I just don't like mitt Romney

[Askthepizzaguy]

Truth be told I don't like social security either. It was never, EVER paid for by the taxpayers that received it. It has ALWAYS been a ponzi scheme to take from the labor of the young to give to those who were already retired when it was passed. Nobody has EVER paid for their own social security. It has always been the younger generation paying for an older generation.

Insurance.

You pay in, get into an accident, and get a payout bigger than what you paid into it.

Add 50% costs due to profit, and 50% costs due to advertisement.

How is that not a ponzi scheme?


You continually bash government programs that work if people don't raid money from them, but support businesses that rip people off and cannot under any circumstances cover everyone. Oh, and they also go out of their way to make sure even if you are legitimately deserving of money, they try to lawyer their way out of it or settle for less than you deserve because profit.

Government fills in the gap that capitalism leaves behind. Capitalism works for the rich and the middle class. It does not work for the poor or the unemployed. Finally understand this please.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Insurance.

You pay in, get into an accident, and get a payout bigger than what you paid into it.

Add 50% costs due to profit, and 50% costs due to advertisement.

How is that not a ponzi scheme?


You continually bash government programs that work if people don't raid money from them, but support businesses that rip people off and cannot under any circumstances cover everyone.

Government fills in the gap that capitalism leaves behind. Capitalism works for the rich and the middle class. It does not work for the poor or the unemployed. Finally understand this please.

Insurance would be a ponzi scheme if insurance providers were forced into it. As it stands, its part of the free market. You choose to get insurance or not, they choose to provide it, and if you don't end up needing it, you lose money. Its a cost-benefit analysis.

Social security, as it stands, is a ponzi scheme because it steals from the young to give to the old, rather than paying for itself.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't mind Social Security too much, because I think it provides a net benefit even if it's fundamentally unfair at first glance. However, what chaps my gums are people who steam and rail against it, but then demand that they should get 'their' share too. So, they'll not support efforts to end Social Security sufficiently to prevent them from getting money.

The reason why it chaps is because Ghostwriter is correct: it's a transfer from the young to the old. For me to get 'my share back' is not possible, because some old person already spent it. For me to 'get my share' just means that some kid is going to have to pay me off and then see nothing for himself.

To me, the arguments are a lot like maintaining traditions regarding hazing. Your victim is the not one who abused you.

My personal goal is to pay more in dividend taxes than I receive in SS; that way I'm contributing fairly

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't understand why it's a ponzi scheme because it utilizes money from another generation.

You use infrastructure and buildings that were made using the tax dollars of previous generations. Government is not an "I pay for myself only" system. Collectivism requires older generations paying for things younger generations use, and vice-versa.

In other words, this ponzi scheme argument doesn't hold water. It's how government works to begin with, and government has existed for a very long time.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Example: Child goes to school his parents paid for. His child goes to school that he and his grandparents paid for.

Not a ponzi scheme.

The reverse: Child pays for grandfather's retirement, his child pays for his father's retirement, etc.

Not a ponzi scheme either.

I realize it would be very useful to the far right if they could make everyone go "woah! Like this whole government thing is just wrong, maaaaaan. Let's abolish basic safety nets for the poor and the elderly!" but it would require a lot more drugs than everyone but the far right are presently smoking.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Characteristic of a Ponzi scheme is that the system is inherently unsustainable due to folks at the bottom paying for the next layer AND the next layer AND the next layer, and that eventually you run out of people to include in the scheme.

Social security requires one generation to pay for another, but there will always be another generation to pay for the previous one, and human population growth continues to be positive, not negative.

And when the day comes that we have negative population growth, the system is still sustainable because the next generation still pays for the previous, and we divert resources that we had been using for growth (new road construction, new schools) and with negative population growth, you don't need as much of that, so therefore you have more money to spend on maintaining the current population.

You do not continue paying for 10 generations ago, either, which would be characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. It's pretty much a 1:1 or 1:2 ratio, is sustainable, and there will always be future generations.

The differences between an actual ponzi scheme and government are so stark, I can only believe the people making the characterization are being deliberately obtuse.

The alternative is you don't know what a ponzi scheme is, and therefore shouldn't be using the term. Thanks. Since it's clearly possible to sustain medicare and SS simply by not raiding it and funding it properly, maybe not spend 2 trillion dollars on unnecessary wars, I don't want to hear about how the system is unsustainable. Try sustaining it, it's not hard. It's basic arithmetic.

 

[Quackers]

Are you enjoying talking to yourself pizza?
I'm surprised you can even make out the computer screen infront of you with the growing froth at the mouth

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't mind Social Security too much, because I think it provides a net benefit even if it's fundamentally unfair at first glance. However, what chaps my gums are people who steam and rail against it, but then demand that they should get 'their' share too. So, they'll not support efforts to end Social Security sufficiently to prevent them from getting money.

The reason why it chaps is because Ghostwriter is correct: it's a transfer from the young to the old. For me to get 'my share back' is not possible, because some old person already spent it. For me to 'get my share' just means that some kid is going to have to pay me off and then see nothing for himself.

To me, the arguments are a lot like maintaining traditions regarding hazing. Your victim is the not one who abused you.

My personal goal is to pay more in dividend taxes than I receive in SS; that way I'm contributing fairly

I think slowly phasing it out would ultimately be the most fair way. Or just create private accounts. You pay into YOUR account. That account is kept personally for you. When you retire, you collect from it.

Characteristic of a Ponzi scheme is that the system is inherently unsustainable due to folks at the bottom paying for the next layer AND the next layer AND the next layer, and that eventually you run out of people to include in the scheme.

Social security requires one generation to pay for another, but there will always be another generation to pay for the previous one, and human population growth continues to be positive, not negative.

And when the day comes that we have negative population growth, the system is still sustainable because the next generation still pays for the previous, and we divert resources that we had been using for growth (new road construction, new schools) and with negative population growth, you don't need as much of that, so therefore you have more money to spend on maintaining the current population.

You do not continue paying for 10 generations ago, either, which would be characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. It's pretty much a 1:1 or 1:2 ratio, is sustainable, and there will always be future generations.

The differences between an actual ponzi scheme and government are so stark, I can only believe the people making the characterization are being deliberately obtuse.

The alternative is you don't know what a ponzi scheme is, and therefore shouldn't be using the term. Thanks. Since it's clearly possible to sustain medicare and SS simply by not raiding it and funding it properly, maybe not spend 2 trillion dollars on unnecessary wars, I don't want to hear about how the system is unsustainable. Try sustaining it, it's not hard. It's basic arithmetic.

For the record, I'm all with you on war. The last worthwhile war we fought was WWII.

 

[JollyRoger]

Social security, as it stands, is a ponzi scheme because it steals from the young to give to the old, rather than paying for itself.

Spoken by someone that has thus far been carried through life by another generation.

 

[choxorn]

Are you enjoying talking to yourself pizza?
I'm surprised you can even make out the computer screen infront of you with the growing froth at the mouth

That's funny, that's exactly what I was thinking about you when you kept going on about Churchill's bust.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Those few of us that actually still care about human life cannot in good consceience allow its destruction.

And yet you favor executing women who have abortions. You favor executing criminals who commit certain crimes, and what would you say to their families and the executed person him/herself if you happen to meet up in the afterlife if that individual turns out to have been falsely accused, railroaded, and wrongly executed? "Oops, my bad?"

I will say that my opinion on war has changed pretty drastically lately. WWII was the last one my country fought that I really consider worth the time. Before that, the War of 1812 was the last acceptable one...

Your country attacked Canada. WE certainly didn't find it acceptable.

First off, just because the war itself was acceptable does not mean that every action that occurred as part of that war is also acceptable.

Secondly, England was sinking our ships and impressing our sailors. They needed to be made to stop.

Then why didn't you attack England directly?

Which is none of your business to do. We can trade with whoever the heck we want.

Uh-huh... like American companies telling Canadian companies that they can't trade with Cuba?

 

[Cutlass]

Those few of us that actually still care about human life cannot in good consceience allow its destruction.

Jesus fracking christ dude, everything you want is intended and designed to destroy innocent life. Claiming that you, you, of all people, are against the destruction of human life is a farce on the face of it.

 

[Crezth]

I care about human life. Also the government should be allowed to murder people at its discretion.

 

[choxorn]

Uh-huh... like American companies telling Canadian companies that they can't trade with Cuba?

Because we're America, and we can totally do whatever we want and force other people to do what we want but when other people try to do that it's totally not cool, bro, and we're totally not listening.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And yet you favor executing women who have abortions.

I don't feel like hunting for the thread, but I came to the conclusion that I believe the punishment should be a life sentence rather than a death sentence.

You favor executing criminals who commit certain crimes, and what would you say to their families and the executed person him/herself if you happen to meet up in the afterlife if that individual turns out to have been falsely accused, railroaded, and wrongly executed? "Oops, my bad?"

I believe the standards of proof should be high enough that this will almost certainly not happen. If one in a million slips through, not "Oops my bad", I wouldn't take it that casually, but bad things happen.

Your country attacked Canada. WE certainly didn't find it acceptable.


Then why didn't you attack England directly?

Canada was part of England at the time.

Uh-huh... like American companies telling Canadian companies that they can't trade with Cuba?

Do you think I agree with that? I don't. Don't make assumptions please.

If we started sinking your ships that were headed for Cuba, you'd have a valid casus beli (You'd get crushed, of course, but might hardly makes right.)

Jesus fracking christ dude, everything you want is intended and designed to destroy innocent life. Claiming that you, you, of all people, are against the destruction of human life is a farce on the face of it.

Oh, yeah, attack the intentions of your opponent rather than really discussing issues.

 

[choxorn]

I don't feel like hunting for the thread, but I came to the conclusion that I believe the punishment should be a life sentence rather than a death sentence.

You know, that's not much more reasonable of a punishment.

I believe the standards of proof should be high enough that this will almost certainly not happen. If one in a million slips through, not "Oops my bad", I wouldn't take it that casually, but bad things happen.

It has happened, it does happen, and will continue to happen, at a much higher rate than one in a million, simply because with our current execution rates, executing a million people would take several thousand years.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You know, that's not much more reasonable of a punishment.

Still worth correcting.

It has happened, it does happen, and will continue to happen, at a much higher rate than one in a million, simply because with our current execution rates, executing a million people would take several thousand years.

Hyperbole, thank you.

If you lock someone up for ten years and then find out they are innocent, they never ever ever get those years back. In essence, society has stolen those years from them due to a mistake. But its still going to happen. So why is the aforementioned scenario not theft but a wrongful execution, even if all possible precautions are taken, is murder?

I advocate being very, very careful with the implementation of the DP but there are some times when it is simply the only appropriate course of action.

 

[JollyRoger]

I can kind of see the pro choice side of things to the death penalty.

 

[choxorn]

If you lock someone up for ten years and then find out they are innocent, they never ever ever get those years back. In essence, society has stolen those years from them due to a mistake. But its still going to happen. So why is the aforementioned scenario not theft but a wrongful execution, even if all possible precautions are taken, is murder?

I advocate being very, very careful with the implementation of the DP but there are some times when it is simply the only appropriate course of action.

It's not theft because you can't "steal" a person or time. Kidnapping, maybe. And it's also bad, but I'm sure anyone would rather wrongfully lose part of their life than all of it, and also because locking someone up is reversible, whereas killing someone is not.

 

[Cutlass]

Oh, yeah, attack the intentions of your opponent rather than really discussing issues.

You frequently demonstrate utter contempt for human life. What else am I supposed to do?