Forum Index » Chaff » Obamacare...the real world


Display Avatars Sort By:
jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: re on 04/12/2014 07:42:52 MDT Print View

"Best way to combat over population is to educate the women"

Definitely!

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: re on 04/12/2014 10:30:00 MDT Print View

You have to love it when people who constitute a fraction of the world's population yet consume the vast majority of its resources complain about overpopulation.

Dean L
(AldoLeopold) - F

Locale: Great Lakes
Re: Re: Re: re on 04/12/2014 10:56:59 MDT Print View

Oh Craig, that sounds like something plagiarized from Divine Caroline or maybe you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: re on 04/12/2014 11:35:26 MDT Print View

I was thinking more about us controlling our population since we consume more than our fair share.

But if we can help educate women globally, that's a good idea. Maybe some good can come out of our exercise in Afganistan.

Rick Adams
(rickadams100) - M
have more children on 04/12/2014 12:48:14 MDT Print View

Our entire social safety net is built around creating more young taxpayers to support us as we age. Seems to me if you think big government is the solution you would also encourage building bigger families to pay for it. Our twisted tax code should reward marriage and making babies instead of discriminating against it re: the marriage tax penalty. Stable intact families greatly reduce the need for government services. Also, Americans in particular really need to re-evaluate spending priorities at home because needing to make ever more money to buy stuff instead of being there to raise your kids leaves it to others who may not have noble motives.

And educated women and workplace equality is a great thing, in case I sound too much like a dinosaur.

Ian Destroyer of Forums
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: re on 04/12/2014 13:09:00 MDT Print View

"You have to love it when people who constitute a fraction of the world's population yet consume the vast majority of its resources complain about overpopulation."

You got to love a population who will smite those who question global warming (with a cult-like fervor) but ignore the fact that the planet has a carrying capacity with finite resources and take a whiny passive aggressive stance when it's suggested that we shouldn't subsidize the uterus to become a clown car.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: have more children on 04/12/2014 13:30:09 MDT Print View

"Our entire social safety net is built around creating more young taxpayers to support us as we age."

Japan has that problem. We have avoided it so far because of immigration.

Eventually, the high growth model will blow up. One huge Ponzi (Madoff) scheme. If we are imaginative, we will figure out how to live with low growth. The sooner the transition, the easier.

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
ponzi on 04/12/2014 13:48:04 MDT Print View

I am glad you can see this as a Ponzi scheme Jerry. Now if you would realize the rest of your government backed programs have similar problems, I'd think there was hope for you yet.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: ponzi on 04/12/2014 15:59:35 MDT Print View

Social Security is sort of like a Ponzi Scheme in that new investors pay off old investors, but with minor fixes it could be long term sustainable and there's no Ponzi skimming off large amounts so it's not a Ponzi Scheme.

Any government program that includes healthcare has a problem because costs keep rising but that's not Ponzi.

Military spending is actually going down over time so we just need to keep doing that.

It would be reasonable to look at government spending in total and decide which programs are effective and which ones accomplish worthy goals. Democrats and Republicans don't want to do that. The people that have bought our government don't want to either because they may lose their loopholes and welfare.

HK Newman
(hknewman) - MLife

Locale: Western US
Re: ponzi on 04/13/2014 20:19:12 MDT Print View

It is a little more transparent though. There will likely be more adjustments (age, maybe income), but I do not see an alternative to Social Security and Medicare anytime soon though. GW Bush couldn't get it changed at the height of his popularity with the Republicans controlling both houses. The younger workers are simply not saving enough and those with savings have not put it in growth vehicles like common stock (or funds) to make a change feasible in their lifetimes (Millennials invest like Grandpa ... http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/06/investing/millennial-investing/index.html).

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Cover Oregon...or not.... on 05/05/2014 19:06:14 MDT Print View

http://www.avclub.com/article/john-oliver-calling-oregon-stupid-fucking-idiots-r-204228?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default


John Oliver video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh9munYYoqQ

Edited by bigfoot2 on 05/05/2014 20:34:16 MDT.

Scott Jones
(Endeavor) - M
Social Security the phony crisis on 05/05/2014 22:42:46 MDT Print View

Economist Dean Baker did a great job of explaining the myth of the Social Security crisis. The real threat is Medicare because the greed of the privatized health care system. Fantastic article Social Security the phony crisis

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
well on 05/06/2014 10:04:22 MDT Print View

Dean Baker did write that 15 years ago. I don't understand the love for gov't programs. It is solvent at the moment (and certainly less of a problem then Medicare/Medicaid) but don't you think taking steps now is being proactive? And since it was designed as "social security" and not a general retirement plan for all, shouldn't we take a look at it? I mean the average age was shorter so less people were one it for one thing....

Plus the rate to pay for it has gone from 2% to 12.4%. So sure, it's "solvent" but that hasn't come without cost!

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: well on 05/06/2014 11:57:13 MDT Print View

The point of a government program is that it pays for things a) the private sector doesn't want to/can't make a profit from and b) things we cannot afford individually.

I cannot afford a huge parcel of land out west in order to recreate, so we have PUBLIC lands that we all own and can enjoy together.
I cannot afford my own security service or fire protection, so together we pool our money and invest in such things as a police force and fire departments.
I can't afford private roads to and from work, so together we built highways and bridges and airports and other infrastructure because we all use it.


I never understood the demonization of government when in a democracy the government is US. Private entities whose sole purpose is to make a profit scare me far more.

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Re: Re: well on 05/06/2014 14:14:05 MDT Print View

Are we talking about roads, fire service, or public lands? I thought the commentary was on social security. The retirement plan that has seen each successive generation pay more to support the previous. A retirement plan that could be private. Something you could and should do on your own.

SS is simply a wealth transfer from the young to the old. It has also led entire generations to think that they don't need to save their own money....they government will bail them out! Why should the government take money that individuals who are willing to save and save it for them? If you decide to hike the PCT and buy organic food instead of working and saving, then why should the workers have to bail you out?

The problem with the government is that they don't plan well, are subject to short term problems like raiding the reserves, and are inefficient. Considering the corruption, special interests, and downright untrustworthiness of the government, why would any sane person want them in charge of anything more than the bare minimum?

Plus when you start taking from the individuals for the "common good" you leave a democracy and enter into socialism.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Obamacare...the real world on 05/08/2014 11:15:43 MDT Print View

Well said, Michael.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Re: well on 05/08/2014 12:42:44 MDT Print View

The comment was specifically about why us flaming left wing liberals like government programs so much; that is what I was answering.

"Plus when you start taking from the individuals for the "common good" you leave a democracy and enter into socialism"
Well, no, a democracy is a political system and socialism is an economic one. Two TOTALLY different things, and there are numerous examples of socialist democracies all over the world (all the Scandanavian countries, for example).


So you mean that if SS were privatized, and we all saved our money like good little worker bees...the wall street crash of 2000, then again in 2008 would have had NO impact whatsoever on your ability to feed yourself??

"Considering the corruption, special interests, and downright untrustworthiness of the government, why would any sane person want them in charge of anything more than the bare minimum?"
Um, how is that any different than every single for-profit corporation designed to squeak every single penny out of the workers and the public with absolutely no one to answer to?? Why would any sane person want them to be in charge of anything??

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy) - F

Locale: Colorado
Flaming on 05/08/2014 15:20:21 MDT Print View

Everybody loves the socialist democracies. They tax the piece out of everyone, have no class mobility and won't hardly let anyone immigrate into their countries. Their populations are very small, they provide for no common defense and usually have large natural resource assets.

As far as privatizing SS, you might want to look at the overall historical averages of the market's performance rather than just focus on several short term corrections. Both of your examples were caused by the government. If I am capable of voting, I should be capable of saving for my own future. The problems with open ended entitlements is people stop taking personal responsibility because they think the government will bail them out.

Most for profit corporations fight tooth and nail for Customers. They work to deliver Customer centric products/services that entice the Customers to part with their hard earned cash. Those that don't or lose the formula are generally punished by the market. Unless of course they have government contracts. The government has no feedback loop on poor products or services. There is no accountability on individual work performance. The bureaucracies run open ended, self centered, isolated, and have no concept of what it takes to be competitive.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: well on 05/10/2014 18:13:33 MDT Print View

"SS is simply a wealth transfer from the young to the old."

I think there's truth to that.

The original recipients didn't pay hardly any into it. There were many working people for each retired person. Demographics are gradually shifting to fewer working people to support each retired person, plus wages for middle class are stagnating so they don't pay so much tax.

But, I thought the purpose was to keep older people from being in poverty.

Currently, a retired person gets between about $10K and $30K per year depending on how much they made when they were working. Just lower that upper number until the tax payments and spending balance. We'll still be keeping older people out of poverty. Social Security will be sustainable indefinitely.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
socialist democracies on 05/10/2014 18:23:40 MDT Print View

"Everybody loves the socialist democracies. They tax the piece out of everyone, have no class mobility and won't hardly let anyone immigrate into their countries. Their populations are very small, they provide for no common defense and usually have large natural resource assets."

How about some citations to back any of that up? I'm pretty sure the Scanadanavian countries have FAR more social mobility than we do in the US:
this is from Forbes, a VERY capitalist publication: http://www.forbes.com/sites/daveserchuk/2011/12/07/happy-countrysocial-mobility/

Hmmm:
Here are the top 6 most socially mobile countries in the world, according to Forbes:
1. Denmark, 2. Australia, 3. Norway, 4. Finland, 5. Canada, 6. Sweden (The US is 10th)

LOOKIE at all those socialist countries!!!! All those taxes!!!! Oh my!! They must be miserable, right?

Here are the top 6 "happiest" countries in the world:
1. Norway, 2. Denmark, 3. Australia, 4. New Zealand, 5. Sweden, 6. Canada (The US is 10th again)

LOOKIE again!!! All those socialists!!! I'm sure they're brainwashed.........

But they MUST have crappy productivity, right? Or awful GDP??
According to the World Economic Forum: here are the top 10 competitive countries: "This year’s report findings show that Switzerland tops the overall rankings in The Global Competitiveness Report for the fourth consecutive year. Singapore remains in second position with Finland, in third position, overtaking Sweden 4th). These and other Northern and Western European countries dominate the top 10 with the Netherlands, Germany and United Kingdom respectively ranked 5th, 6th and 8th. The United States (7th), Hong Kong (9th) and Japan (10th) complete the top 10"

Oh look at all those damned socialist countries in there!!!! Yikes!!!