GG Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 This is so you, just like pointing out how every tax cut has seen the economy grow afterwords--it would have grown anyway. But more to this stupid point of yours. It is totally meaningless. Old people do not constitute a single economic block like rich people do. Old people might own a lot of real estate, or they might own nothing. You are so stupid to try and make this point, and what your craven need to make them out to be wealthly is driven by is your desire to take away their health care. And real estate? Really? Not exactlythehealthyiest sector these days, but hey, they should mortgage their house to pay for that hip replacement surgery, right? That's evil, and stupid all rolled into one. You better keep calling me names, because it is all you got little boy I have firing synapses, so I have that going for me. You asked for a point to be proven. It was. And your response is to turn into Bill the Cat? And then you wonder why you're the King of Idiots on this board?
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I have firing synapses, so I have that going for me. You asked for a point to be proven. It was. And your response is to turn into Bill the Cat? And then you wonder why you're the King of Idiots on this board? It's a stupid point--no surprise from you. Comparing the average elderly person in our country to the wealthiest people in the nation is idiotic. On top of that using real estate is priceless!
GG Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 It's a stupid point--no surprise from you. Comparing the average elderly person in our country to the wealthiest people in the nation is idiotic. On top of that using real estate is priceless! You asked a question. You got an answer. You didn't like the answer because it ran counter to your inane concepts. So, you throw an infantile tantrum. Kinda like your posting history. All hail the King.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 You asked a question. You got an answer. You didn't like the answer because it ran counter to your inane concepts. So, you throw an infantile tantrum. Kinda like your posting history. All hail the King. I asked about a stupid point, got a stupid answer and have pointed that out, that's all
GG Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I asked about a stupid point, got a stupid answer and have pointed that out, that's all Sure. Now Lennie, why don't you ask George about the chickens and bunnies on the farm.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Sure. Now Lennie, why don't you ask George about the chickens and bunnies on the farm. And George, when were old and retire from being farm workers, we will be really wealthy, right George? And we can have lots of rabbits then George 'cause we will be old and rich, we'll have real estate equity, right George? Just cause we are old....
3rdnlng Posted January 4, 2012 Author Posted January 4, 2012 And George, when were old and retire from being farm workers, we will be really wealthy, right George? And we can have lots of rabbits then George 'cause we will be old and rich, we'll have real estate equity, right George? Just cause we are old.... Really? And that was just to piss off your lame ass feeble minded fraction of a person, semblance of a human that is called DaveinNorfolk.
Chef Jim Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I knew you couldn't back it up I manage wealth for a living. And it ain't sitting with the young people. But it doesn't take a genius to know that but it takes a dummy not to.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I manage wealth for a living. And it ain't sitting with the young people. But it doesn't take a genius to know that but it takes a dummy not to. Sure, a person at 65 has more wealth than a person just starting a job, but only a couple of morons would make the argument that they constitute the wealthy.That's a stupid argument. So you think the retirees on Medicare are getting an undeserved free ride?
birdog1960 Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I manage wealth for a living. And it ain't sitting with the young people. But it doesn't take a genius to know that but it takes a dummy not to. to state that most wealth is held by older folks and to state that most older folks are generally wealthy are two very different things... the first may be true, the second certainly is not. but this all relates to the point about the medicare drug benefit brought up earlier and made into law during the bush presidency. i certainly would support means testing for most govt benefits. what we too often see is just the opposite, especially in the elderly. the haves benefit disproportionately at the expense of the much larger group of have nots.
Chef Jim Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Sure, a person at 65 has more wealth than a person just starting a job, but only a couple of morons would make the argument that they constitute the wealthy.That's a stupid argument. So you think the retirees on Medicare are getting an undeserved free ride? Who said anything about comparing "old people" (your words not mine) to someone just starting a job. So who in this country holds most of the wealth? Gen Xers? And yes many retirees are getting a free ride with Medicare. So you think all baby boomers and their parents are sitting in rocking chairs collecting social security?
Jauronimo Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 With all these old people? No way to cover all the elderly with great health care. And socialism is necessary in a consumer driven economy, it makes sure people have buying power so the corporations can sell them stuff My link
Juror#8 Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) This started off as a somewhat reasonable list and then began to descend into absurdity right about here: This comparison is flawed on so many levels I could write an entire thesis on it, but I'll stick to 3 bullet points for the sake of brevity: -There is a fundamental difference between borrowing money you're going to pay back with interest, and getting a handout. -Mandated "job searches" are about as productive as the Bills pass rush. -Federal government has perverted the entire college/student loan system to a point that you cannot make a reasonable comparison between the existing system and one that would exist otherwise. Let's do this... 1. For one thing, "handout," implies something being "given away." What can you demonstrate quantitatively that supports this? Federal welfare dollars is a function of aggregated taxpayer subsidy. The taxpayer subsidy is comprised of deductions from working folks' gross income. Gross income is achieved by folks working a job. Therefore, working folks pay into a system that they may need to draw from at a later date. If people have paid into something, and then receive benefit or a dividend from that aggregate pool which they paid into consistent with pre-established criteria that everyone was aware of at the outset of the arrangement, can there, by definition, be a handout? To be sure, do you receive a "handout" if you crash your vehicle, receive a $5,000 check AFTER you've only been with the insurance company for 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years? That wouldn't be a "handout" would it? Do you receive a "handout" if you break you leg, require $10,000 in hospital bills that your insurance company begrudgingly pays, even after you've only paid $2,000 in premiums? Those aren't "handouts." It's better classified as an "entitlement program," that you benefit from because you worked and paid into something without knowing prospectively if you'd ever receive the fruits of your payments. That risk, and the subsequent need, justified the renumeration. It's also called acceptable and calculated risk, that for the company, or, apropos to our discussion, the Government, has likely amortized and mitigated in some complicated fashion throughout many decades and trillions of tax dollars. So you're thinking, "you're presuming that these folks worked at some point." Well, allow me to retort: you presume that they haven't worked at some point. I have the strength of numbers on my side. More people in this country have worked AT SOME POINT, then have not worked EVER. What can you provide that supports the thesis (that you impliedly advanced)that the folks receiving welfare benefits have never worked? And absent your ability to provide that data, how do you differentiate between welfare payout and automobile insurance payout? And if we assume that they have worked AT SOME POINT, and consequently paid taxes, what's wrong with them realizing the value of their investment? Some people realize the value, some people don't. It's a circumstance driven thing. What the ufck is the problem? So again I ask, absent your ability to provide that data, how do you differentiate between welfare payout and automobile insurance payout? You can't. Well, I take that back...you may have one play....time. Welfare pays out over an extended period, whereas automobile insurance generally pays out one time. Or does it? How many accidents have you been in? IF you remain insured, does your insurance company refuse to pay you in the event of an second, third, or fourth accident. Nope. They don't. So nevermind, I don't think that you have a play. Can you prove me wrong? 2. But let's just assume that I didn't mention anything above. I can approach this from a different direction: You said: "there is a fundamental difference between borrowing money you're going to pay back with interest, and getting a handout." Really? Is there really that big a difference between welfare and student loans (with respect to your bolded point above)? Student loan default rate is at almost 9% and rising (http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/default-rates-rise-federal-student-loans). That doesn't into account folks who have deferred their loan payments indefinitely due to financial hardship. Do you think that William D. Ford will ever see the entirety of that $________ loan that he so graciously lent? Answer: No. And not only is that common knowledge, but even the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT knows it and even codifed the **** with the Income Based Repayment option: http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/IBRPlan.jsp Pay for 25 years, the rest of you shizit is cancelled. So really now....is there really an appreciable difference, other than in principle? 3. Fu_k it, I'll approach this a third way. I can even make the case that there isn't an "in principle" difference. Many of the public welfare programs have an accompanying "look-for-work" provision. There are time limits in many states as an attendant check. Cash assistance in many states require "pay back in full." Section 8 in many states requires actively maintaining a job and limits on occupants (effectively paying back the subsidizing agent). Food stamps, in many states, have time limits (though admittedly very few states enforce this). So when you consider the situation functionally and principally, is there really that huge of a chasm between Federal Student Loans and "traditional" welfare (incidentally, Student Loans is a "welfare" program)? I renew my points from my original post. This implies that the problem is disorganization and inadequate administration, but for the sake of 'realism' ignores the overwhelming evidence that government welfare programs are fundamentally flawed by their very nature. This is little more than a broad sweeping statement based on your own speculation. I would argue that with fewer and more narrowly tailored social programs there would be less of the things you mentioned. People don't have time to engage in those activities when they have to go to work in the morning. So without the "social safety net", or hammock as it has become, we would end up with absolutist government power? How do you get there? 1. How are government welfare programs "flawed by their very nature"? 2. This is going to be an anachronistic response - because your response that I'm actually addressing didn't exist at the time that you wrote what I'm quoting above (that reminds me of that flash forward to Brad Pitt's monologue in "Fight Club" btw - not that you care) - but....I know what "narrowly tailored" is. I'm used to using it in some protracted "strict scrutiny" analysis on a judicial review point, but I know what it is. You didn't catch my L1 point, which answers a question and means that I was incorrect in an assumption. As an aside: I have this !@#$ed up idea that only certain folks use certain verbiage. It's very stereotypical and fallacious. Silly me. 3. Absolutist government power - yes. It has to do with a cyclical political ecosystem that, while profoundly "slippery-slopish," seems to bear fruit. And that cyclical arrangement is the reason that on the farthest right, there are also hints of the farthest left (e.g., "purist libertarians" from a political alignment standpoint tend to lean republican, however they also typically advocate no government incursion into social items like choice, expression, marriage [traditionally considered democratic tenants]). Throughout history there are regimes, countries, nations that have evolved thusly: The government begins to legislate, tax, enforce, items that are not accepted by vox populi. As a result a burgeoning sentiment of government push-back develops. That sentiment is sometimes codified and becomes a political entity or it percolates amongst the citizenry. The government either scales back through representative government, or it develops a stronger presence to monitor and quell opposition and revolt. In the latter instance, the percolating sentiment bubbles over (in time) predicating an transformational political shift, usually towards a less centralized presence - in response to the characteristics of the previous regime in its latter stages of existence. The more localized government is cool for a while....until Canadians stage mini-sieges on the northern border and people can't trust that there food from England isn't being delivered replete with e-coli. A plan for a centralized government forms to handle these eventualities, the coordination of territories, logistics, and the growing presence of factions (Let's go James Madison). That government grows, adafts, shifts, changes with the international realties and cultural viccissitudes. It becomes the monster that it was aimed at defeating. So then.... this new government begins to legislate, tax, enforce, items that are not accepted by vox populi. As a result a burgeoning sentiment of government push-back develops. That sentiment is sometimes codified and becomes a political entity or it percolates amongst the citizenry..... Need proof - look at this country from England to now. We're in the circle. The removal of fundamental public welfare programs will just expedite the cycle. I'll acknowledge that what I'm saying exists in the realm of the theoretical....but only because it hasn't happened in this country. If you, however, replace " federal government" with "monarchy," or with "dictatorship," you'll see that analagous historical instances exist. You miss the point completely here. If the concern was just that a few people would abuse the perks it wouldn't be that great of a concern. But when roughly half the federal budget goes to pensions and health care (private needs), millions are on an ever extended unemployment payment plan, and entire subcultures exist on the backs of those who have the audacity to work, it becomes a problem. I know you guys don't like to do the math, because it's scary. But we're drowning in a river of debt, taxation absolutely cannot cover the cost (it's a fact, deal with it), and the people in charge who we entrust to fix these problems keep writing checks they can't cash to buy votes from an idiotic public who are only concerned about getting theirs, believe the government makes the money so they should get some, and thinks the bill is never going to come due. So apparently pragmatism is burying your head in the sand and pretending the sand isn't a problem until it suffocates you. 1. The "you guys" comment is still bothersome. It's seems dismissive and stereotypical, but it's cool. 2. I addressed the "audacity to work" thing above. Provide the metrics, then we'll talk. Otherwise, people, at one point or another, paid into something. There was a "meeting of the minds." There arrangement was bilateral. Their only "audacity," is the audacity to expect that that system will be solvent enough to provide recompense. 3. Debt, yes. Solvency, a problem. So, what's your solution? Let me guess: "just cut the cord," right? Short, sweet, profoundly naive and decidedly ineffective. Gotcha. Edited January 4, 2012 by Juror#8
GG Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Did you just compare private insurance to a government entitlement program and say the two are equal?
Juror#8 Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Did you just compare private insurance to a government entitlement program and say the two are equal? How do they operate differently?
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 How do they operate differently? You pay for your own insurance. Other people pay for your government entitlement.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 You pay for your own insurance. Other people pay for your government entitlement. http://www.american.com/archive/2009/june/the-problem-with-the-biggest-tax-break-in-america Those of us who work in this country are now being assailed from people with this mentailty: Market innovation in health insurance would mean increasing the consumer’s responsibility to pay for most medical services. The insurable event should not be the provision of a medical service. The insurable event should be that the consumer is confronted with an ailment that is going to require costly treatment. Health insurance should not involve frequent, small claims and high premiums. Instead, like fire insurance, it ought to involve rare, large claims and affordable premiums. INCREASE the cost of medical bills, DECREASE services, just to decrease premiums. This is precisely how innovation is supposed to work? Hogwash... why should anyone be subjected to this when you can get health care for free by not working? Whether it is Obamacare or this warped sense that we don't pay ENOUGH, middle class Americans still go with substandard health care.
Juror#8 Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 You pay for your own insurance. Other people pay for your government entitlement. This is what I devoted that entire first section too (an admittedly loooong section - so I wouldn't be offended if no one read it). Most folks pay or have paid at one point through the imposition of taxes. And the vast majority of those who pay any premiums for anything are paying for someone else at the higher end of the risk pool - whether it be commercial or governmental; auto insurance, or cash assistance. They operate the same way.
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 This is what I devoted that entire first section too (an admittedly loooong section - so I wouldn't be offended if no one read it). Most folks pay or have paid at one point through the imposition of taxes. And the vast majority of those who pay any premiums for anything are paying for someone else at the higher end of the risk pool - whether it be commercial or governmental; auto insurance, or cash assistance. They operate the same way. That's nothing more than a complete misunderstanding of the very concept of risk mitigation. Which, frankly, is completely unsurprising, since most of the country has the very same misunderstanding. Which is why we have a "health care" bill that doesn't even address health care.
Recommended Posts