Greenspan Supports Partial Privatizing of Social Security

[sq764]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/16/news/economy/fed_greenspan_testimony/index.htm?cnn=yes

When possibly the most brilliant mind in country supports this, I will listen.. Interesting to see how the Dems, who typically praise Greenspan, will find a way to criticize him for supporting Bush's idea..

[boxcar]

sq764 wrote:

When possibly the most brilliant mind in country supports this, I will listen

"Brilliant" would indeed be highly debatable. Aside from the political implications to his statements, I could personally care less what he thinks; for there are more than a few "briilliant" (or maybe just plain "bright") economic scholars out there who also support privatization for a host of good reasons.

Interesting to see how the Dems, who typically praise Greenspan, will find a way to criticize him for supporting Bush's idea..

That's easy. The Libs will spin his remarks. Greenspan, essentially, straddled the fence on this one -- with the "slow, gradual approach". What the Dems will do is say that their guy was "lukewarm" towards the idea; and, threfore, GREAT caution must be exercised with lenghty debates after, of course, an in-depth investigaton and analyses into the current system, future models, etc. (In Liberalese this would Read: We must proceed very slowly and cautiously and not allow ourselves to be rushed or fettered with artificial time restraints.)

The Libs willl also lay great emphasis on his "negative" comments, e.g. privatization won't boost national savings. (What they will conveniently overlook, however, is how all this influx of new money into the private sector will have long-term beneficial effects on the economy -- but they'll spin to death how the rich capitalists in the markets will be made richer off the backs of the poor investors, etc..)

Finally, perhaps the greatest emphasis the Libs will place on Greenspan's "endoresement" is not so much on what he said, but on what he didn't say. For example, he didn't say he was for "full" privatization, etc.

As stated earlier the only real contribuiton Greenspan made to this "debate" (which hasn't really begun yet) is strictly political in nature. The Libs' job now becomes tougher. They'll have more of an uphill battle to fight. But all this means is that they'll have to spin harder and faster and more often to combat the facts. I predict very "bloody" battles, and the reason is due to something Greenspan did say:

"Greenspan did concede in response to questions from Democratic opponents of private accounts that such accounts won't boost national savings, but rather transfers funds to the control of individuals." (emphasis mine)

Make no mistake about it: This is why the battles will be bitter, acrimonious and filled with misreprenstations, and even outright lies. The shift of CONTROL (read: power) from the govenment to the individual. Government control of personal property is what fuels Libealism/Socialism. It is what empowers Liberals. Power (control) is sancrosanct to a Liberal. Therefore, any idea or ideology that threatens that Power is anathema to a Liberal.

If y'all have hipboots, get them out 'cause the Libs will be tossing an awful lot of crap at us very shortly.

Boxcar

[JustMissed]

Make no mistake about it: This is why the battles will be bitter, acrimonious and filled with misreprenstations, and even outright lies. The shift of CONTROL (read: power) from the govenment to the individual. Government control of personal property is what fuels Libealism/Socialism. It is what empowers Liberals. Power (control) is sancrosanct to a Liberal. Therefore, any idea or ideology that threatens that Power is anathema to a Liberal.

If y'all have hipboots, get them out 'cause the Libs will be tossing an awful lot of crap at us very shortly.

Boxcar

How the heck do you figure those poor dumbasses are going to control their own money? It is government control from cradle to grave pal and if you can't see that you need some medical attention.

:ThmbDown: The investment choices are selected by Bush-not the individual.My guess is that the so called private funds will be administered by Haliburton's new Financial Services Subsidiary. Where's the choice there? :D

:ThmbDown: Come retirement age the retiree will be forced by the government to buy a life insurance annuity to supplement his SS benefits. The funds to buy that annunity will come from the private account. Those life insurance companies will be selected I'm sure by George Bush or another Skull & Bones frat member. Where's the choice there?

:ThmbDown: Would you care to tell us all at which point in a worker's lifetime the government is not controlling these so call Private Accounts.

Boxcar-you are amazing-the more you post the more dumbfounded you look.

If I am wrong about this partial privatization plan scam please SHOW ME THE NUMBERS.

JM

[Bobby]

BOXCAR WROTE:
Make no mistake about it: This is why the battles will be bitter, acrimonious and filled with misreprenstations, and even outright lies.

============

i don't think there will be much of a battle. I think Bush loses bigtime. This is tantamount to Hillary C's proposal to socialize the health care system. This is going nowhere. Watch.

[sq764]

Man, Michael Moore was right when he said "The reason Democrats are so lost anymore is they are unwilling to and scared of change"

He sees the light a bit, the rest of you schmucks do not. And the losing will continue..

[Bobby]

They can change it tomorrow. I don't care. I still got another 40 years. I don't imagine I'll get it any of it anyway. That's unless I become disabled or something.

[GeTydOn]

Greenspan is for a cautious approach to this Social Security plan. He's not all in.

(Of course I can not find the story now.)

[sq764]

Greenspan is for a cautious approach to this Social Security plan. He's not all in.

(Of course I can not find the story now.)
Agreed, but the point is that he is for a change in the current system and for partial privatization.. Most of the numbnut Dems are not smart enough to figure out he is right.

[GeTydOn]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out there is a problem with Social Security.

What I want to know:

If the money comes out of a person's paycheck - how can they not guarentee that it will be there when the time comes? What is the government doing with everyone's money? And why is this hemmoraging continuing without being fixed? If money will not be there for "Generation Screwed" then why should "Generation Screwed" be required to continue to pay in?

[Bobby]

GETYDON WROTE:
What is the government doing with everyone's money?

===============

Bush is sticking his oily hands into the SS "lockbox" to pay for IRAQ to the tune of hundreds of billions. Where else is he getting it? He's been cutting taxes and i haven't heard of him cutting one govt program

[Steve 'StatMan']

That's exactly the problem. The original social security started paying out early retirees soon after its inception in perhaps the 30's or 40's, using the current workers money of that time to pay the current retirees. Had the population and jobs always stayed constant, this type of strategy might have worked. Along came Hitler, WWII, the Baby Boom, and large shifts in population among the generations happened. Throw in longer life spans, and people are expecting to receive money longer than what they did before, in dollars relative to today, not what they paid into the system 20-40 years ago. That's why todays workers are paying for todays retirees, but there are more living retirees than before. It will increase as the Baby Boom (who paid for their parents and grandparents retirements) retires.

Sad to say, but I tend to agree with those who've stated Social Security is a Government Run Ponzi Scheme. I let you in and you pay me. You get others to join, and they pay you, and you kick back some to me. They get others, and the money keeps going up the chain. They arrest people for pulling these kinds of shady stunts. (Come to think of it, lots of state governments run lotteries, but will arrest anyone running one on their own - but we all knew that).

But, we've been told that Social Security will be there. Everything I've read from the government has assured me it will be there, and told me of dollars to expect based on my income and contributions. While it certainly isn't all I have for retirement, I am expecting them to follow through, unless I hear otherwise - and we'd all better not hear otherwise.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Bush is sticking his oily hands into the SS "lockbox" to pay for IRAQ to the tune of hundreds of billions. Where else is he getting it? He's been cutting taxes and i haven't heard of him cutting one govt program

Thats easy to just say and upset people on internet forums. Got any proof? Besides just echoing someone else's rants?

[Bobby]

No, I don't have any proof. I would need to do an audit.

But I think it's kind of obvious that the govt is either borrowing or taking it from Social Security. It really doesn't matter, in the final analysis, b/c it's going to have to be paid back someday. Tax revenues have declined, at least I would think so, with all these tax cuts. So we just ain't got $500 billion in discretionary spending. SS is bush's slush fund. Don't kid yourself for a minute.

SS reform? Wonder why? It's time to start cutting benefits :eek:

no i really don't have any proof

[sq764]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out there is a problem with Social Security.

What I want to know:

If the money comes out of a person's paycheck - how can they not guarentee that it will be there when the time comes? What is the government doing with everyone's money? And why is this hemmoraging continuing without being fixed? If money will not be there for "Generation Screwed" then why should "Generation Screwed" be required to continue to pay in?
Well, for 'Generation Screwed', what guaranteed that the money already taken out is going to be there when the time comes?

[Steve 'StatMan']

Thank you Bobby. I for my part will agree that someday, all the money for the wars and debt, regardless of sources, will need to be paid back. But as far as I know (and no, I'm not an auditor), Social Security Taxes fund Social Security, and aren't being reallocated somewhere else. Both the Dems and Repubs are very good about that. Its a hot issue, and I trust there are a LOT of people watching that. If it ever was moved and spent elsewhere, there would have to be a LOT of explaining to do, because no one on either side of the political spectrum would be pleased with that. Where those funds go would have to be accounted for all the time. Lots of people watching it. Thankfully!

[sq764]

SS is bush's slush fund. Don't kid yourself for a minute.

SS reform?

You know, it's absolute assinine, idiotic comments like this that blow my mind. You really think social security started to have issues in the past 4 years? Get a damn clue dude..

[JustMissed]

Nice to hear this subject debated in an intelligent way from some of you.

Couple of things to keep in mind.

1. SS is an entitlement program and is not part of the budget.

If a person is due SS, they get SS. If there is no money available the money would either borrowed or generated by increased taxes.

2. The SS trust fund is not in cash. The excess of the moneys paid-in less the moneys paid-out have been borrowed by the General Fund to pay budgeted items and/or other entitlement payment.

Remember the Gore-Bush debates when Al Gore keep going on about putting the SS Trust Funds into a "lockbox". All he was really talking about was making it where the Funds could not be borrowed by the General Fund. Great idea in my opinion but it didn't happen.

Anyway, with all that in mind there is no immediate reasons for Bush to push for partial private retirement as the SS cash crunch is so far out in the future most of us reading this post will be dead by then.

Bush and the gang will get no political clout out of monkeying around with SS when there is no immediate crisis.

The only reason I can think of for Bush promoting this is to aid the financial services industry.

JM

[Tom]

The immediate threat rom the trade imbalance and outright illegal trade activities of China drawf the threat level of SS at this time. Bush is ignoring it. Why is that, do you suppose?

[sq764]

So JM, why do we bother dealing with the ozone layer or clean air? It won't affect us for years and years..

Why do we worry about astroids that will hit use in 600 years? We'll all be dead right?

[Bobby]

Remember the Gore-Bush debates when Al Gore keep going on about putting the SS Trust Funds into a "lockbox". All he was really talking about was making it where the Funds could not be borrowed by the General Fund. Great idea in my opinion but it didn't happen.


JM


Yea, that's where I got term from. Those debates. Gore kept saying "lockbox" over and over. Made fun of him on Sat Nite Live.

Seriously, though, they're getting that $ from somewhere, and I doubt its from tax revenues. But Statman is right. They gotta repay what they take out of my check for SS and Medicare. And repay the natl debt too

[Suff]

The immediate threat rom the trade imbalance and outright illegal trade activities of China drawf the threat level of SS at this time. Bush is ignoring it. Why is that, do you suppose?

We're borrowing the Money to Finance the The Afghan and Iraq War, and the 5 Tax cuts from China. China is our Biggest Lender right now. We're in debt, and we're running continous deficits. The money is being made up by Loans to us, from China. For that benefit, we've allowed them to formally and informally suck our Manufacturing base out from underneath us.

Read Pat Buchanan (R) and Senator Evan Bahy (R). They are extremely concerned about this and have written many Op-eds breaking down the details.

[so.cal.fan]

I listened to Chairman Greenspan's comments yesterday morning, and I got the message that ANYTHING we do will have some RISK.........however there is a greater RISK doing NOTHING.
I have total confidence that younger people than Greenspan, Bush, and most of us on this forum will come up with a winning plan......the American people always do.
I would like to see "think tanks" working on this issue, made up of younger people, under 40, the President says he is open to all ideas, I believe he is.
My own (uneducated) opinion is that the age to collect SS should be raised.
People 65 nowadays are like people 55 or in some cases 50 several decades ago.......we live longer and we need to work longer.
Let young people go to school and be involved in "think tanks" to solve complex problems.......the older people can work........if they are able bodied.
My husband is over 80 years old and WORKS FULL TIME at the racetrack, doing somewhat of a manual labor job. He loves working, is in excellent health and would be very unhappy if he had to retire.
I realize not everyone shares his view......however, maybe some of you in high stress jobs, should just change careers to something you enjoy....even if you take a huge cut in pay, you may just be happier and even healthier.

[sq764]

I think, if anything, this whole SS issue should make people more focused on being self-sufficient when they retire and count on not getting any govt subsidy. I don't see anyone that is retiring in the next 30-50 years in danger, but our children could be affected..

I know mywife and I have saved more in the past 2 years than we did in the 4 previous... It was a good wakeup call.

[boxcar]

JustMissed wrote:

How the heck do you figure those poor dumbasses are going to control their own money? It is government control from cradle to grave pal and if you can't see that you need some medical attention

So...what is your point, specifically? That nothing is going to change or can change or will change? Everything is going to remain as is, forever and forever?

And, "pal", why are you so comfortable with this "cradle to grave" arrangement? Are you too incompetent, too lazy or too apathetic to manage your own affairs? Is your mommy still wiping your nose? Are you still in toilet training?

The investment choices are selected by Bush-not the individual.My guess is that the so called private funds will be administered by Haliburton's new Financial Services Subsidiary. Where's the choice there?

Can you show me in print where anyone in the Bush Admin. said this? Or are you just so distraught over the prospect of maybe having to assume some personal responsibility for yourself that you're pulling things out of your nether regions in sheer desperation?

Go back and listen to Greenspan or read his complete remarks with regard to SS. He stated very clearly what he favored and why. He said that private accounts would have our individual names on them, we would control them, and we'd be able to bequeath our retirment/invenstment fund to beneficiaries. Whatever the final product (plan) turns out to be, I have to think it'll be 200% better than what we have currently.

Would I like to see 100% privatization coming out of the chute? Sure I would.

Would I like to see 100% control by individuals? Certainly. But...I'm a realist, and I know that the goverment is going to have set some rules, regs and guidelines which will be designed to keep the irresponsible and greedy among us in line, so that the people who are responsible and sensible won't have to take up their slack due to their folly.

Meanwhile, JM, continue drowning yourself in the Deep Sea of Denial. Because sooner or later, this is going to happen. I suspect that if you haven't drowned yourself, you'll be all for privatization when or if a Lib ever gets to occupy the WH again.

Boxcar

[Equineer]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out there is a problem with Social Security.

What I want to know:
If the money comes out of a person's paycheck - how can they not guarentee that it will be there when the time comes? What is the government doing with everyone's money? And why is this hemmoraging continuing without being fixed? If money will not be there for "Generation Screwed" then why should "Generation Screwed" be required to continue to pay in?Here are some answers... to the best of my knowledge.

Today's Social Security and Medicare are Pay-As-You-Go programs, which means current payroll taxes are nominally paid back out to current beneficiaries. What you pay into the SS Trust Fund in no way guarantees what you will get back in the future except insofar that you believe, as a matter of faith, political promises by today's politicians will be honored when you become eligible for benefits.

What about the current surplus in the SS Trust Fund; where does that money go? Government trust surpluses are used to help finance the national debt, which is continuously refinanced as new Treasury obligations are sold and Treasury payments of interest and principal are made.

As presently implemented, and despite what gets said for "political" consumption by voters, everyone in Washington (who is sane) will concede privately that the Pay-As-You-Go models cannot be sustained without enormous modification. And while we are primarily debating SS today, Medicare's impending financial problems also loom ahead.

In 2004, when the Senate asked the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-jg040124.html) to quantify in the simplest terms what it would take to make a full-funding fix to neutralize the impending "generational imbalances," the responses were: (1) immediately more than double the combined payroll taxation for Social Security and Medicare, or (2) immediately adjust income taxes to raise tax revenues by at least 70 percent. Of course, neither SS/Medicare payroll taxes exceeding 30% of wages nor the alternative of a 70% income tax increase are going to happen.

As Greenspan has stated, the SS model that everyone wishes was in place already is the "forced savings model," elsewise rather euphemistically called the "private accounts model."

JustMissed and others have pointed out that Congress has no real intention of deviating from the "forced savings" philosophy, which means investments and redemptions will be federally regulated, such that "privatized" better describes how money in your individual account would be invested in the "private sector" via stock and bond funds approved by the government. When you retire, your privatized benefit payments would depend on the size of the annuity that can be purchased with your accumulated balance.

The big chill was Greenspan's warning that government borrowing to fund "forced savings" should NOT be allowed to exceed $1-Trillion. Unspun, that simply means the majority of the "funding" to enable a transition to private accounts (forced savings) will have to come from a combination of new tax revenues and ongoing benefit reductions.

Why do private accounts need government funding? Simple... payroll tax dollars that you are allowed to divert into your private account must be offset by new dollars borrowed, new tax revenue dollars, and/or benefit reduction dollars.

What about using the current SS surplus? Sure, that's been factored in, but SS dollars diverted from the national debt still need to be offset by attracting new domestic/foreign dollars that will keep on financing the national debt.

By most credible estimates, if funded exclusively by borrowing in accordance with Greenspan's $1-Trillion limitation, the per capita ceiling on annual privatization would have to be initialized at less than $500/year, and the system still goes broke without significant new tax revenues and/or benefit reductions.

In fact, most economists view the current privatization debate as a diversion from the math that politicians are loathe to publicly discuss. The financial bullet that needs biting is much bigger than numbers that politicians can utter without choking.

Those simple alternatives given to the Senate by the Cato Institute roughly sketch the big picture... there is no way to avoid paying the Piper except by gradually shutting down the SS and Medicare benefit programs.

Many other countries use consumption taxes rather than payroll taxes to fund retirement entitlement programs. Respected economists have suggested funding the cost of gradual transition from the Pay-As-You-Go model to Private Accounts (forced savings model) by implementing a consumption tax. Critics screech that this smacks of socialism, but the magnitude of the problem is such that the way Americans can expect to live out their lives hangs in the balance.

[JustMissed]

Equineer, I know you get a lot of heat on this board but your post are so much more thought out and intelligent as compared to Boxcar's post there is no comparison.

Trying to discuss anything with Boxcar is like talking to a Mule.

He thinks because the account has his name on it, he can do as he pleases with the money-what a joke-on him.

Anyway, it appears all the discussing was for naught.

I kept wondering why Bush was pushing for Partial Private Retirement Accounts, with it being such a stupid idea and could only help his stock broker buddies.

Now we find out his real motive is to raise the ceiling on SS wages. The Partial Private Accounts was just a diversionary tactic so no one would get too alarmed with the raising of the SS wage base above $90,000.

This diversion has Karl Rove's finger prints all over it and I will admit this is a brilliant plan.

Unfortunately for us, the Feds have to have some cash-quick- and this will fit the bill. The increased SS contributions will be borrowed by Feds as soon as the paychecks clear the bank, and Bush will be able to float awhile longer before the shit hits the fan.

Like somebody posted earlier-the discussion is a moot point :lol: parital private is not going to happen.

JM :D

[boxcar]

JustMissed wrote:

Equineer, I know you get a lot of heat on this board but your post are so much more thought out and intelligent as compared to Boxcar's post there is no comparison.

Trying to discuss anything with Boxcar is like talking to a Mule.

He thinks because the account has his name on it, he can do as he pleases with the money-what a joke-on him.

You want to talk about your buddy's "intelligence". Okay. Fine. Then let this "Mule" kick you in your rear end to make you conscious about your blatant dishonesty. Where did I ever say that private accounts would mean we can do anything we want with the money it? Can you produce the post? Can you quote me? Would you be willing to put your money where your big mouth is?

Since you won't be able to support your false assertion, this means you're just another pathetic, morally bankrupt liberal whose only recourse in political dialogue is to lie your way through your feeble, inane arguments.

Boxcar
P.S. Don't forget: When you're done on the potty -- wipe, pull up your pampers and flush.

[JustMissed]

You want to talk about your buddy's "intelligence". Okay. Fine. Then let this "Mule" kick you in your rear end to make you conscious about your blatant dishonesty. Where did I ever say that private accounts would mean we can do anything we want with the money it? Can you produce the post? Can you quote me? Would you be willing to put your money where your big mouth is?

Here's what Boxcar said at post #24:[QUOTE]Go back and listen to Greenspan or read his complete remarks with regard to SS. He stated very clearly what he favored and why. He said that private accounts would have our individual names on them, we would control them, and we'd be able to bequeath our retirment/invenstment fund to beneficiaries. Whatever the final product (plan) turns out to be, I have to think it'll be 200% better than what we have currently.[END QUOTE]

Boxcar, What part of "we would control them" is it that you cannot understand? :lol:

You really should work on your reading comprehension a little bit. Might help you to understand what is going on.


JM :bang:

[Equineer]

Boxcar,

Your last post was quite a rush of liver bile... you must be having a tough day... was it raining in the exercise yard this morning?

Let's hope the Chaplain doesn't see that nasty post!

BTW, because JM compared us, everyone but you realized I got only faint praise. :):)

By next week, JM might easily encounter a reason to damn me... while comparisons to you will always flatter others.

[Kreed]

You are DEF a ++ to this lot of cretins. Whats your favorite color? Is it
turquoise (that's my wife's & wow wouldn't that b Karmic?) BoxCar's fav
color is probly Desert Storm Beige. All BoxCar does is copy & paste --- he
thinks that quoting some authority makes him one. I think he's on every
gov't hand out program local & national.

[PaceAdvantage]

I kept wondering why Bush was pushing for Partial Private Retirement Accounts, with it being such a stupid idea and could only help his stock broker buddies.

Give me a break. Stock broker buddies. Oil buddies. Everyone is Bush's buddy, right? This is laughable.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Gads, I was only 4 to 9 years old (thankfully) when LBJ was president. How many "Buddies" did he have (or accused of having) in the oil & chemical business, as well as investments, while being a Democratic President from Texas? During an highly unpopular war no less, that killed HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of our young people, though yes, the war began well before he had to replace JFK, and did win a Presidential election, before passing the chance of a second elected term.

[boxcar]

JustMissed wrote:

Here's what Boxcar said at post #24

Go back and listen to Greenspan or read his complete remarks with regard to SS. He stated very clearly what he favored and why. He said that private accounts would have our individual names on them, we would control them, and we'd be able to bequeath our retirment/invenstment fund to beneficiaries. Whatever the final product (plan) turns out to be, I have to think it'll be 200% better than what we have currently.

Boxcar, What part of "we would control them" is it that you cannot understand.

To say that "we would control them" does not equate to doing anything we want to do with the money. "Control" would be in a limited sense, not an unrestricted sense. I think it's understood by nearly everyone (except, you of course) that we wouldn't be able to withdraw the money from "our account" before retirement age. A prudent restrictive rule, woudn't you agree?

Or we wouldn't be able to transfer our funds from a conservative investment plan to a highly speculative fund or plan. Another prudent rule designed to restrict our activity, wouldn't you say?

This is precisely why I said at the end of that paragraph:

"Whatever the final product (plan) turns out to be, I have to think it'll be 200% better than what we have currently."

I never entertained any thought that we'd have unlimited control of our accounts. Even partial control would be far better than what we have now, which is absolutely no control! For that matter, I don't think Greenspan was thinking in terms of "absolute control" when he made his remarks. Our choices would be limited --- but they'd be our choices nonetheless, which would be far more than what we have now.

I think a very good analogy to this limited control idea can be found in 401(k) plans. Individuals who participate in such plans have quite a bit of control over their money -- however, that control is nevertheless limited in nature because it's exercised in the context of IRS rules and regulations.

Also, go back and read my reply to Chickenhead (on the SS thread) about the wisdom of having the government set some rules and regs that would govern our activity relative to those accounts. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to have 100% control over my accounts, for I would. I would because I know I would manage them responsibly. But as I essentially told Chick, I'm a realist. In the real world, it just ain't gonna happen.

And one more thing about this "control" before I take my leave: Because the accounts would have our names on it, I have to think that the government would not be able to touch that money. The Gov wouldn't be able to dip its greedy fingers into it the way it does now with the surplus in the General Fund in the Treasury. This would be better than a "lock box" idea under the current Social(ist) (In)Security plan.

You really should work on your reading comprehension a little bit. Might help you to understand what is going on.

Physician, heal thyself before pointing to anyone else's perceived illnesses.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote"

Your last post was quite a rush of liver bile... you must be having a tough day... was it raining in the exercise yard this morning?

Let's hope the Chaplain doesn't see that nasty post!

Nasty? How 'bout truthful? And we know the truth can often hurt, don't we?

BTW, because JM compared us, everyone but you realized I got only faint praise. :):)

By next week, JM might easily encounter a reason to damn me... while comparisons to you will always flatter others.

I see that little praise rushed right to your head, and might have even induced the first decent bowel movement you've had in weeks -- which certainly, in your case, would be a good thing. But remember, hotshot, before you get too high on yourself, you're the one who wimped out of my little counter challenge to your ignorant challenge to me about polygamy being condoned in the bible. Just remember:I have the cash if you can ever find your nerve. ;)

Boxcar

[Equineer]

But remember, hotshot, before you get too high on yourself, you're the one who wimped out of my little counter challenge to your ignorant challenge to me about polygamy being condoned in the bible.What challenge? :)

I don't recall you biblically challenging polygamy, but we can sure get it on since the worst I can do is win that argument two books to one, because you can't prevail with respect to the Old Testament (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=159200&postcount=81) and the North American Scriptures. And don't bother me with pompous crap that you can exclude the NAS unless you also agree to toss the New Testament, which is equally vulnerable to challenge as dogmatic sectarian propaganda.

More importantly, since we are debating contemporary social engineering in this thread, how can you fail to see the virtues of polygamy?

I hope you are not suggesting (normal) men are instinctively monogamous. If so, you've been brainwashed... there is no fooling Mother Nature!

Pure capitalism and polygamy would be the cornerstones of a compassionate world that truly cares about family values and child welfare.

Just as the most dominant of stags command the largest herds of does, it has been estimated that the wealthiest two percent (2%) of men would be keen to provide ample security and welfare for up to twenty percent (20%) of women and children, and the wealthiest twenty percent (20%) of men would do likewise for up to eighty percent (80%) of women and children, leaving only eighty percent (80%) of men and twenty percent (20%) of women and children mired in relative poverty at any point in time.

Misguided critics might complain that wealth will cherry pick the most attractive women, but ugliness is already no stranger to ignorance and poverty, and the net result would be that half of the world's population would be relatively better off, on average, than they are today.

Since you despise socialism, how can you oppose polygamy, the perfect complement to capitalism? Indeed, it is man's nature to compete for wealth, power, and women.

We know that ethical "players" who attain wealth and power are really despised only by jealous failures.

Many have also observed that failures are loathe to admit their inability to effectively utilize wealth and power... and this has been cited as the Achilles Heel of pure socialism... artificial distribution causes wealth and power to be squandered by those who cannot use them effectively.

And this begs the question, why should a society attempt to artificially distribute women?

Due to supply and demand inefficiencies, many pretty and talented young women get stuck with petty failures who are encouraged by monogamy zealots to become angry and even violent when cuckolded.

A society intolerant to polygamy conscripts many women, during their prime years, into acrimonious serial relationships with pathetic losers who are never pleased when discarded. Does this not merely squander many women and disappoint many men?

Even men who may feel initially threatened by a polygamous society should realize that actuarial tables suggest that they stand a chance of eventually finding a widowed mate who will be content with them.

Wouldn't the commonweal be better served if we sanctioned voluntary polygamy so that pretty young women inclined to flock to wealth and power can do so without scorn? :D

[Tom]

Equivet ponders:
"Wouldn't the commonweal be better served if we sanctioned voluntary polygamy so that pretty young women inclined to flock to wealth and power can do so without scorn?

They call it hooking. Lots of open corners. Have at it. :kiss:

[Tom]

BTW...Greenspan is now saying SS is not as important as the trade deficits. And he is correct. Bush is betting on the wrong horse. SS is important but not urgent. The trade deficit is urgent. Our boarders are urgent. Bush's legacy can wait. It is time to step up the plate and represent the PEOPLE, not the corporations, who he is catering to. This latest crap about limiting class-action lawsuits puts Bush squarley in the peanut gallery, stings attached, to big business's Buffalo Bob. It does not a thing to help the majority of American and is clearly Bush mowing the lawns of corporate America. Just because he looks like Howdy Doody is no reason for him to act the part.

[Equineer]

:D Equivet ponders:
"Wouldn't the commonweal be better served if we sanctioned voluntary polygamy so that pretty young women inclined to flock to wealth and power can do so without scorn?

They call it hooking. Lots of open corners. Have at it. :kiss:But Tom, that doesn't lead to holy matrimony, nor does it promote family values... that's like the garbage business... if we set you out on the corner or let you waddle the streets, they would charge us to pick you up! :D

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

What challenge? :)

I don't recall you biblically challenging polygamy, but we can sure get it on since the worst I can do is win that argument two books to one, because you can't prevail with respect to...

Ah...figures a convenient selective loss of memory. Here was my challenge posted way back on the Bible on Trial thread:

Eq, Are You Ready to be Inducted into the Ignoramus Hall of Shame?

More than once, you have conveniently skirted polygamy... and for good reason.

Only because I was graciously overlooking the time of your ignorance.

Your exegesis would have to condone polygamy in order to remain consistent with your other biblical rants.

Foolish, foolish man. You say, my “exegesis would have to condone polygamy”? Why? Even if I condoned polygamy, how would this be inconsistent with my “other biblical rants?”

Tell me, Eq, are you a horse player? Are you a person who takes calculated risks? Or are you just a careless, unthinking gambler? In any event, how would you like to make a wager, of any size with which you'd be comfortable, that I don’t have to “condone polygamy”? In your smugness, you, evidently, think that polygamous relationships in the bible present some kind of ethical dilemma therein? Is that your thinking?

If so, name your price, Mr. Worldly Wise Man. I will gladly meet it. Just remember, though, what I told the ignorant worshipper of the god “SOMETHING”: Any text taken out of context is a pretext for error. And by “context” I mean in the full context of the progressive revelation of the bible.

Indeed, when David already had seven wives (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2_Samuel 3:2-5), God gave him even more wives (2_Samuel 12:8) despite his adultery with Bathsheba.

Apparently the biblical message is: a-tisket, a-tasket, wenches by the basket... the more wives, the merrier![CODE]The Bible's Polygamy Hall of Fame

Well, then, please take me up on my challenge, so that I can make of spectacle of you by inserting you into the Ignoramus Hall of Shame. But let me give you fair warning by way of this passage:

1 Cor 2:14-15
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

A “natural man” is what you are. But here is what I am:

15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no man. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
NASB

In the interest of all fairness, I must tell you to what I compare you in light of the above spiritual truth. You are like some hopeless and equally as hapless bottom-of-the- rung 4 y.o. Classless Wonder with 28 Career Starts, who has never won a race in all its miserable, useless, unprofitable life, going up against a champion Gr. 1 Stakes horse. The only way the latter animal could lose is if the sky fell on the poor critter’s head – and missed everything else in the race! Now…having said this, I will have no compunctions about or suffer any pangs of conscience in relieving you of some of your discretionary income…or even your rent money, for that matter.

Let me know. I’m betting we could make some kind of arrangement with PA as the middle man for the exchange of money
Boxcar

******************************

So...the challenge stands, hotshot. But...I only have to support my arguments from the bible. How convenient that you now want to change the rules by bringing in the "NAS" (whatever this is) when initially you alleged that the OT scriptures support your position. (Why not just bring the Koran into the argument as well!?)

My challenge stands, therefore. I'll use the entire bible to support my argument that the scriptures don't condone or support polygamy since, historically, true orthodox Christians have always subscribed to the authority of the Old and New Testaments.

Of course, if you're at a loss to find a constructive use for the pages of your "NAS", I would point you in the direction of your nearest bathroom (or maybe in your case, outhouse) and its toilet paper roller. ;)

Boxcar

[Tom]

:D But Tom, that doesn't lead to holy matrimony, nor does it promote family values... that's like the garbage business... if we set you out on the corner or let you waddle the streets, they would charge us to pick you up! :D


Ah, but I would not chase down the truck. :eek:

[Equineer]

Ah, but I would not chase down the truck. :eek:Ah, but I do agree with your other post about other economic priorities. If we want to get upset there are plenty of things to consider...

The deal not making headlines is the proposal to give illegal workers from Mexico credit for for both their Mexican and American "retirement entitlements" after we legalize their status here. It sounds to me like we could end up giving foreign aid to Mexico so that they can send it right back here to pay benefits to immigrants who left Mexico illegally. :confused:

[Equineer]

Originally posted by Boxcar,
In any event, how would you like to make a wager, of any size with which you'd be comfortable, that I don't have to "condone polygamy"? In your smugness, you, evidently, think that polygamous relationships in the bible present some kind of ethical dilemma therein? Is that your thinking?Of course, I don't think that "you" have to "condone polygamy" because of the Bible, any more than I need the Scriptures to perceive the social virtues of polygamy.

Otherwise, you may trash the Old Testament until you are blue in the face, but others may defer to the exemplary wisdom of polygamists like David and Moses, back in the glory days when the Big Guy's moral admonitions were likely to be delivered in person or hand-carried directly down from Heaven. :)

[Tom]

EQ...don't get me going on this illegal immigrant thing. This is an oopen door to terrorists and Bush is playing with fire by ignoring it. A president who will not defend and protect the borders is not fit to serve. Perhaps we should consider outsourcing the presidency. After all, Bush believes outsourcing is good for us.........

[46zilzal]

During an highly unpopular war no less, that killed HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of our young people, though yes, the war began well before he had to replace JFK,

Totals are a BIT different. http://members.aol.com/usregistry/allwars.htm

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

Of course, I don't think that "you" have to "condone polygamy" because of the Bible, any more than I need the Scriptures to perceive the social virtues of polygamy.

Neither does the bible support or endorse polygamy. But, sir, you did say that by my "literal interpretation", I would have to condone it. I maintain that I would not have to do any such thing.

Otherwise, you may trash the Old Testament until you are blue in the face, but others may defer to the exemplary wisdom of polygamists like David and Moses, back in the glory days when the Big Guy's moral admonitions were likely to be delivered in person or hand-carried directly down from Heaven.

Why would I have to "trash the Old Testament"? God forbid! Everything just needs to be understood in the three-fold context of the bible, as well as its historical and cultural contexts, as well.

The challenge stands, slickster, if you have the stomach to part with some bucks. Now...if you don't accept, you know that more than a few people around here are going to the get the idea that you been peein' down our backs all this time, while trying to convince us that what we're feelin' is merely raindrops. Tsk, tsk. You wouldn't want to lose face, now would ya? ;)

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Bush is sticking his hands in SS lockbox? Shows what you know, son. There is no lockbox and SS has been part of the general fund for yrs and yrs.

Younguns, your only hope to get any SS is for there to be some kind of privatization. You should be for change, not against it as the current prgm is a Ponzi scheme. That means the money you are paying in is going out to current retirees. Won't be enough workers to support the retirees in a very short time. There HAS to be change.

[Equineer]

Boxcar,

Your challenge is ludicrous when you structure it as your own house prop where you can dictate the outcome after the chips are in play.

Whatever else you might elect to condone or condemn, I am fully confident that you would condone winning such a sucker bet, but you will have to shop your prop elsewhere to find a sucker. :rolleyes:

[Kreed]

as usual, because BoxCar & Lefty have no knowlege, just bulletins from
the Heritage, they kidnap every thread & then type sleaze. There are 4
serious issues: #1 ... Medicare ;#2... Medicaid; #3... Oil Prices & OUR
"NO FUEL POLICY"; #4 ... States' Pension + Health Care Benefits. Around
2006, States must report HOW MUCH they owe to Retired Public employees
and How Much to Working employees. Now, public employees are 100%
GUARANTEED their benefits by both state & federal constitutions & laws, so
there is NO chance of lowering those costs. NY's budget this year is around
~48 billion (we are ~2B short), but what NY state is OBLIGATED to Public Employees in benefits totals ~~125 BILLION. (Arkansas owes ~15 Billion.)
WAIT until these sums come full force. And really, 6% in SS tax that anyone
pays (up to 90K in wages) is so paltry, what's the issue. It's like the guy
complaining about a five buck DRF ... if he can't afford THAT, why is he betting?
And again, look at IRA's ... THAT mechanism is already in place & with some
tweaks could be adapted to low incomes. IRA's grow, are tax defered, and
can be willed. LEAVE SS alone & deal with the real problems please.

[boxcar]

Equineer

Your challenge is ludicrous when you structure it as your own house prop where you can dictate the outcome after the chips are in play.

Whatever else you might elect to condone or condemn, I am fully confident that you would condone winning such a sucker bet, but you will have to shop your prop elsewhere to find a sucker.

As I figrued: A pompous windbag overfilled with hot air.

Do yourself a favor, then, the next time you presume to tell me what I must or must not condone due to any interpretation I might put on the bible: Give that slow, tiny brain of yours a chance to catch up to your fast, big mouth -- unless, of course, you dig up a backbone somewhere and put money where that oversized yap of yours is. Anything less than this amounts to another prime example of a cowardly infidel speaking out the deep, dark pit of his own ignorance.

Boxcar

[Equineer]

Boxcar,
Well put... so we've nursed you past avoidance of the issue. Now, at long last, present your biblical exegesis on the question of polygamy so that I can presume to tell you if your adjudication is consistent with your other biblical rants. :D

[Lefty]

Kreed, I for one have never read a Heritage bulletin and have posted no links for you to look up. I've been coming at this from facts and commonsense; something it looks like you do not recognize. SS is collapsing under its own wght and I have often railed against medicare that the Dems have foisted upon us and just about wrecked the healthcare system of this country. Wake up son, its your SS that Bush is trying to save.

[Lefty]

Kreed, Bush has a solution for the oil probs but you Dems won't support it: Drill on the vast oil sites in this country.

[Lefty]

Kreed, you say Boxcar and I have kidnapped this thread? What does that even mean?

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

Boxcar,
Well put... so we've nursed you past avoidance of the issue. Now, at long last, present your biblical exegesis on the question of polygamy so that I can presume to tell you if your adjudication is consistent with your other biblical rants.

Sure, you pathetic, ignorant spineless creature, I'll be more than happy to present my "blblical exegesis" on the issue, whenever you're willing to shun your avoidance of my counter challenge, which you so conveniently forgot, and put your money where your mouth is. But I suspect before this happens,
an idiot would stand a better chance of acquiring intelligence when the foal of a wild donkey is born a man (Job 11:12). :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Steve 'StatMan']

Totals are a BIT different. http://members.aol.com/usregistry/allwars.htm

This is one that I'm glad to be somewhat wrong about, total wise. Of course, still very sad losing 58,000 of our young men and women then, as well as the 153,000+ injured. Plus we shouldn't overlook all the people from the region who fought and died as well, and the civilians, that are not included on the list.

A valuable list, 46zilzal, thanks for sharing it with us.

[Tom]

Kreed, you say Boxcar and I have kidnapped this thread? What does that even mean?

What are your demands, Lefty.....we want our thread home safe! :lol:

[boxcar]

Lefty wrote:

Kreed, Bush has a solution for the oil probs but you Dems won't support it: Drill on the vast oil sites in this country.

How are libs, thoughts and the speed of light related? That's easy. In those rare moments whenever a lib has a thought pass through his mind, it does so at the speed of light.

Because Kreed couldn't catch up to his thought, Lefty, he probably meant to say that we hijacked or, perhaps, even sabotaged this thread. :rolleyes:

Boxcar