I respect the ideals of the Founding Fathers. However, I don't think that they envisioned the levels of corporate malfeasance that pervade today's world.

The world has changed a lot in 200 years.

Well, I'm with you on most of this then. As stuuu said, I thought you were arguing against government involvement at all. I completely hate what they are going to do, and it seems the only winner is going to be the corporations(again).

As for medicare sucking, and private industry making profit? Well, we need to make the people responsible for running medicare responsible, the same way private industry terminates people. If our reps can't figure a way to make it solvent, then we need to elect new reps who can. The reason why we didn't privatize social security(well, because it was Bushie's idea, and anything he comes up with is a bad idea) is because it would be too big to fail. If the stock market took a shit, do we just let the elderly die then?? Everyone knows the government would have to bail that system out if it failed, so why let corporate assholes take home giant bonuses just to fuck up. No wait, we already did that with the banking(and insurance) industry, and put nothing in place to keep it from happening again. Thank God we didn't let them privatize social security.

I completely agree with you Squanto, but what I am attempting to get across to daz and others with his point of view is that I do not want to be forced into more programs that actually enable and foster that environment.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

So you also believe that I(and you) should let all the poor people's children go without education(and therefore no chance to support themselves in any manner for the rest of there lives).

Shall we also let the elderly(which capitalism doesn't take into account) freeze to death and/or starve because they are no longer productive??

The founding fathers could not even begin to conceive what the world is today, and they were probably smart enough to realize the world WAS going to change. A person's area of influence went about as far as the horizon then, things are different now in case you hadn't noticed. As I said previously, your reasoning and feelings are extremely dated.

That view is idealistic to the point of folly.

You
know
nothing
about
Social Security.

Do me a favor and go grab your latest statement from the SS office. Open it to I think page 2....
Right there, in their own report to you, the paying citizen...it says in plain English...
"Social Security will be insolvent in 2014."

Yeah, thank god those Democrats stopped evil Bush from ruining it.

I don't think you're following me on this whole unfunded liabilities thing.
We. Can't. Afford. It.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

You just made my point for me Stuuuuu. As I clearly stated several posts back. HEALTH CARE IS A LOCAL OR REGIONAL MATTER NOT A STATE OR FEDERAL MATTER, THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, THE FIRE ENGINE I SEE DRIVING BY WITH SIRENS BLARING AND LIGHTS FLASHING SAYS .....GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT, NOT UNITED STATES FIRE DEPARTMENT!!!!!!!!!!!

Sheesh, let me catch my breathe. Had to emphasize that since you were intent on emphasizing YOUR in your post. As for supporting me in the military, READ MY PRIOR POSTS before responding, I clearly labelled that as a responsibility of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. And by no means was it my interests, I didn't just get up one morning and decide, geez, I'd like to to Iraq and kill people.

I truly believe you are ignorant of how taxes work and what infrastructures are supported at what level with what tax base.
Local services come out of property taxes, school taxes, sales taxes and several other revenue generators. The Federal Income Tax in conjuction with other Federally levied taxes are revenue generators on a national level, not a community level.

So lets review the logic that you claim I have, shall we continue here Stuuuuu?

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

Well good then, because I just happened to be looking for a social security expert. Seeing it's such a bad idea, and we never should have done it in the 1st place(just like public edumuckation) maybe we'll go to your plan B then:

let the elderly(which capitalism doesn't take into account) freeze to death and/or starve because they are no longer productive??

Puhleez, don't just tell me we can't afford it, tell me HOW we can afford it, because we certainly can't AFFORD to NOT have it, now can we???

If you think the private sector would have jumped right in, and saved it, you're wrong. It would have made the bailout mess even TWICE as ugly as it was. Nice try to bail out Bushie though.


Does the name on the truck matter if it still comes to you at the same(or less) cost????? Are you now supposing that the federal government couldn't put together fire departments?? Who gives a shit anyways, it's gonna come out of YOUR pocket anyways, and go into the PUBLIC coffers one way or the other. If anything, this stops the ridiculous cronyism. Why are you so insistent on state's rights anyways??? That was already settled by "your" forefathers. They wanted central government.


More SS expertize:

I dragged out April 2005 and 2008 of my report. First, it CLEARLY states that they are working to pass new laws. Second, the 2005 report estimated I'd get 73% up to 2042. The 2008 estimated 78(more)% until 2041. Now they may have reduced expectation by one year, but they RAISED it by 5%. I'll have to guess they HAVE BEEN and will continue to work to keep the benefits going, but hey, why bother. Like the republicans said, it was a bad idea in the first place(like all ideas are). I'd rather we argued and old people died on the street rather than pass any meaningful legislature.

Slesh, I'll try not to get offended, but really, I do understand how taxes work. People pay them in return for the services the government provides. Sure, that's a simplification but that's basically the jist of it. The fact that the federal government vs. the state or local government collects them or provides the service doesn't change the basic concept. So yes, I'm going to stick by my comparison of paying for someone else's medical emergency and paying for the fire department to put out someone else's fire because they are really, quite similar in my opinion. If you can't see the similarity in that just because the power to provide for certain services is assigned to different levels in our federal system, then no, we shouldn't continue. Because I see this "property taxes are OK, but income taxes not" line to be skirting the real issue of the idea that the government is supposed to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens, not just "provide for the common defense".

I don't put words in your mouth and you don't get any points by putting them in mine.
It actually makes your argument look silly.

You're the one that (foolishly) brought up Social Security as a shining beacon of the government providing for its citizens through Federal social programs.

And you know what? By all means sit back and expect that SS check when your 65...it'll be in the mail.
I'll take care of my own retirement investments.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Funny, I don't ever recall saying anything like "it's perfect" or even
"a shining beacon of the government providing for its citizens through Federal social programs."

Looking foolish, and putting words in people's mouth is easier than you thought, eh?

I also never said "I" was relying on SS, did I? Putting words in mouth pt.2. In fact, I think you're actually winning the 'cutsie' contest if there is one.

I, for one, am proud that my country is trying to take care of its elderly.

Well, you made claims on statements that you stated I made, but to the contrary. I do send out a post like that with repeatedly quoting things I never stated. Lets move on Stuuuu, there is much you and I do agree upon I would deduce from past conversations, this particular subject, I think you and I don't see it the same.
With that said, you are correct, and I never stated the costs would change, but there are some points that I continue to try and emphasize here.
The first point is this nation has not had such a broad sweeping social program implemented in decades. Not one of those other programs have succeeded, this one whether in its current form or any form for that matter, is doomed to fail on multiple levels for various reasons, not the least of which it is under government control or any type of government activity in the industry outside of the legislation needed to regulate the industry purely on the grounds of protecting the public. For example, if you allow lobbying to continue by the medical industry you will find resources being abused, or sent to an area in an over or under abundance.

I don't buy into the issue that nothing should be done either. I believe in tort reform as well as offering a more competitive environment in the medical insurance industry by stripping the barriers away at the state level and opening all states up for the private sector to come in and conduct business on a national level, its been proven over and over again, the private sector does it better, more cost effective and tends to move much faster than the government does. These are not some theories, they are facts. There is also price manipulation not only on such commodities as pharmic. companies, but also the services offered at the local hospital or clinic level. But these issues are truly secondary in nature. The old adage, if you build it they will come is only a truism in so far as you offer the services they will come for.

The market derives what is needed where and in what numbers. This has always been the case. Enter the government and all of a sudden, prices rise, money is wasted and no one individual is truly held accountable.
Which brings me back to my wallet, why should I have to foot the bill for others risky behavior? I think you and I can agree we were both miffed and down right pissed of at G.W's illegal invasioin of Iraq, correct? How is this subject any different in reality, G.W. misused and abused public assets that ultimately lead to a deficit unto itself. This program would promote the exact same environment.

My compassion to help others need not be questioned, I think my time in uniform and answering the call to duty has proven where my heart is. With that in mind, my intention is not to turn my back on those with medical needs, my intent is to keep it where it needs to stay, at the local level. People don't seem to realize the costs associated with a federally run program and what your "say" in those choices will be.
Every person is accountable for thier own lives Stuuuuu, every person is accountable to themselves. I was raised the same as most Americans I would suspect, accountability, compassion, integrity, honor and the ability to strive to better ones self or life.

I am firmly against the government caring for people from craddle to grave. The facts are what they are on this, facts. This type of thinking will bankrupt a nation. Then what? There are no do overs in life Stuuuuu, the last thing to go before a nation fails is its monatary system, this is a fact. Social programs like social security, medicare and now this health care plan are failures in the making.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

Bravo slesh. The last post was good.

...and btw, the illegal invasion of Iraq could have PAID for some of our own problems(and caused many families less problems). The guy responsible should be castrated.

I also don't feel that the government should coddle individuals from cradle to grave. However, why should all programs that provide assistance to people automatically be considered bad?

Take a skilled laborer. He has a wife, and a child. Doesn't make a great living, but he supports his family well. He goes to work, pays his taxes, stand up citizen.

His employer in the private sector , in the endless pursuit of better/faster/cheaper/more profits, decides that they can hire someone else to do his job cheaper. Less wages, no benefits, same work. So they lay him off, and move the plant elsewhere.

This man has done nothing wrong!!! He went to work every day. He paid his taxes. He did what every American should do, took pride in their worked, and earned everything he has. But now, here his is, with no income, and no job, a casualty in the endless pursuit of capitalist perfection.

Why should there be no programs to help him support his family until he can learn a new skill to become employed elsewhere? Yes, those programs can be abused by others, but that's a problem of implementation and management, not the idea.

Government run everything? Not the answer. Government run programs are prone to abuse and bloat.
Free market runs everything? Not the answer. The free market will screw over the worker for the sake of the bottom line.

The true answer lies somewhere in the middle.

I respect your opinions slesh, it's just a proven fallacy that leaving enterprise to their own devices is not the answer. Businesses left to their own devices do not consider the needs and goals of anything but their own profit margin. The rich get richer, and those less wealthy have no opportunity to change their situation.

I also disagree that the implemented social programs are abject failures. They CLEARLY need to be managed better, but they've done a lot of good for a lot of people for a lot of years. Government is slow to react though, and that's the major problem with it. If you could figure out how to have a government run program adapt as quickly as the private sector you'd be a hero.

Everything you just wrote I fully understand.
I worked at R.A. Miller Lumber company in N.T. slinging lumber (kilned and green) off of a trim line. In the winter it is 10 to 15 degrees colder in the trim line area, the warehouse was like an ice box, doors and feedline doors open to the elements. I worked slinging that lumber anywhere from 8 to 16 foot boards and the width varied. The green lumber, frozen, heavy as shit from the ice build up and the water content. Some of those were back breakers man.
So I did this, then (becuase I was divorced, and with backsupport being taken out) I would get my check for 80 dollars a week, no lie man, child support raped me. I didn't have a place to go, to proud to turn to family, I lived outdoors, in a little piece of woods by the lumber mill and railroad tracks. I slept in those temps, through that winter and I was miserable.

This wasn't a feel good story, that was 1998 and I redoubled my efforts to do better. I studied on my own to become an electrician and saved up what I could and made my way to my first power plant job. Now I am a managing partner in a renewable energy company, not a household name, but I am proud of it and of the journey I took to get here. The sacrifices I made and the time I missed with my children.

The point is though, I did it, through all of the hardships, I pressed on. (Alot of cussing and cursing along the way)

The reason I tell you this Squanto, is because, I don't believe the private sector should be allowed to go it alone, they should be regulated. Regulation, when done with honesty, integrity and the publics interest properly represented is a powerful tool. Opening the markets at a national level would allow businesses to come in and compete for your business, driving costs down. I think this and tort reform are 2 key issues here that would help avoid any federal government interference. It should always remain at the local level. There is a better understanding of the community at that level.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

I agree with these ideas very much.

Squanto Wrote:

"I also disagree that the implemented social programs are abject failures. They CLEARLY need to be managed better, but they've done a lot of good for a lot of people for a lot of years."

Actually Squanto, managing them better will never help and these programs will continue to have major issues and will never come out of debt. Lets take social security as just one example, shall we.

You cannot control population numbers, this was noticed immediately by the baby boom. The numbers from those born between 1946 to 1960 far supercede the numbers since 1960. Hence, the individuals born after 1960 have to bare the burden of supporting nearly 2.5 times the amount of social security recipients than was ever imagined.
You can see the mushroom forming. The stem is those born after 1960, the head of the mushroom are the baby boomers. The system will collapse under its own weight, so to speak. And this process will be repeated again in roughly 30 years due to the mini boom from 90 to 96. This program will ultimately lead to the demise of the nation if left unchecked. So what to do?

This is a question you here debated quite often, but honestly, no one but the CBO wants to admit the truth. You can never get the money back you are going to lose in this program, and if you check with the 2008 CBO numbers, you will see that the program will be exhausted by 2049, (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9649 ... Update.pdf) and this was based on the pre-collapse models, they are currently voicing a very real serious concern of 2037 as the new exhausted model. Let's take a look at the current and projected GDP numbers in the time frame. You will see that in accordance with the CBO and more than several independent sources currently auditing these numbers, that will exceed 8% pre-collapse, some early post-collapse numbers put that at nearly 22% of the amount of the current and projected GDP. Thats just for one "SOCIAL PROGRAM". And on a side note, this programs finance projections are so volitale that it had a 20% chance of failing to achieve its numbers, now, apply the fall of the dollar (even short term [5 to 7 years] and those models have an 80% chance of failing to achieve its numbers).
There are many variables involved in a program as massive as this, but the underlying theme is not the program within itself, its the amount of revenue it will need to maintain either a balance, or a surplus. Not going to happen I'm afraid, the current numbers, post-collapse tell a nightmare tale on this.

Medicare is in even worse shape. And this program is going to be a massive collapse, the likes of which put 22% GDP numbers to shame. I leave to everyone to do the research, but it is there for all to see.

The reason citizens should pay close attention to these programs is very simple, it is your responsibility as a citizen to do so. Which would bring me to Squanto's point. Squanto, I am not advocating that the government has no role in any of this, but as you can plainly see from the factually based numbers in conjuction with the projected numbers, programs such as these are the real Fallacy of good intentions run amuck. Less government equates out to less taxes which in turn leaves individuals with more income to make those choices that I spoke of, only if you allow free market principals to apply themselves in an earnest environment with the appropriate regulations in place.

Will this cover every person? Well no, it won't, but that brings me back to self accountability, attempting to better ones self or life. These core principals are not even taught to the youth anymore. Starting a program at the local level for things such as retirement or healthcare should have an immediate package that includes training individuals to become self dependent. But keeping those costs at the local level forces the system to preach and teach such ethics while having the direct knowledge of what it will take to achieve this. Inherently it also would involve the local communities to get all of their citizens involved as it would have a direct impact on their local or regional tax base.

It takes a village to raise a child so the old saying goes.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.