American Politics 17

[CloudFlare]

KingBread, you have some truely vile and disgusting friends.

Not rally. Between the 8 or 9 of us we have only 1 arrest and conviction. ADW, but not his fault really. We pay our taxes, our child support and work hard.

I said "more or less" w/regards to the racism issue. I could go into it further, but there's no point with the liberals on this board. Simpler just to say racism and let the liberals feel morally superior.

If this is true, then the GOP house is composed of idiots. If the GOP wants to be a relevant party in 20 years its gonna have to include something other than the white demographic... which is never going to happen if they keep at their anti-immigrant bull shit. That's pretty much a cold hard fact.

Indeed, the GOP is composed of idiots. They'll never win the immigrant vote, yet they keep thinking that they will if they come up with the right "offer" to sell. Whatever the offer is, the Democrats will top it.

20 years? The GOP is irrelevant right now. Barring a big swing in white voters coming back to the GOP, I doubt the will regain relevancy again. The only way I see that happening is if the financial crisis deepens and government benefits get even more doled out based upon race. Until then more Hispanics and Asians will come onto the voter rolls, sending the country farther and farther to the left.

[Trebla]

Not rally

:rofl:

was it a rally against Burrito stuffing Illegal aliens????

[TrackerNeil]

I've been thinking about George Bush's aborted efforts to privatize Social Security back in 2005. First of all, if he'd succeeded I wonder where our money would be now. Second, I don't recall crazy town halls and cries of fascism and liberals bringing guns to presidential appearances. Nor do I remember the minority Democrats making up loony claims about panels that would decide how the elderly could spend their Social Security benefits. Instead, congressional Democrats hung together in opposition, forced Bush to retain ownership of his plan, and simply waited him out.

Contrast that to the hullabaloo over health insurance reform and you see...a difference.

Am I misremembering the facts here?

[DanteGabriel]

20 years? The GOP is irrelevant right now. Barring a big swing in white voters coming back to the GOP, I doubt the will regain relevancy again. The only way I see that happening is if the financial crisis deepens and government benefits get even more doled out based upon race. Until then more Hispanics and Asians will come onto the voter rolls, sending the country farther and farther to the left.

1. Asians vote more conservative than you might expect.

2. Thanks for posting this, so I know exactly what I'm dealing with.

[TrackerNeil]

20 years? The GOP is irrelevant right now. Barring a big swing in white voters coming back to the GOP, I doubt the will regain relevancy again. The only way I see that happening is if the financial crisis deepens and government benefits get even more doled out based upon race. Until then more Hispanics and Asians will come onto the voter rolls, sending the country farther and farther to the left.

I didn't know that government benefits were currently distributed based on race. Can you cite your source?

In any case, the GOP will regain lost ground, just as the Democrats did in 2006. It might not happen in 2010, but it will happen. Sauron is never truly defeated; he's just driven back to Barad-dur where he can spin stories about death panels and what have you.

[DanteGabriel]

Conservative media outlet Newsmax publishes, then deletes and erases all mention of, a column discussing the increasing likelihood of a military coup against Obama.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ama-problem.php

What, exactly, is Obama doing that is so coup-worthy in this guy's eyes? I would have figured that overstretching the military, committing it to poorly planned and falsely justified invasions, contracting their work out to criminals like Blackwater, sending them out on patrol with insufficient weapons and equipment, and huffing "bring it on" against our enemies would have been more coup-worthy. Is it merely because Obama has committed the offense of Governing While Black?

[Swordfish]

I've been thinking about George Bush's aborted efforts to privatize Social Security back in 2005. First of all, if he'd succeeded I wonder where our money would be now.

Where IS our money now?

Is it sitting in a bank account somewhere earning a conservative rate of interest?

[TrackerNeil]

Where IS our money now?

Is it sitting in a bank account somewhere earning a conservative rate of interest?

No, it's guaranteed by our government, which is a hell of a lot more likely to exist in two or twenty years than some of these banks that fueled the Great American Spending Spree of the new century.

Maybe you trust a giant corporation that might be gone next year whose leaders have profit as their primary goal more than the government that has existed continuously for centuries and whose leaders are responsible to YOU. In fact, I would not be surprised at all if that were the case. Tell you what: you put your money with Lehman Brothers and hope for the best, while I keep mine in the Bank of Uncle Sam. Which one is more likely to bail out the other, I wonder?

[Swordfish]

No, it's guaranteed by our government, which is a hell of a lot more likely to exist in two or twenty years than some of these banks that fueled the Great American Spending Spree of the new century.

..... Tell you what: you put your money with Lehman Brothers and hope for the best, while I keep mine in the Bank of Uncle Sam. Which one is more likely to bail out the other, I wonder?

Is that your way of admitting that it's been spent?

'Guaranteed by the government' is just another way of saying 'can be paid back with tax dollars'.

So technically you are correct I guess, but essentially you are saying 'I will give the government the money to pay me back later! Would a private company be guaranteed to do that?!?!!??!'

Which is a pretty.... interesting way of looking at it...................

Maybe you trust a giant corporation that might be gone next year whose leaders have profit as their primary goal more than the government that has existed continuously for centuries and whose leaders are responsible to YOU. In fact, I would not be surprised at all if that were the case.

Given the fact that the government has been shamelessly spending the money we contribute to SS for decades, I find your faith in them to be rather astonishing and misplaced.

SS is a federally enforced ponzi scheme. I honestly have no idea how that is even arguable.

The only difference is that it takes a lot longer to collapse because they can recruit new suckers by the use of force, and because they control the flow of the output.

[Annelise]

So Reid cancels the Senate's October break and Kerry and Boxer are to introduce the Senate's climate bill today, I think. I wonder if Reid did that in part to avoid the chaos of August.

[Frog Eater]

Is that your way of admitting that it's been spent?

'Guaranteed by the government' is just another way of saying 'can be paid back with tax dollars'.

Sword,

The Social Security that comes out of your pay is not in any way shape or fashion reserved for you. You are paying for the elderly of today. When you retire and collect social security (assuming congress does not disband the program), the youth of today will be working and paying social security for you to collect.

Therefore, you are not going to be "paid back" because you have nothing invested. Taxes are being collected from you to keep the elderly from being penniless.

[Swordfish]

Sword,

The Social Security that comes out of your pay is not in any way shape or fashion reserved for you. You are paying for the elderly of today. When you retire and collect social security (assuming congress does not disband the program), the youth of today will be working and paying social security for you to collect.

I understand that. Hence the 'ponzi scheme' comparison.

i was specifically referring to the fact that TN used the phrase 'guaranteed by the government'. And the assertion that 'our money' would be gone if it had been privately held.

It IS gone.

That was the point.

Therefore, you are not going to be "paid back" because you have nothing invested. Taxes are being collected from you to keep the elderly from being penniless.

There is, of course, the issue of the surplus. Which is slightly outside the scope of what you have described since that money was supposed to be held in trust.

Either way, the point remains the same.

When discussing why someone should 'trust' the federal government, SS is, in my eyes, a rather poor supporting example.

ETA: Additionally, there is the concept of 'expected benefit'. They even send me statements telling me what it is every year.

So while I understand that that money is not necessarily 'owed' to me, the expectation of receiving some benefit when I'm 'old and penniless' is most assuredly part of the implied agreement that has been created by the federal government and agreed to by taxpayers.

An agreement that they are likely not to be able to uphold their side of.

[TrackerNeil]

It IS gone.

That was the point.

Yes, but unlike private companies like Enron, the federal government cannot simply shrug, declare bankruptcy and leave retirees high and dry. The government is required by law to make good on its promises, unlike Enron, which played fast and loose and then lost gods-know-how-many pensions.

Eventually everyone who pays into Social Security gets something out of it, assuming they live long enough. In fact, I suspect most people get significantly more than they ever contribute, which makes SS rather unlike a Ponzi scheme. I'm not interested in teaching you the difference between government-guaranteed funds and a the payoff from a private company's 401K, but feel free to ask any high-school student or gibbering idiot.

[Swordfish]

Yes, but unlike private companies like Enron, the federal government cannot simply shrug, declare bankruptcy and leave retirees high and dry. The government is required by law to make good on its promises, unlike Enron, which played fast and loose and then lost gods-know-how-many pensions.

Um... yes. i know that. As I said, that guarantee is basically made using your tax dollars.

Why you find that so reassuring i have no idea.

I have no idea what Enron has to do with anything in this context, besides allowing you to use hyperbolic scare language.

Eventually everyone who pays into Social Security gets something out of it, assuming they live long enough.

Indeed. So far. And assuming that the government can simply keep raising tax dollars, that will continue to be true.

i'm not interested in informing you of the projections about SS insolvency, but feel free to ask any third grader or large rock you find in your backyard.

;)

In fact, I suspect most people get significantly more than they ever contribute, which makes SS rather unlike a Ponzi scheme.

in the beginning of a ponzi scheme, everyone makes a killing on it.

Ponzi schemes only F people over once the output becomes higher than the input.

Sound familiar at all?

I'm not interested in teaching you the difference between government-guaranteed funds and a the payoff from a private company's 401K, but feel free to ask any high-school student or gibbering idiot.

:rolleyes:

Again, 'government guaranteed funds' are 'tax dollar guaranteed funds'.

you can try to paint 'government guaranteed funds' as simply mana from heaven, but it doesn't make your argument sound very rational.

[Peter Irving]

You know using your definition of a ponzi scheme one could define anything as being a ponzi scheme.

[Swordfish]

You know using your definition of a ponzi scheme one could define anything as being a ponzi scheme.

How about this definition:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually offers returns that other investments cannot guarantee in order to entice new investors, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going.

The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments.

Will that one work?

[Peter Irving]

You know some wingnut could claim then that any function of government was a ponzi scheme.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

You know some wingnut could claim then that any function of government was a ponzi scheme.

Did someone use a "summon Tormund" spell? :)

[Peter Irving]

Did someone use a "summon Tormund" spell? :)

I prefer the anarchic any organization is a ponzi scheme.

btw what benefits does the summon tormund spell confer?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

btw what benefits does the summon tormund spell confer?

+1 antigovernmentalist rage

+1 incoherency

The Summond Tormund spell has the side effect of acting as a "Summon DanteGabriel" and "Summon Shryke" spell. Use only to derail threads or increase usage of the word "fuck".