else in the field. They all really hit him pretty good tonight (Even Bachmann got a terrific dig in) and I don't think he can spin his way out of that Social Security comment. Obama's team probably already has tons of ads written to run in Florida if Perry is the nominee. In the end, the GOP might just go with the safe choice only to be disappointed when he doesn't turn out the base and allows a much hated President to get re-elected.

[SirFozzie]

Yeah,. Perry was the bleeding chunk of meat lowered into the pirahna pool in that one, getting torn at by all sides.

[JPhillips]

From last night's debate. Wolf was asking Paul about what happens when a person doesn't buy insurance, but gets serious ill or injured.

Wolf Blitzer: Should society let him die?"

Crowd: YEAH!

What a country.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What a country.

Its a catch 22. What do you do with somebody who prefers to sit down and stare at the sky all day rather than work? Whip him until he gets up and produces? Or continue to give him free food until such time he is inspired to give back to the community that has provided for him?

I guess we just put him in jail until he complies with the law...which doesn't force you to work, but does force you to contribute something which requires work to attain. That's certainly freedom and self-determination if I ever saw it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From last night's debate. Wolf was asking Paul about what happens when a person doesn't buy insurance, but gets serious ill or injured.



What a country.

That's not evenly remotely a fair accounting of the silly scenario that he put out there. Blitzer described it as a healthy 30-year-old man with a good job, making a good living, who just decides that he's not going to get health insurance. In that scenario, the hypothetical dude is being a selfish jackasst. "If something happens to me, I'll just let the rest of society pay for it, even though I can afford to take care of myself."

Again, it's a dumb scenario, a loaded question, really. But if an answer is required, our old friend "Rowdy" Roddy Piper addressed this one a long time ago. (Man, I haven't had to haul Roddy out in a while, I don't think.)

When you call the tune, you have to pay the Piper.

*shurg*

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

That's not evenly remotely a fair accounting of the silly scenario that he put out there. Blitzer described it as a healthy 30-year-old man with a good job, making a good living, who just decides that he's not going to get health insurance. In that scenario, the hypothetical dude is being a selfish jackasst. "If something happens to me, I'll just let the rest of society pay for it, even though I can afford to take care of myself."

Again, it's a dumb scenario, a loaded question, really. But if an answer is required, our old friend "Rowdy" Roddy Piper addressed this one a long time ago. (Man, I haven't had to haul Roddy out in a while, I don't think.)

When you call the tune, you have to pay the Piper.

*shurg*

Really? Coming from you??

WWJD Ben...WWJD?

I don't know how some folks in this country can call themselves "Christians" with a straight face.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Really? Coming from you??

WWJD Ben...WWJD?

I don't know how some folks in this country can call themselves "Christians" with a straight face.

WWJD???

He actually pretty much addressed this one. It's somewhere around Matthew 24ish, in the parable of the talents. The wicked, lazy, worthless servant (not my words, but His) was cast into the lake of fire, iirc.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

Jesus displayed deep, deep compassion for the poor, the widows, the orphans, the prostitutes, and the tax collectors. But there's little/no evidence of him ever giving a free pass to someone who was capable and able-bodied and chose not to look out for himself.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

That's not evenly remotely a fair accounting of the silly scenario that he put out there. Blitzer described it as a healthy 30-year-old man with a good job, making a good living, who just decides that he's not going to get health insurance. In that scenario, the hypothetical dude is being a selfish jackasst. "If something happens to me, I'll just let the rest of society pay for it, even though I can afford to take care of myself."

Again, it's a dumb scenario, a loaded question, really. But if an answer is required, our old friend "Rowdy" Roddy Piper addressed this one a long time ago. (Man, I haven't had to haul Roddy out in a while, I don't think.)

When you call the tune, you have to pay the Piper.

*shurg*

Was about to post the same thing. The rest of Paul's answer that either JPhillips intentionally left out of his post or the liberal blog he copied and pasted left off was that Paul was a doctor before the government started Medicare and Medicaid and people weren't dying in the streets. In fact he continued his answer and said that he worked at a church hospital that didn't turn anyone away. People love to act like Americans have absolutely no compassion or goodwill and will only act when a central planner in Washington DC who knows better than everyone tells them what to do.

It was such a loaded nonsense question like asking "So you support wind power?... What if one of the windmills falls on an orphanage?" Reminds me of when they tried to "catch" him on the drug legalization and asked him so you support legal heroin? And he answered "How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? Oh yeah, I need to government to take care of me, I don't want to use heroin so I need these laws."

I guess Jphillips is not capable of deciding whether to have health insurance or not without this big health care law? (Before he responds angrily it is just a dumb loaded question like the one Blitzer asked last night)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Was about to post the same thing. The rest of Paul's answer that either JPhillips intentionally left out of his post or the liberal blog he copied and pasted left off was that Paul was a doctor before the government started Medicare and Medicaid and people weren't dying in the streets. In fact he continued his answer and said that he worked at a church hospital that didn't turn anyone away. People love to act like Americans have absolutely no compassion or goodwill and will only act when a central planner in Washington DC who knows better than everyone tells them what to do.

It was such a loaded nonsense question like asking "So you support wind power?... What if one of the windmills falls on an orphanage?" Reminds me of when they tried to "catch" him on the drug legalization and asked him so you support legal heroin? And he answered "How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? Oh yeah, I need to government to take care of me, I don't want to use heroin so I need these laws."

I guess Jphillips is not capable of deciding whether to have health insurance or not without this big health care law? (Before he responds angrily it is just a dumb loaded question like the one Blitzer asked last night)

How about if you live somewhere where there are no church hospitals/free clinics?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Really? Coming from you??

WWJD Ben...WWJD?

I don't know how some folks in this country can call themselves "Christians" with a straight face.

Oh please. You are really invoking Jesus to win a political point? Wow you stoop sometimes to schill for Obama. (You know you don't believe in any of that shit)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

How about if you live somewhere where there are no church hospitals/free clinics?

The 30 something with a great job and plenty of money that Blitzer described to get around the fact that the poor and broke were already covered before the massive health care law doesn't live near a free clinic or church hospital either? LOL. Maybe in this crazy scenerio he lives on the moon?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Was about to post the same thing. The rest of Paul's answer that either JPhillips intentionally left out of his post or the liberal blog he copied and pasted left off was that Paul was a doctor before the government started Medicare and Medicaid and people weren't dying in the streets. In fact he continued his answer and said that he worked at a church hospital that didn't turn anyone away. People love to act like Americans have absolutely no compassion or goodwill and will only act when a central planner in Washington DC who knows better than everyone tells them what to do.

It was such a loaded nonsense question like asking "So you support wind power?... What if one of the windmills falls on an orphanage?" Reminds me of when they tried to "catch" him on the drug legalization and asked him so you support legal heroin? And he answered "How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? Oh yeah, I need to government to take care of me, I don't want to use heroin so I need these laws."

I guess Jphillips is not capable of deciding whether to have health insurance or not without this big health care law? (Before he responds angrily it is just a dumb loaded question like the one Blitzer asked last night)

My problem wasn't with Paul, I think he's wrong, but he's thoughtful about this. My problem is with the people who literally cheered for the death of someone who made an irresponsible decision. I don't understand the mentality of someone who would yell, "Let him die."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Oh please. You are really invoking Jesus to win a political point? Wow you stoop sometimes to schill for Obama. (You know you don't believe in any of that shit)

Huh?

No - I'm asking about the logical consistency of his POV with that of his religion.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My problem wasn't with Paul, I think he's wrong, but he's thoughtful about this. My problem is with the people who literally cheered for the death of someone who made an irresponsible decision. I don't understand the mentality of someone who would yell, "Let him die."

I guess I see where you're coming from but I think they are cheering that someone actually answered a dumb question without jumping through hoops like Blitzer hoped and most of the other candidates did all night. What was the Eisenhower quote? "If you want to be fed, clothed, and totally secure go to prison. The only thing missing is freedom."

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Huh?

No - I'm asking about the logical consistency of his POV with that of his religion.

Wouldn't it fit perfectly? You help people because its the right thing to do not because Washington DC forces you to. (And this is coming from one of the least religious members of the board)

[larrymcg421]

But in an emergency situation, do we really want hospital/paramedic staff to be checking for someone's insurance? I don't. Unless you want that, emergency care will be provided to uninsured people who can't pay for it, and the cost will be passed on to us either way.

The question also doesn't address the pre-existing condition problem. I think a more powerful question is do we let someone die who purchased insurance, but the insurance won't cover a procedure because it is a pre-existing condition.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Huh?

No - I'm asking about the logical consistency of his POV with that of his religion.

First off, I don't follow a religion, but a person. Second, as I said, my response is actually quite consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

And I stick with my original point: it was a dumb, loaded question, and the nature of the question was very poorly represented by the person who posted about it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

I guess I see where you're coming from but I think they are cheering that someone actually answered a dumb question without jumping through hoops like Blitzer hoped and most of the other candidates did all night. What was the Eisenhower quote? "If you want to be fed, clothed, and totally secure go to prison. The only thing missing is freedom."

I'm not asking for total security. I just think it's profoundly immoral to cheer for the death of people that made poor economic choices.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My problem wasn't with Paul, I think he's wrong, but he's thoughtful about this. My problem is with the people who literally cheered for the death of someone who made an irresponsible decision. I don't understand the mentality of someone who would yell, "Let him die."

This. Paul has a thought out philosophy and likely sees it as a necessary evil, but not something to be cheered (at least that's how I think he sees it). The crowd cheering and yelling is just distasteful.

I mean I can understand making tough choices and letting someone die, but it should not be a light-hearted choice and should be a tragic thing.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by panerd

Wouldn't it fit perfectly? You help people because its the right thing to do not because Washington DC forces you to. (And this is coming from one of the least religious members of the board)

Ding ding ding. We have a winnah. If the Church did its job better, then much of that particular discussion is moot.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But in an emergency situation, do we really want hospital/paramedic staff to be checking for someone's insurance? I don't. Unless you want that, emergency care will be provided to uninsured people who can't pay for it, and the cost will be passed on to us either way.

The question also doesn't address the pre-existing condition problem. I think a more powerful question is do we let someone die who purchased insurance, but the insurance won't cover a procedure because it is a pre-existing condition.

Again that was easily answered by Blitzer's comment. This guy had plenty of money to pay for an emergency room visit he was just a crazy guy who didn't want health insurance. (implication obvious) Its funny how different the answers to this on this board are if the guys home or car is destroyed and he is a moron about it or if he is an idiot and shoots himself in the face or some other "Darwin award" type death. Wouldn't a rich 30-year old who refuses to buy insurance and dies from leukemia be the ultimate Darwin award recipient? Why do we need these huge laws when the only defense of them are dumb scenerios like this?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

The 30 something with a great job and plenty of money that Blitzer described to get around the fact that the poor and broke were already covered before the massive health care law doesn't live near a free clinic or church hospital either? LOL. Maybe in this crazy scenerio he lives on the moon?

Actually, one of the great things about ACA/Obamacare/whatever you want to call it is that politics so often seems aimed at helping the poor (Dems) or the rich (GOP). I think the ACA's biggest effect (other than the aforementioned pre-existing condition problem) will be on people in the middle class who are just above the range to receive needy services, but well below the ability to buy a decent insurance program.

I'm not sure why Blitzer framed his question to make the hypothetical guy in this scenario seem like an asshole who didn't care, but Blitzer is an idiot. That much has been clear for a long time.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Again that was easily answered by Blitzer's comment. This guy had plenty of money to pay for an emergency room visit he was just a crazy guy who didn't want health insurance. (implication obvious) Its funny how different the answers to this on this board are if the guys home or car is destroyed and he is a moron about it or if he is an idiot and shoots himself in the face or some other "Darwin award" type death. Wouldn't a rich 30-year old who refuses to buy insurance and dies from leukemia be the ultimate Darwin award recipient? Why do we need these huge laws when the only defense of them are dumb scenerios like this?

As I just posted, the Blitzer question was stupid. I'm trying to move beyond it. In an emergency situation, how would they know that the person is this rich asshole who can afford a visit or is someone with a pre-existing condition whose insurance won't pay or has the best insurance in the world? Do you want them asking these questions before trying to save someone's life? I don't. And unless you do, then care will be given to people who can't afford it and we will be paying for it. There's no way around that.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure why Blitzer framed his question to make the hypothetical guy in this scenario seem like an asshole who didn't care, but Blitzer is an idiot. That much has been clear for a long time.

He's crazy like a fox. You're talking about him today. I am too. The videos of the whole exchange have gone near-viral in barely 12 hours. If you're talking "journalistic integrity," then you have a point. But at this point, I don't really see that being his goal. He was *wildly* successful at stirring the pot with that question.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But in an emergency situation, do we really want hospital/paramedic staff to be checking for someone's insurance? I don't. Unless you want that, emergency care will be provided to uninsured people who can't pay for it, and the cost will be passed on to us either way.

It can be 2 separate issues or it can be the same issue...depends on your philosophy I suppose.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

First off, I don't follow a religion, but a person. Second, as I said, my response is actually quite consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

And I stick with my original point: it was a dumb, loaded question, and the nature of the question was very poorly represented by the person who posted about it.

That's because the question or the answer isn't what I have a problem with.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

As I just posted, the Blitzer question was stupid. I'm trying to move beyond it. In an emergency situation, how would they know that the person is this rich asshole who can afford a visit or is someone with a pre-existing condition whose insurance won't pay or has the best insurance in the world? Do you want them asking these questions before trying to save someone's life? I don't. And unless you do, then care will be given to people who can't afford it and we will be paying for it. There's no way around that.

And I think Paul's answer was that they used to do this before the government got involved in health care (and one could probably also say before lawyers got involved in everything also but that is a whole other issue) and the hospital just ate the cost. This was before doctors were paid so much also. Which I guess goes back to the flip side of this philosophical question... Why not pay doctors less to cover situations like this? Aren't they being selfish by taking all the money while the uninsured die? (Again just a flip side of a ridiculous scenario doesn't need to be answered)

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

He's crazy like a fox. You're talking about him today. I am too. The videos of the whole exchange have gone near-viral in barely 12 hours. If you're talking "journalistic integrity," then you have a point. But at this point, I don't really see that being his goal. He was *wildly* successful at stirring the pot with that question.

Never said an idiot can't be succesful. I just think he could've stirred the pot even better if he had provided a better example. He probably still would've got the same response from the crowd.

[Warhammer]

I think most government apologists conveniently forget that when the government was not involved in the healthcare, many religious organizations stepped up to the plate. Methodist, Baptist, and Catholic hospitals were not started for grins.

I think it would actually help out in the long run. Religions and charitable organizations would move to fill in the void. Just as they moved out when government moved in.

The bigger problem and this is worse in the younger generations is we have no sense of personal responsibility anymore. People don't look to themselves, they look to government for help. That is not a path we want to go down as a country.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

And I think Paul's answer was that they used to do this before the government got involved in health care (and one could probably also say before lawyers got involved in everything also but that is a whole other issue) and the hospital just ate the cost.

When it's a public hospital, they don't eat the cost. It gets passed on to us.

[JPhillips]

The idea that health outcomes were better before Medicare and Medicaid just isn't factually correct. Private charity has never been enough. Medicare and Medicaid weren't created because liberals wanted to punish religion. They were created because a lot of poor and elderly people didn't have proper access to healthcare.