1.3 million more Americans slid under poverty line in 2003

[SirNitram]

Just imagine for one second Talon what the world would be like without socialist elements in it. Then come back and tell me it's not better.

I would point out that, from the way he has phrased things, he does not know what the socialist elements are.

[Superman]

Thanks Karrde, you just inspired me to register to vote. Since I moved, I just had to re-register.

Karde, if you're a typical example of the Bush supporters, God help us...

[Durandal]

Just imagine for one second Talon what the world would be like without socialist elements in it. Then come back and tell me it's not better.

I would point out that, from the way he has phrased things, he does not know what the socialist elements are.

He's probably perched up on the roof of his house right now, looking for the distinctive Hammer-Sickle-Swastika insignia of the Commie-Nazis.

[Superman]

You should have heard some of the oakies I had to live around in Chico. Everything is "socialist" to them. They don't even know what the word means.

[aerius]

The most capitalist system I can think of is a drug cartel, and even that has socialist elements since they'll usually have a job waiting for you if you get caught & sent to jail provided you don't squeal. Sorry, there ain't a thing such as a pure capitalist government or system.

[Patrick Degan]

Once more as I always ask whenever I hear
That phrase I hate Tax cuts for the Weathy

Define Weathy, When one says tax cuts for the weathy its impossible to put it first in contex unless you first define the term "weathy"

At one point does one become rich? One doller amount? Not what standing amount or one's ability

What salrey range does one become weathy at? 40K? 60k? 90k? 140k?

Right. Keep pretending that the Bush tax cuts weren't overwhelmingly slanted toward advantage for the top 1% bracket and those deriving the bulk of their income from compound interest and investment dividends and that they clearly have not produced the effects advertised. This has been analysed and written about for four years now in minute detail and the arguments of the naysayers have clearly been borne out by experience.

But by all means, keep pretending that this isn't what's happening.

Regardless of your political leanings, you still have to acknowledge the fact that the top 1% of the tax bracket pays 20% of the taxes (IIRC). I know this sounds just like an old tagline, but if you pay more, sorry, you do deserve more back. Who is the government to decide who gets to make more or less money, and who gets the bigger tax break? The answer to me is short, they can't. Thus, they give back proportionally what the taxpayers pays in. Like it or not, in the U.S., we live in a capitalistic society, not a socialistic one where redistribution of wealth is a viable option.

It's OK, Mr. Karrde. I know you're not capable of any thought which isn't fed to you by the RNC.

One question though, if Trickle-Down is valid, then where are all the jobs that were supposed to have been created by Bush's tax cuts?

[Iceberg]

The most capitalist system I can think of is a drug cartel, and even that has socialist elements since they'll usually have a job waiting for you if you get caught & sent to jail provided you don't squeal. Sorry, there ain't a thing such as a pure capitalist government or system.

And if you DO squeal, well, they'll have a "job" waiting for you, just a different kind of job.

[Talon Karrde]

wtf, what argument are you looking for in deliberately bashing my intelligence? What, am I suppose to give you my IQ score?

No, you're suposed to prove that you're not a moron by answering the argument rather than dishonestly pretending that the gratuitous insult at the end was the argument.

And since I have little time, I'll reply briefly to your comment about socialism and capitalism coexisting. I won't be back until later tonight, but can you name me a government that actually works very effectively in which freedom and control can somehow coexist? I don't mean this sarcastically either, I'm honestly curious for an example.

Yet again, you demonstrate that you have the intelligence of a drugged rodent. You previously complained that the rich pay higher taxes in the USA than the poor, and then you act as though you've never heard of capitalism coexisting with socialism? Name me a major first-world industrialized nation in which capitalism exists without any socialist welfare and wealth redistribution programs, moron.

The United States was actually very self-supporting before the Great Depression. Understandably, SOME federal programs had to be initiated to help a bankrupt citizenry. Those programs are outdated. They no longer are effective. Your point is well taken that social programs exist in our country, however, these are not as a whole more predominant than the capitalistic system.

[Talon Karrde]

Thanks Karrde, you just inspired me to register to vote. Since I moved, I just had to re-register.

Karde, if you're a typical example of the Bush supporters, God help us...

If I'm the one that moves you to vote, that's sad. If you weren't going to vote in the first place, that's even sadder.

[Talon Karrde]

Right. Keep pretending that the Bush tax cuts weren't overwhelmingly slanted toward advantage for the top 1% bracket and those deriving the bulk of their income from compound interest and investment dividends and that they clearly have not produced the effects advertised. This has been analysed and written about for four years now in minute detail and the arguments of the naysayers have clearly been borne out by experience.

But by all means, keep pretending that this isn't what's happening.

Regardless of your political leanings, you still have to acknowledge the fact that the top 1% of the tax bracket pays 20% of the taxes (IIRC). I know this sounds just like an old tagline, but if you pay more, sorry, you do deserve more back. Who is the government to decide who gets to make more or less money, and who gets the bigger tax break? The answer to me is short, they can't. Thus, they give back proportionally what the taxpayers pays in. Like it or not, in the U.S., we live in a capitalistic society, not a socialistic one where redistribution of wealth is a viable option.

It's OK, Mr. Karrde. I know you're not capable of any thought which isn't fed to you by the RNC.

One question though, if Trickle-Down is valid, then where are all the jobs that were supposed to have been created by Bush's tax cuts?

If you'd read my previous posts, you'd see that I have no stated his tax cuts have created more jobs, in fact if anything I conceded that they haven't.

[Darth Wong]

And since I have little time, I'll reply briefly to your comment about socialism and capitalism coexisting. I won't be back until later tonight, but can you name me a government that actually works very effectively in which freedom and control can somehow coexist? I don't mean this sarcastically either, I'm honestly curious for an example.

Yet again, you demonstrate that you have the intelligence of a drugged rodent. You previously complained that the rich pay higher taxes in the USA than the poor, and then you act as though you've never heard of capitalism coexisting with socialism? Name me a major first-world industrialized nation in which capitalism exists without any socialist welfare and wealth redistribution programs, moron.

The United States was actually very self-supporting before the Great Depression.

I'm still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about the impossibility of "socialism and capitalism coexisting".

Understandably, SOME federal programs had to be initiated to help a bankrupt citizenry.

I'm still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about the impossibility of "socialism and capitalism coexisting".

Those programs are outdated. They no longer are effective.

Prove it.

Your point is well taken that social programs exist in our country, however, these are not as a whole more predominant than the capitalistic system.

I'm still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about the impossibility of "socialism and capitalism coexisting".

[Talon Karrde]

First off, in your terms, yes I was wrong. I guess that's not exactly how I meant it, however, I was wrong in the statement.

Secondly, I don't think there's much question our federal social programs are outdated and not working properly. Health care is quickly failing and social security is going bankrupt.

[Darth Wong]

First off, in your terms, yes I was wrong. I guess that's not exactly how I meant it, however, I was wrong in the statement.

OK, fair enough.

Secondly, I don't think there's much question our federal social programs are outdated and not working properly. Health care is quickly failing and social security is going bankrupt.

I see you didn't understand what I meant when I asked you to prove it. That usually implies something more than simply saying it again.

[Talon Karrde]

First off, in your terms, yes I was wrong. I guess that's not exactly how I meant it, however, I was wrong in the statement.

OK, fair enough.

Secondly, I don't think there's much question our federal social programs are outdated and not working properly. Health care is quickly failing and social security is going bankrupt.

I see you didn't understand what I meant when I asked you to prove it. That usually implies something more than simply saying it again.

Mike, what do you want me to? Go to the National Archives? I thought it was an accepted fact that Social Security was going bankrupt. Perhaps not?

[Darth Wong]

Mike, what do you want me to? Go to the National Archives? I thought it was an accepted fact that Social Security was going bankrupt. Perhaps not?

So if the system is currently in a deficit-spending phase, it is "not effective"? By your definition, the entire government does not work, and George Bush is making it less effective every day.

You made the claim that social programs are not effective. You have failed to back up that claim. Instead, you spout dogma and argue that if the program is spending more than it's taking in, then it's broken (rather ironic for someone who supports Captain George W. Deficit).

[Talon Karrde]

Mike, what do you want me to? Go to the National Archives? I thought it was an accepted fact that Social Security was going bankrupt. Perhaps not?

So if the system is currently in a deficit-spending phase, it is "not effective"? By your definition, the entire government does not work, and George Bush is making it less effective every day.

You made the claim that social programs are not effective. You have failed to back up that claim. Instead, you spout dogma and argue that if the program is spending more than it's taking in, then it's broken (rather ironic for someone who supports Captain George W. Deficit).

Hmmm... this seems to constitute a red herring. But no wait, only you or someone who agrees with you has the right to call a falacy I assume.

How the hell does Bush's spending tactics relate to the failures of the social security system. We've known about social securities shortcomings since Clinton's administration. Am I blaming Clinton? Heck no. He had nothing to do with it. But the system is going bankrupt, and if there is no change, it WILL fail and it will leave many depending on it in the future helpless.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, what do you want me to? Go to the National Archives? I thought it was an accepted fact that Social Security was going bankrupt. Perhaps not?

So if the system is currently in a deficit-spending phase, it is "not effective"? By your definition, the entire government does not work, and George Bush is making it less effective every day.

You made the claim that social programs are not effective. You have failed to back up that claim. Instead, you spout dogma and argue that if the program is spending more than it's taking in, then it's broken (rather ironic for someone who supports Captain George W. Deficit).

Hmmm... this seems to constitute a red herring. But no wait, only you or someone who agrees with you has the right to call a falacy I assume.

No, it's an example of the flaw in your logic, moron. That's how logical mistakes are often identified, by applying the same logic to a different situation and then seeing that it results in an absurd conclusion. I see your pitiful grasp of logic is not improving.

How the hell does Bush's spending tactics relate to the failures of the social security system.

They relate to the poor logic of your assumption that "deficit spending" = "not effective".

We've known about social securities shortcomings since Clinton's administration. Am I blaming Clinton? Heck no. He had nothing to do with it. But the system is going bankrupt, and if there is no change, it WILL fail and it will leave many depending on it in the future helpless.

See above. For the third time, you have claimed that social programs are not effective. Prove it.

[Talon Karrde]

Link: http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-20es.html

"Saving" Social Security Is Not Enough
by Michael Tanner

Michael Tanner is director of the Cato Institute Project on Social Security Privatization and coauthor of A New Deal for Social Security (1998).

Executive Summary
It seems that no politician discusses Social Security these days without a call to "save" the program. Certainly, it is possible to see why the program needs saving. It is facing financial insolvency: it is more than $20 trillion in debt and will be running a deficit in just 15 years.

But to focus on "saving" Social Security is to miss the larger point. Merely finding sufficient funding to preserve Social Security fails to address the serious shortcomings of the current system. The question should be, not whether we can save Social Security, but whether we can provide the best possible retirement system for American workers. Social Security fails both as an anti-poverty program and as a retirement program. It contains numerous inequities and leaves future retirement benefits to the whims of politicians. Why should the goal of public policy be to save such a program?

Instead of saving Social Security, we should begin the transition to a new and better retirement system based on individually owned, privately invested accounts. The new system would allow workers to accumulate real wealth that would prevent their retiring to poverty. Because a privatized system would provide a far higher rate of return, it would yield much higher retirement benefits. Because workers would own their accounts, money in them could be passed on to future generations as an inheritance. That would particularly benefit the poor and minorities. Finally, workers would no longer be dependent on politicians for their retirement incomes.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Mike, what do you want me to? Go to the National Archives? I thought it was an accepted fact that Social Security was going bankrupt. Perhaps not?

maybe some of these programs are ailing becaues the goverment officials do not show fiscal responsibility or intelligent judgement? Sometimes the answer isn't always just throwing more money in a direction or tax cuts.

[Talon Karrde]

Mike, what do you want me to? Go to the National Archives? I thought it was an accepted fact that Social Security was going bankrupt. Perhaps not?

maybe some of these programs are ailing becaues the goverment officials do not show fiscal responsibility or intelligent judgement? Sometimes the answer isn't always just throwing more money in a direction or tax cuts.

Agreed.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Instead of saving Social Security, we should begin the transition to a new and better retirement system based on individually owned, privately invested accounts.

What like stocks? Those are reliable, and everyone's a stock-broker.

[Darth Wong]

Link: http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-20es.html

Wow, so you posted a link to someone whose opinion matches yours. Gee, I've never seen that tactic from a right wingnut before. And how does that constitute proof that the program is not effective?

[Talon Karrde]

Link: http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-20es.html

Wow, so you posted a link to someone whose opinion matches yours. Gee, I've never seen that tactic from a right wingnut before. And how does that constitute proof that the program is not effective?

You dispute the numbers? Please tell me how.

[Darth Wong]

Link: http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-20es.html

Wow, so you posted a link to someone whose opinion matches yours. Gee, I've never seen that tactic from a right wingnut before. And how does that constitute proof that the program is not effective?

You dispute the numbers? Please tell me how.

For the fourth time, I dispute your conclusion that if the system is facing a financial problem in the future assuming nothing is done to solve it, then it is not effective today. But please, by all means, go on pretending that you can prove that A leads to B by just repeating A over and over and over.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

SIZE AND SCOPE OF SSA's PROGRAMS

I would like to now briefly review the programs that SSA administers. Because virtually all Americans have the benefit protection provided by Social Security's programs and nearly one in five receives benefits, we can say that SSA touches the lives of virtually every American. Social Security provides protection against loss of earnings due to retirement, disability and death. While it is often thought of as a retirement program, Social Security also provides benefits to disabled workers, their families, and to surviving family members of deceased workers. Social Security disability and survivors benefits are a critical source of income for workers and families during a vulnerable time in their lives. And, thanks to the strong, bipartisan effort last year on the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, disabled beneficiaries who want to work can take advantage of enhanced return-to-work initiatives. SSA also administers the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program which is funded not through Social Security taxes, but[eb8] from general revenues, and provides payments to financially needy individuals who are aged, blind or disabled. A new program, title VIII of the Social Security Act, that authorizes benefit payments for certain World War II veterans, also is funded from general revenues.

For FY 2001, 98 percent of the $461[MPL11] billion that SSA will outlay will be paid in the form of monthly benefits to 50 million Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI), Disability Insurance (DI), Federal SSI, and Black Lung beneficiaries. On average, each workday about 100,000 people visit one of our 1,300 field offices and over 240,000 people call our 800-telephone number. Each workday, we process an average of 20,000 initial claims for retirement, survivors, disability or SSI benefits, and hold 2,400 hearings before Administrative Law Judges. Each year, we ensure that over 250 million earnings items are correctly credited to workers' accounts to ensure that future benefit payments are accurate. In all our programs Social Security strives for sound, effective management, and this past year has been one of significant accomplishments. Nevertheless, we recognize that the Agency faces continuing pressures, changes and management challenges.

the US Council of Economic Advisers (1997: 448-449) reported that the American social security system would be in no great difficulty until the third decade of the twenty-first century.

here


I think this shows some ways we can go about fixing the problem. I am not an expert on it, however.