1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

He still doesnt grasp its a swindling ponzu scheme. or refuses to grasp it.

libertarians would argue that you take care of yourself. No SS. You want protection buy insurance. We have no right to the property of others

The funny thing is that people would have MORE money for retirement if they just put it in the market instead of the god forsaken SS system. But nooooo, we can’t have more money — we have to filter it through the most inefficient institution ever imagined by mankind known as the government.

The problem with SS is that it was supposed to be one leg of a three legged stool: SS, pensions, and private savings. The latter two vanished like a fart in the wind. 401k's were never designed to be what they have become. If you want to fix the system, you have to start by making the system less reliant on SS. You do that by financial policy that benefits the middle class over all other classes.

In terms of college tuition, I prefer the @vikas83 plan: make colleges underwrite the loans. That would pretty much fix the problem overnight. 

39 minutes ago, TEW said:

The funny thing is that people would have MORE money for retirement if they just put it in the market instead of the god forsaken SS system. But nooooo, we can’t have more money — we have to filter it through the most inefficient institution ever imagined by mankind known as the government.

Risk avoidance.

govt can just lie to people 

30 minutes ago, Bill said:

The problem with SS is that it was supposed to be one leg of a three legged stool: SS, pensions, and private savings. The latter two vanished like a fart in the wind. 401k's were never designed to be what they have become. If you want to fix the system, you have to start by making the system less reliant on SS. You do that by financial policy that benefits the middle class over all other classes.

In terms of college tuition, I prefer the @vikas83 plan: make colleges underwrite the loans. That would pretty much fix the problem overnight. 

Benefits middle class is code for welfare state

policy should not favor anyone. Its should protect a capitalist system where people can take care of their own  matters and make their own decisions

35 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Benefits middle class is code for welfare state

policy should not favor anyone. Its should protect a capitalist system where people can take care of their own  matters and make their own decisions

Yeah except what we have isn't capitalism, it's corporatism. Officials keep giving corporations what they want for the lobby dollars, and they keep giving free stuff to the poors for votes. 

In between the middle gets squeezed. 

3 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

He still doesnt grasp its a swindling ponzu scheme. or refuses to grasp it.

libertarians would argue that you take care of yourself. No SS. You want protection buy insurance. We have no right to the property of others

Random, but ok...

We have the right to do what we want as a society through our elected representatives. If we decide that we're going to be a society based on a social contract where we pool some amount resources in order to ensure fundamental standards of living and prevent a total collapse of our basic social and economic structures, then it is well within our political philposophy to do so. But if it would hearten you to see more human suffering and more people dying in the street than is really necessary or advisable, it's also your right to loudly proclaim how much you don't care about your fellow man or the overall health of the nation as your countrymen vote for something more sustainable.

Anyway, ponzu is great. I'm a big fan of Japanese cuisine. 

3 hours ago, Bill said:

Yeah except what we have isn't capitalism, it's corporatism. Officials keep giving corporations what they want for the lobby dollars, and they keep giving free stuff to the poors for votes. 

In between the middle gets squeezed. 

Except you have about 80-90% being bought. Very few pay.

incentivizing companies for jobs at least has some roi

 

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Random, but ok...

We have the right to do what we want as a society through our elected representatives. If we decide that we're going to be a society based on a social contract where we pool some amount resources in order to ensure fundamental standards of living and prevent a total collapse of our basic social and economic structures, then it is well within our political philposophy to do so. But if it would hearten you to see more human suffering and more people dying in the street than is really necessary or advisable, it's also your right to loudly proclaim how much you don't care about your fellow man or the overall health of the nation as your countrymen vote for something more sustainable.

Anyway, ponzu is great. I'm a big fan of Japanese cuisine. 

Its actually not so spare  me the total collapse teen girl drama.

individualism is our basis. Collectivism is not. Its really that simple. The social contract is a myth. People stop associating when it ceases to be mutually beneficial. What you advocate is parasitism that harms society in the long run even if it benefits the parasites in the short term

Here is all you need to know about Social Security:

 

 

 

Just now, iladelphxx said:

Here is all you need to know about Social Security:

 

 

 

Historic rate of return for the S&P 500 is actually 11.88%, so he's actually being super conservative with 5%

22 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Its actually not so spare  me the total collapse teen girl drama.

individualism is our basis. Collectivism is not. Its really that simple. The social contract is a myth. People stop associating when it ceases to be mutually beneficial. What you advocate is parasitism that harms society in the long run even if it benefits the parasites in the short term

 

Our nation was founded on a healthy mix of rugged individualism and proto-collectivism, contract theory was part of that. Rousseauian political philosophy is hard-baked into our national ideals; our founders were well-versed in it. If we're going to talk about "drama queens," it's ironic how you absolve yourself from such charges, what with your incessant sensationalism over everything and anything that contributes to the general welfare. We can ensure at least bare subsistence in the interest of social tranquility and staying on par with the rest of the modern, industrialized world without losing our way. But I don't want to get into a catchall argument here.

There is a hell of a lot wrong with S.S., in how it is structured and (mis)managed, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You are yet again projecting your collectivism onto a foundation where it doesnt belong. The federal Govt had clear roles like war and court systems to enforce contracts. Contracts freely entered into no forced onto people by said govt. we have no obligations to each other we dont choose outside of non violence. 
 

you preach fear basically. If tee and vikas want to let you go homeless, that is their right. You want security? Take your own money and but insurance

This is not based on fear; it is rooted in pragmatism in the interest of our nation's functionality in the modern world. It goes well beyond basic, physical security to having a reliably robust economy and well-educated citizenry that can compete on the world stage. And it is also the right of the nation to band together and vote for something different altogether than what the slim economic minority advocates. There has always, inherently, been an element of compulsion to any form of centralized (federal) government.

Its also why the founders didnt let everyone vote. As franklin knew, it leads to mob rule by morons. 

10 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Its also why the founders didnt let everyone vote. As franklin knew, it leads to mob rule by morons. 

 

Sure, and we've had a few elections recently that have reinforced that, but the expansion of the electorate towards universal suffrage originated at the state level. It was not long after the founding that states began removing propertyholding qualifications for voting. And buffers against bare majoritarianism also continue to hold in some form at the federal level via the filibuster. You can't get major legislation passed without a supermajority. The irony is that the Senate accords greater strength to red states, where people are less educated (morons) and more on welfare (poors).

There's one thing about setting up a social safety net for elderly widows and physically disabled people.

I know 25 year old men who are collecting Social Security Disability because they are on methadone. 

6 hours ago, TEW said:

The funny thing is that people would have MORE money for retirement if they just put it in the market instead of the god forsaken SS system. But nooooo, we can’t have more money — we have to filter it through the most inefficient institution ever imagined by mankind known as the government.

I agree with this. I would prefer to invest my own money in my retirement than have SS, which I’m not counting on getting anyway. However, I’ve accepted the fact that it’s not going anywhere anytime soon if ever because old people vote in droves. So it’s not an issue I put much stock into these days.

4 hours ago, Bill said:

Yeah except what we have isn't capitalism, it's corporatism. Officials keep giving corporations what they want for the lobby dollars, and they keep giving free stuff to the poors for votes. 

In between the middle gets squeezed. 

Yeah we’ve socialized corporate losses which is very anti libertarian. 

4 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I agree with this. I would prefer to invest my own money in my retirement than have SS, which I’m not counting on getting anyway. However, I’ve accepted the fact that it’s not going anywhere anytime soon if ever because old people vote in droves. So it’s not an issue I put much stock into these days.

Right. It will never happen, but it would be beneficial. SS will continue and the benefits will be printed once we reach the point of breaking.

Welp 

58 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Sure, and we've had a few elections recently that have reinforced that, but the expansion of the electorate towards universal suffrage originated at the state level. It was not long after the founding that states began removing propertyholding qualifications for voting. And buffers against bare majoritarianism also continue to hold in some form at the federal level via the filibuster. You can't get major legislation passed without a supermajority. The irony is that the Senate accords greater strength to red states, where people are less educated (morons) and more on welfare (poors).

Nah its the urban centers filled with the poor morons 

you know the dem base

those tired welfare lies include military spend to spin the lie/narrative

1 hour ago, iladelphxx said:

Welp 

That shrew will try to attach an ishload of welfare to it

2 hours ago, Gannan said:

I agree with this. I would prefer to invest my own money in my retirement than have SS, which I’m not counting on getting anyway. However, I’ve accepted the fact that it’s not going anywhere anytime soon if ever because old people vote in droves. So it’s not an issue I put much stock into these days.

You should. Bc all the objections and criticism voiced in opposition to starting it have come to pass.

it cant be killed instantly, but we need a plan to unwind it. But maybe quick kill is the only way

2 hours ago, Gannan said:

Yeah we’ve socialized corporate losses which is very anti libertarian. 

Banks maybe which was a mistake

but universities might be the primary offender