Social Security in Worse Shape than you thought

[classhandicapper]

Here's something that's not a shock.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102659216

"We have a situation that is like Enron accounting," Kotlikoff said. "And the public doesn't want to hear about it."

[Clocker]

Here's something that's not a shock.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102659216

"We have a situation that is like Enron accounting," Kotlikoff said. "And the public doesn't want to hear about it."

Things aren't quite that rosy. :rolleyes:

From the article:
The Social Security Administration projects that its trust funds will be depleted by 2033—not an optimistic forecast. But it may be even bleaker than that.

For decades, the SSA had been taking in more in FICA taxes than it had been paying out in benefits. That surplus is the "trust fund". Since 2010, FICA taxes have not covered benefits, and the SSA has been covering the short fall out of the trust fund.

The bad news is that by law, the SSA could put its surplus trust fund in one, and only one, "security": US Treasury bonds. Last I saw, Treasury owes SSA $2 trillion. So as SSA needs more and more money to cover its short fall, Treasury has to borrow more and more money to pay its debt to SSA.

[Inner Dirt]

It is nothing but a government run Ponzi scheme.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Uh-oh, you done pissed off mostpost now with the ponzi talk.

[Robert Goren]

The republicans have been say this stuff since I was 8 years old. I am now 67. I guess if you find good whooper that you can back up with some twisted numbers, you can keep try to using it to get people into voting for you. Even if it is 60 years old.

[TJDave]

Guess what?

I'm gonna get every dime I've paid in doubled or tripled.

Whatever congress has to do to keep the checks coming they will do.

[badcompany]

This chart puts things in perspective. Of course, infantile Libs will look at this and conclude that the problem is we're not taxing corporations enough.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/477f51142b27d8c0f2a9e4439acbb08a_zps2c707ee8.jpg

[RunForTheRoses]

Guess what?

I'm gonna get every dime I've paid in doubled or tripled.

Whatever congress has to do to keep the checks coming they will do.

But what about the younger generations? F**k them? Let them eat cake? What a selfish attitude and let Congress do whatever it has to do?They got us into this mess.

[classhandicapper]

Guess what?

I'm gonna get every dime I've paid in doubled or tripled.

Whatever congress has to do to keep the checks coming they will do.

The government will try to continue printing money to fund the liabilities until the global market no longer accepts the US dollar as a reserve currency and it collapses. You'll get you money. It's just that the value of all your income and savings will be inflated away and your standard of living will hit a new low.

[RunForTheRoses]

This chart puts things in perspective. Of course, infantile Libs will look at this and conclude that the problem is we're not taxing corporations enough.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/477f51142b27d8c0f2a9e4439acbb08a_zps2c707ee8.jpg

We're doomed.

[RunForTheRoses]

The government will try to continue printing money to fund the liabilities until the global market no longer accepts the US dollar as a reserve currency and it collapses. You'll get you money. It's just that the value of all your income and savings will be inflated away and your standard of living will hit a new low.

Exactly. China and Russia have each independently begun the process of ditching the dollar. Its like the slow boiling frog, one day it will be too late for us.

[Clocker]

Guess what?

I'm gonna get every dime I've paid in doubled or tripled.


Thank your children and nieces and nephews for that. That's where the money is coming from.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The republicans have been say this stuff since I was 8 years old. I am now 67. I guess if you find good whooper that you can back up with some twisted numbers, you can keep try to using it to get people into voting for you. Even if it is 60 years old.

The sustainability of Social Security is no different now than in 1956? You're the only person in the world who would make such a foolish argument.

[Tom]

SS is bank robbing for the faint of heart.
It is run by the government - it has to fail.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Exactly. China and Russia have each independently begun the process of ditching the dollar. Its like the slow boiling frog, one day it will be too late for us.

The Chinese banking system is a ticking time bomb. The Russian economy is in recession and lacks any globally competitive industries (of scale) outside of energy. The US dollar trades very, very close to its 50-year avg vs. a board basket of currencies. You can argue the US is going to hell, but it's still the best house in a bad neighborhood.

[Robert Goren]

The sustainability of Social Security is no different now than in 1956? You're the only person in the world who would make such a foolish argument.That not what I said. I said the republicans have been saying since 1956 (probably sooner) that SS was going broke in the next few years. Obviously their math was wrong in 1956, 1966, 1976, 1996 and 2006 and every year in between. What makes you think that all of a sudden out of the blue they gotten arithmetic down pat after being wrong for over 50 years?

[classhandicapper]

The Chinese banking system is a ticking time bomb. The Russian economy is in recession and lacks any globally competitive industries (of scale) outside of energy. The US dollar trades very, very close to its 50-year avg vs. a board basket of currencies. You can argue the US is going to hell, but it's still the best house in a bad neighborhood.

Right now, the dollar is the tallest pygmy.

The rest of the world now understands that the dollar does not deserve reserve status anymore. The issue for them is getting from where they are now to where they want to go without destroying themselves too. That's probably going to be a slow process, but it's clearly underway now. Long term the dollar is toast.

[classhandicapper]

That not what I said. I said the republicans have been saying since 1956 (probably sooner) that SS was going broke in the next few years. Obviously their math was wrong in 1956, 1966, 1976, 1996 and 2006 and every year in between. What makes you think that all of a sudden out of the blue they gotten arithmetic down pat after being wrong for over 50 years?

The math has always been right.

The government repeatedly responded by raising SS tax rates from their original and intended level to a level that could support the system for years longer and keep the scheme going.

Do you see the pattern here?

The idea is not to fix it and make it sustainable or replace it with something better. The idea is to keep squeezing the lemon dry until there is nothing left. Then you print money and destroy everything, all while calling the people who want to create an economically and mathematically sound alternative greedy bastards that want to take away your SS.

[Saratoga_Mike]

That not what I said. I said the republicans have been saying since 1956 (probably sooner) that SS was going broke in the next few years. Obviously their math was wrong in 1956, 1966, 1976, 1996 and 2006 and every year in between. What makes you think that all of a sudden out of the blue they gotten arithmetic down pat after being wrong for over 50 years?

"The republicans have been say this stuff since I was 8 years old."

"This stuff" wasn't exactly precise.

As for the math, you have no idea what you're talking about. Go to OMB.gov and look at the actual projections from the WH.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Right now, the dollar is the tallest pygmy.

The rest of the world now understands that the dollar does not deserve reserve status anymore. The issue for them is getting from where they are now to where they want to go without destroying themselves too. That's probably going to be a slow process, but it's clearly underway now. Long term the dollar is toast.

1) The Chinese banking system is a disaster
2) The Euro as the world's reserve currency - avoid currencies where the banking system is radically larger than GDP
3) Russia - laughable
4) UK - too small

The only currency that could ultimately emerge to rival the US dollar is the Indian rupee, and that's years away. China's demographics stink. India's are great. If India ever opens their country up to true FDI, look out.

[Clocker]

That not what I said. I said the republicans have been saying since 1956 (probably sooner) that SS was going broke in the next few years. Obviously their math was wrong in 1956, 1966, 1976, 1996 and 2006 and every year in between. What makes you think that all of a sudden out of the blue they gotten arithmetic down pat after being wrong for over 50 years?

I don't believe anyone that far back said that it would happen in the next few years. Certainly for the last 20-30 years even the Dems knew that SS was not sustainable in the long run. But none of them on either side saw it happening while they were still in office, so they just kept putting it off.

The problem was pushed down the road because SS was running a surplus up until 2010. FICA taxes were bringing in more than the benefits being paid out. That is no longer the case, and the problem is undeniable by any twist of logic. But 5 years later, no one in Washington seems to be even talking about it seriously. Again, most people in the government will be gone by the time the crap hits the fan.

[Saratoga_Mike]

That not what I said. I said the republicans have been saying since 1956 (probably sooner) that SS was going broke in the next few years. Obviously their math was wrong in 1956, 1966, 1976, 1996 and 2006 and every year in between. What makes you think that all of a sudden out of the blue they gotten arithmetic down pat after being wrong for over 50 years?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/tables.pdf

Page 96 - President Obama has joined the Republican conspiracy

[Robert Goren]

The dollar is so strong that it is nearly impossible to export anything made in the US. The strong dollar has killed manufacturing and the jobs that go with it, yet some people keep saying it is weak. Almost every large company has had it overseas profits slashed because of the exchange rates, yet I keep hearing how weak the dollars is. It is not weak. Even the Gold Bugs who bought gold a couple years ago have seen their investment shrink rather dramatically. There will be price to pay down the road for keeping the dollar too strong. I am afraid it going to be heavy one.

[Robert Goren]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/tables.pdf

Page 96 - President Obama has joined the Republican conspiracyUnfortunately this is not the only issue on which Obama has started to sound like a republican lately.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Unfortunately this is not the only issue on which Obama has started to sound like a republican lately.

Not even worthy of a response - stop making stuff up. You hadn't looked at the budget - no big deal, but just admit you made a mistake.

[Clocker]

Page 96 - President Obama has joined the Republican conspiracy

But not enough to actually address the issue during the remainder of his part time, lame duck term in office. But what difference does it make when you are producing a fairy tale 10 year budget that has zero chance of being passed.

[boxcar]

It is nothing but a government run Ponzi scheme.

Ahh...someone gets it. :ThmbUp:

It was doomed to fail from the git go.

[boxcar]

Thank your children and nieces and nephews for that. That's where the money is coming from.

He doesn't give two flips. As long as he gets his....

[boxcar]

The Chinese banking system is a ticking time bomb. The Russian economy is in recession and lacks any globally competitive industries (of scale) outside of energy. The US dollar trades very, very close to its 50-year avg vs. a board basket of currencies. You can argue the US is going to hell, but it's still the best house in a bad neighborhood.

That ain't sayin' very much. :rolleyes:

[dartman51]

Am I the ONLY one who thinks it odd that Social Security, which every WORKING American citizen pays into, is always about to run out of money, but wellfare, EBT, foodstamps, and other social programs, don't seem to be in trouble? :faint:

[Robert Goren]

Not even worthy of a response - stop making stuff up. You hadn't looked at the budget - no big deal, but just admit you made a mistake. The upper limit on SS taxes does need to be increased, I will give that. The number of SS recipients will increase rather remarkably over the next few years too. That is why we need more younger workers. Since our non immigrant population is pretty much steady, we will have a problem unless we have more immigration and we actually do things that will create jobs for them here. A weaker dollar is but one thing will do that. But I like to point out that SS is not the only problem caused by baby boomers retiring. When they start cashing out their 401 Ks, the stock market will have problems. We have already seen a bubble in the bond market as retirees seek a steady safe income. Anything that promises a steady semi safe return on money is in great demand and that demand will only get greater in the future. My point has been and continues to be that some people have been crying wolf since I was a kid and SS has survived despite them saying SS was just a few years away form going under. I think the government will figure out what to do. People who have counted SS being there will have to be taken care off one way or another. The country will not turn its elderly out in the streets. Although I get the impression a few republicans would do exactly that if given half a chance.

[Inner Dirt]

First we get in just as many outside conflicts playing the world's police whether a democrat or republican is in office, anyone who says otherwise is biased and blind. Most democrats who think a strong national defense is a waste of money seem to act like all defense spending is money thrown out the window. Can anyone provide a breakdown of what percentage of defense spending isn't spent on U.S. based employees and businesses? You can also include any foreign aid we give so we can have an Air Force base or other installation in a foreign country. What I find comical is the democrat that wants defense money spent on social programs, at least the soldiers and contractors are working for what they are paid.

[DJofSD]

The sustainability of Social Security is no different now than in 1956? You're the only person in the world who would make such a foolish argument.
Right on! You made the point that I was going to add to the thread.

[DJofSD]

The math has always been right.

The government repeatedly responded by raising SS tax rates from their original and intended level to a level that could support the system for years longer and keep the scheme going.

Do you see the pattern here?

The idea is not to fix it and make it sustainable or replace it with something better. The idea is to keep squeezing the lemon dry until there is nothing left. Then you print money and destroy everything, all while calling the people who want to create an economically and mathematically sound alternative greedy bastards that want to take away your SS.

Exactly.

And, what was ignored/overlooked was the changing demographics -- people are now living longer. As I recall, for the limited part of the population the benefits were originally intended to help, they statistically only lived a handful of years after they "retired."

[BlueChip@DRF]

The government should put themselves in the same Social Security plan they put everyone else in.

Then let's see how fast they would fix that.

[dartman51]

The government should put themselves in the same Social Security plan they put everyone else in.

Then let's see how fast they would fix that.


Exactly! Anytime Congress passes ANY bill, or law, and excludes themselves from that law, you can bet your ass, the American people are getting hosed. :ThmbUp:

[TJDave]

Thank your children and nieces and nephews for that. That's where the money is coming from.

That's where it always comes from. My aunts and uncles SS came out of my pocket.

[boxcar]

The government should put themselves in the same Social Security plan they put everyone else in.

Then let's see how fast they would fix that.

Ditto for ObaminationCare.

[RunForTheRoses]

Ditto for ObaminationCare.

Social Security, Gold, and The Fed are all interlinked:

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/katz/katz111609.html

The great disaster of the American New Deal was to abolish interest. F.D.R. was not a traitor to his class. He was a representative of the bankers, Wall Street and the big corporations. He robbed from the common man to give to the rich.. The New Deal retained nominal interest, but abolished real interest. If you receive 5% (money) interest in a year in which prices are rising by 5%, then in real terms you have made zero interest. All you have to do is to calculate real interest rates since 1933. From 1933 to 2009, real interest rates in the U.S. have averaged zero.

But if the real interest rate is 0, then retirement is impossible. That is the source of the problem. You write that you have limited funds saved. But that is true of 99% of all Americans. You are worried because you are closer to seeing reality as it is than most people.

This system of robbing our interest is dealing a death blow to our economy. The New Deal claimed to have made retirement possible by starting Social Security. But American retirement existed for 145 years before Social Security began. The past 2 generations have gradually dissipated the nation’s store of capital.

[Clocker]

That's where it always comes from. My aunts and uncles SS came out of my pocket.

The difference is that the next generation is going to be paying for yours, but they won't get theirs in return.

[TJDave]

but they won't get theirs in return.

Clairvoyance.

Perhaps you could help me with tomorrow's picks. ;)

Ain't gonna happen. Politicians know a good thing when they see it and they know we will let them get away with murder as long as they don't F with our entitlements.

[badcompany]

Clairvoyance.

Perhaps you could help me with tomorrow's picks. ;)

Ain't gonna happen. Politicians know a good thing when they see it and they know we will let them get away with murder as long as they don't F with our entitlements.

You're right. It's much safer to F with your money, with some help from their friends at the Fed, by turning your ten dollar bill into a nine then an eight.

[Clocker]

Clairvoyance.

Perhaps you could help me with tomorrow's picks. ;)



Here is an odds on favorite. Social Security will be phased out of existence by chipping away at it. It won't happen overnight, but it is unsustainable in its current form. The only way it could continue to exist is through a major tax increase, which is not possible.

One quick and easy short term fix is to put off eligibility, like move full retirement out from 65 to 70. Another is to institute means testing, phased in at higher and higher levels over time.

And there is a growing generational shift in attitude, away from thinking of Social Security as a right to thinking of it as a burden on the younger working class. Do you doubt that most young people in the labor force today would love to see SSA, and of course FICA, go away.

[Tom]

Yeah, all that counts are your entitlements.
Screw the country, as long as TJ gets his.

[RunForTheRoses]

Sort of on topic:

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2015/05/for-economic-opportunity-learn-spanish.html

[Tom]

You can tell it's a liberal program.
If it were a legitimate retirement program, it would be called Personal Security, not Social Security.

[horses4courses]

If it were a legitimate retirement program, it would be called Personal Security, not Social Security.

Like your personal libraries, roads, private parks, and snow removal.

Here's 75 examples of socialism in everyday US life.
Read it and weep, comrade :lol:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America#

[Clocker]

Like your personal libraries, roads, private parks, and snow removal.

Here's 75 examples of socialism in everyday US life.
Read it and weep, comrade :lol:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America#

Whoever put that list together needs to have his high school diploma recalled, assuming he ever got one. That is one of the most egregious displays of ignorance about history and political science that has ever been posted on this forum, and that is an incredible achievement.

The very thought of trying to point out what is wrong with that list boggles the mind. Any country with a military is socialist? If a town builds a city park or a public library, the country is socialist?

The list does include a lot of things that are socialist. And unconstitutional. And the author assumes, without foundation or explanation, that they are good things. If nothing else, the author presents, by example, a compelling argument against socialist education.

[Tom]

Horsey's next argument will be that if someone doesn't have a car, and pays taxes for snow removal, the government should buy them a car.

[MutuelClerk]

This is everyone paying for the "great" generations. Greatness.

[badcompany]

Big Gov't types like Horsey are forever bringing up the "Roads" talking point.

Meanwhile, if you look at the chart I posted you'll see the Gov't spends 3.8 trillion a year, yet, we still have to hear about our " Crumbling Infrastructure."

So much for Government being an efficient allocator of resources.

[horses4courses]

Conservatives in denial.
Nothing new here........ :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Conservatives in denial.


Yes, in denial of any rational thought in that list for starters. How's this for nonsense, the first sentence of the first item:

The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Somehow, I just can't figure out how the military is engaged in production, distribution, or exchange.

[fast4522]

Horsey's next argument will be that if someone doesn't have a car, and pays taxes for snow removal, the government should buy them a car.

That is OK, the next financial crisis we have we'll make sure that he is the first of many liberal road kill. They may have started the class warfare but sure as shit will not like what necessity ushers in.

[horses4courses]

Yes, in denial of any rational thought in that list for starters. How's this for nonsense, the first sentence of the first item:



Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Somehow, I just can't figure out how the military is engaged in production, distribution, or exchange.

Who funds it?

I know the likes of Cheney, and other ultra-rights, would like their own militia.

It's publicly funded - got a problem with that?

[Clocker]

Who funds it?

I know the likes of Cheney, and other ultra-rights, would like their own militia.

It's publicly funded - got a problem with that?

Apparently some people don't understand what socialism is. Funding has nothing to do with it. Socialism does not mean anything that is publicly funded. It means government control of the economy.

This country was founded on the principle of the social contract. People have essential natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Because the individual is generally not capable of protecting those rights, they form a society, giving up some freedom (and money) in exchange for protection of those rights. A strong military is a necessary part of that protection. Amtrak and PBS are not.

[Tom]

Nothing more pathetic than a socialist who doesn't even know what socialism is. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[fast4522]

Nothing more pathetic than a socialist who doesn't even know what socialism is. :lol: :lol: :lol:

All socialists are pathetic.

[horses4courses]

Oh, I know full well what socialism is.

I know it's hard for you fellows to come to terms
with the fact that this country depends on socialism's principles
a lot more than you would ever care to admit.

Sort of like conservatives coming out of the closet.... :eek:

[Clocker]

Nothing more pathetic than a socialist who doesn't even know what socialism is. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Especially one like that list maker, writing for a socialist rag like the Daily KOS "...in hopes of sparking a real, rational conversation about socialism." :D

[horses4courses]

The word "socialism" is something your parents likely would
have washed your mouths out with soap for even uttering.
Yet, you couldn't exist without it on a daily basis.

Talk about denial...... :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

The word "socialism" is something your parents likely would
have washed your mouths out with soap for even uttering.
Yet, you couldn't exist without it on a daily basis.



I thank God every day for the Peoples Socialist Army of the good old US of A keeping our borders safe from invading capitalists and other evil doers.

[mostpost]

Whoever put that list together needs to have his high school diploma recalled, assuming he ever got one. That is one of the most egregious displays of ignorance about history and political science that has ever been posted on this forum, and that is an incredible achievement.

The very thought of trying to point out what is wrong with that list boggles the mind. Any country with a military is socialist? If a town builds a city park or a public library, the country is socialist?

The list does include a lot of things that are socialist. And unconstitutional. And the author assumes, without foundation or explanation, that they are good things. If nothing else, the author presents, by example, a compelling argument against socialist education.
If you think it is ignorance, then I am certain it is correct. What Horses4courses is really commenting on is your foolish definition of socialism. In your mind-such as it is-anything the government touches in the slightest way, is socialism.

So the question is; is Social Security socialism because the government collects the taxes and pays out the benefits. Or is it capitalism because it is the employers and employees who make the payments and reap the benefits.

Is building and maintaining roads, bridges and other infrastructure socialism because it is the government who is directing these actions, or is it capitalism because as far as I can remember, I can never remember anything but a private construction company doing the actual work on those road, bridges etc.

I did not look at the entire list but I am willing to state that a huge majority of the items on that list are things that could not and should not be done by private enterprise.

[mostpost]

The government should put themselves in the same Social Security plan they put everyone else in.

Then let's see how fast they would fix that.
When you say the government, do you mean Congress? Because Congress is covered under the same Social Security program as you and I. Anyone who tells you different is lying to you. The same goes for everyone else in the government and has since 1984.

Now there may be some long time federal employees (retired or otherwise) who are still covered under the old Civil Service Retirement Systems. Even those people have paid into Social Security since 1984. Members of Congress pay into Social Security just like any other government worker.

Federal Employees (Including Congresscritters) have a retirement program in addition to Social Security which everyone one of them-again including members of Congresss-contributes to.

It is also untrue that Congress people receive their full salary for life even if they served only one term. Or if they serve a thousand terms. Someone is lying to you again.

[mostpost]

Big Gov't types like Horsey are forever bringing up the "Roads" talking point.

Meanwhile, if you look at the chart I posted you'll see the Gov't spends 3.8 trillion a year, yet, we still have to hear about our " Crumbling Infrastructure."

So much for Government being an efficient allocator of resources.
You are aware that $3.8T is for everything, not just roads. You are trying to make us believe the Government can't maintain roads for $3.8T a year. Maybe if it stopped spending money om corporate welfare and tax breaks for the rich, it would do better.

[Clocker]

If you think it is ignorance, then I am certain it is correct. What Horses4courses is really commenting on is your foolish definition of socialism. In your mind-such as it is-anything the government touches in the slightest way, is socialism.

Wow! Three cheap shots in three short sentences, without a single fact or rational argument to back it up. That must be a new record, even for you.

Were you in my school in the 3rd grade? I remember a lippy little kid on the playground that always resorted to that kind of stuff when he was losing an argument.


P.S. Your reading comprehension is deficient also. I never said that anything the government touches is socialism. In brief, key symptoms of socialism are government control of the means of production and redistribution of wealth. And this country has been growing increasingly socialistic for 100 years.

[DJofSD]

When the government picks the "winners" and the rest of us lose.

[badcompany]

You are aware that $3.8T is for everything, not just roads. You are trying to make us believe the Government can't maintain roads for $3.8T a year. Maybe if it stopped spending money om corporate welfare and tax breaks for the rich, it would do better.

How many times have we heard the term "Crumbling infrastructure"?

That we're in this state, even with the biggest government in the history of the world, is conclusive evidence of government being an inefficient allocator of resources Your pathetic excuses are just a tired cop out.

[Clocker]

How many times have we heard the term "Crumbling infrastructure"?

That we're in this state, even with the biggest government in the history of the world, is conclusive evidence of government being an inefficient allocator of resources Your pathetic excuses are just a tired cop out.

And public infrastructure is a legitimate role of government. But as a general rule, it should be done as close to home as possible (city, then county, then state, then federal) to get it done as efficiently as possible.

Crumbling infrastructure is prime evidence that the federal government is not doing the things it should be doing, and a big reason for that is that they are doing too many things that they shouldn't be doing.

[mostpost]

P.S. Your reading comprehension is deficient also. I never said that anything the government touches is socialism. In brief, key symptoms of socialism are government control of the means of production and redistribution of wealth. And this country has been growing increasingly socialistic for 100 years.
By your own definition there is no socialism in America. Where does the government control the means of production? Does not General Motors own the factories where it makes cars? Isn't the plant where Apple makes computers owned by Apple? Are not the coal mines owned by the Coal mining companies? Boeing owns Boeing right? And don't even bother to equate legitimate regulations with control of the means of production.

You are right about redistribution of wealth though. For decades now we have been redistributing wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

[NJ Stinks]

And public infrastructure is a legitimate role of government. But as a general rule, it should be done as close to home as possible (city, then county, then state, then federal) to get it done as efficiently as possible.



How many freaking leeching states would not have super-duper highways going through them if it wasn't for the federal government choosing to build Interstate highways? These "let them do it themselves" states can start tomorrow as far as I'm concerned. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Where does the government control the means of production? Does not General Motors own the factories where it makes cars?

Are not the coal mines owned by the Coal mining companies?

That would be the same GM that the government illegally stole from the bond holders and gave to the unions?

Those would be the same coal mines that Obama is purposely putting out of business through excessive and oppressive over-regulation, just because he has a blind hatred of carbon?

Under communism the government owns the means of production. Under socialism, the private sector owns it but the government heavily regulates it.

[Clocker]

You are right about redistribution of wealth though. For decades now we have been redistributing wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

You can't redistribute wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. The poor and most of the middle class don't have any wealth. Taking the value of GM from investors and lenders and giving it to the unions is redistribution of wealth. Taking wealth from the young and healthy and using it to subsidize insurance for the old and ailing is redistribution of wealth.

[fast4522]

If we discontinue redistribution of wealth away from the middle class moonbats heads will explode everywhere. That ringing you hear in your ears is not your poor health it is the constant sucking sound that go silent if the middle class got a fair shake and a stake was driven into the hearts of socialists everywhere. Every two years an election and an opportunity is there, more tea please.

[Tom]

How many freaking leeching states would not have super-duper highways going through them if it wasn't for the federal government choosing to build Interstate highways? These "let them do it themselves" states can start tomorrow as far as I'm concerned. :rolleyes:

The idea of the federal highways is to connect the entire country.
It is national benefit.

[classhandicapper]

The idea that states and local governments would not have built roads and highways is just as theoretical as saying they would have. If there were no roads and highways, a lot of pressure would certainly have come from businesses and people to build them in order to improve travel, business, and trade. My guess is that various states would have coordinated their efforts.

[DJofSD]

The interstate highway system was to allow the military to quickly move from one place to the other.

[Tom]

The interstate highway system was to allow the military to quickly move from one place to the other.

Fathered by Eisenhower, after he saw how useful the German roadway system was during WWII.

I am sure having our military drive through Mayberry and Bugtussle to get to the front would not be a good idea.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The interstate highway system was to allow the military to quickly move from one place to the other.

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that they weren't exactly built so bored Long Islanders could venture off to Disneyland.

[DJofSD]

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that they weren't exactly built so bored Long Islanders could venture off to Disneyland.
Why would any one want to leave Fire Island?