That is true as well. Then maybe someone who is against illegals coming here, who is in power, would do something like that to force Bush to close the borders.
There isn’t any other real benefit to letting a nuclear explosion occur in the US down there besides that. It won’t help his ratings, which are already down to at least over half the country.
Actually social security has always been a way for the goverment to finance it’s programs. It won’t run out as long as inflation of the money supply keeps up, which is a pretty good bet looking at where the debt is.
Who’s to say that the poor “don’t try to better their situation.” The poor are the one’s hardest hit by the bad times. Nobody seems to realize this. We may have to sacrifice a pair of sneakers, they may have to choose between food and medicine. Government meddling in other “higher” aspects of the economy is responsible for the extreme instability of the business cycle, is it too much to ask of them to throw some scraps at the very people who helped put them in office? This purpose is the entire justification for the mechanisms which allow them to inflate the money supply to finance wars and hand out billions of no-bid contracts to certain companies.
No, again, social security was orginally made for the reason I stated above. Now, if the government wishes to take money out of the social security system, it needs to put it back in there. But since the government isn’t really thinking about the future, only the present to get re-elected, they will take money out of the system and cut taxes, but not put money back in the system. This is where the problems come from.
I’m not saying that all poor people don’t try to improve there situation. But there is too many who don’t try to do such and munch off the system. The system was set up as a crutch to get back up on, not a place to sit on and use as a supplementary income.
You would think they are hit worse, but look at some of the behind the scenes stuff and not the flashy programs on tv. The fact is, most simply do the bare minimum and with welfare, have no real incentive to get out of their situation. I personally have a close relative who is one of the very people we are talking about–a lazy ass who takes advantage of the system. They live in an area where all of their neighbors are like this, too. Ask them with the tv cameras and they will tell you how rough it is that they cannot feed their 5 kids or afford their medicine, but sit down with them casually and hear about how easy their life is and how nice the government is to them financially. No coincidence that the poorer the people for higher the rate of obesity.
If wages go up, the labor is simply outsourced. There was a quality article in the WSJ recently that explained how the mean income in the US can go down (inflation adjusted), yet the standard of living rise, significantly. The point is that when the minimum wage is raised, jobs are eliminated, not paid more. Do you want people employed for less, or less employed for more? Also consider that the wages these people are working for is, while we consider small and “peanuts”, quite a bit for their native standard of living.
NO. If you’re going to dismiss a statement of mine off hand which falsifies a previous statement of yours, please do so without later using the term “munch off the system”. It makes me feel less than dumb.
Maybe you can’t understand what I’m saying. Big government love deficits. “We owe it to ourselves” afterall. Actually the nation as a whole owes it to those who have an immediate interest in the federal reserve. Talk about a racket. “SO are you saying what the gov’t SAID social security was for is different from its actual motive?” GASP
Sure this is often the case, but it’s very complicated. Government intervention keep consumer prices artificially high even taking a minimum wage into account. Of course welfare is responsible for increased demand but there are also “pro-business” supply factors (competition crushing legislation) I’m not denying that giving someone money reduces their desire to seek gainful employment. We can hardly blame them for that though.
I’m not sure where the contradiction is coming from, but let me restate once again what I’ve said. (If it came from my first sentence in the post you quoted, that wasn’t in reference to your post, but mine about social security in a previous post above.)
Social Security was originally formed by a president, I forget his name, but a history book will tell you, who did it because he saw that Americans couldn’t save money on there own.
The government then decided to take money from the social security system to use for other things, which is ok if you put money back in it. That is where the government screws up.
I’m confused where there is a contradiction, because I fail to see one. As far as “munch off the system”, its a saying. Your in control of how dumb you are and feel, not me. I’m not sure what your even arguing against.
Also, no, the government doesn’t “like” deficits, but they don’t care about them either. The reason the deficit grows is because we take out more money than we put back in. This is caused by higher spending and lowering of taxes. Why does this occur? It’s because citizens don’t like bad news and don’t want to elect those who cause it. If a candidate lowers taxes and raises spending, it may benefit the citizen in the short term, but will cause problems in the future. But the official is really interested in getting re-elected, not problems he won’t deal with. That is a major reason the deficit grows.
maybe we should have an illegal immigration thread for this?
Of course people were unable to save money during the great depression; people had no money to save, they hardly had money to come by. Although I seriously doubt the raison d’etat for The Economic Security Act 1935 (later Social Security) was directly due to Roosevelt’s “observations of laymen’s saving habits. I doubt we find a single cause on this one; depression, new economic theories (Keynes), industrialism, social upheaval etc., are all contributory factors. It would be naïve treat rhetoric as national motive.
Directly taken from the Bill (H. R. 4120), [74th Congress, 1 Session, In The House of Representatives, January 17, 1935]: “To alleviate the hazards of old age, unemployment., illness, and dependency; to establish a Social Insurance Board in the Department of Labor, to raise revenue, and for other purposes.”
On the other hand, the intentions for the 1935 Act might very well be different from today’s purpose, as is should be, since times are different as well.
…(Perhaps a moderator could make these “unrelated” postst into a new thread?)
I see I wasted my time. BTW you’re thinking of one of the lesser known, obscure president’s in American History- Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Maybe this will help you better understand.
http://www.mises.org/story/997
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=264
[QUOTE=Davan]You would think they are hit worse, but look at some of the behind the scenes stuff and not the flashy programs on tv. The fact is, most simply do the bare minimum and with welfare, have no real incentive to get out of their situation. I personally have a close relative who is one of the very people we are talking about–a lazy ass who takes advantage of the system. They live in an area where all of their neighbors are like this, too. Ask them with the tv cameras and they will tell you how rough it is that they cannot feed their 5 kids or afford their medicine, but sit down with them casually and hear about how easy their life is and how nice the government is to them financially. No coincidence that the poorer the people for higher the rate of obesity.
The coincidence of poor indiviudals being obese is not caused by them being lazy. It has more to do with the selection of foods that they can afford and are aware of. A person living in Harlem will not have the resources to acquire free range chicken. In fact, in most poor neighborhoods they have low budget grocery stores that have a great deal of genetically modifed fruits, vegetables, and dairy filled with Growth Hormone. Stick to the subject at hand and stop saying dumb shit.
How about this for a money hog: At a press conference September 10 2001, Donald Rumsfeld admitted: “According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,”
…That’s Pentagon loosing track of $2,000,000,000,000. Perhaps it’s in order to revise the definition of “hog”. The date of this testimony is certaily interesting.
Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
Very interesting indeed.
Good, you figured out the President and what social security is. Now, what is your point and what are you disagreeing with?
Yes I figured it out. After much research I FIGURED IT OUT. Come on, any dummie who has taken American History in high school should be able to recall that!
I’ve already made point quite clearly.
Social Security from its inception has been a method for the government to finance its various expenditures.
I then provided a couple of articles which clearly back up this statement.
Now the social security chain-letter has come back to bite the young workers in the ass, because people are collecting social security for 20 or 30 years. As I said earlier they can always pay out benefits simply by inflating the money supply. This is stealing of honest people’s savings. Even a young Alan Greenspan referred to this as “confiscation by inflation”.
Its no coincidence America went off the gold standard around this same time. It was referred to as “golden handcuffs” because it was a block against inflation.
“munch off the system” returned 1 match on google.
Hope you feel good about yourself.
Now, as for your references to social security, you fail to understand that you aren’t disagreeing with me. “Originally”, like I stated before, the president (Roosevelt), designed Social Security to get people to save up for the future. Later on, however, yes, the government took money out of the system, but didn’t put it back, causing problems.
So, whatever point you were trying to make I already stated, so there isn’t anything to disagree with.
Please get over the phrase, if that phrase effects you so much, you have more problems in your life than you might think. But as far as the sites found in google, I typed it in and I got 958,000 links. So either Google doesn’t like you, or you need to slow down when typing when you are trying to make a point. 
I openly admit this is a stupid quibble. But hey I love it just the same. I have to put people in their place, its a hobby of mine. I feel very good about myself
I’m really attempting to educate here (which is probably my mistake). A major reason Roosevelt wanted Social Security was to finance his NEW DEAL programs. End of friggin story.
AND BRO a little info on internet search. If you want to search a phrase you must put it in quotes. Otherwise the search includes all pages that contain those words anywhere regardless of order.
For example I put in the search bar on google:
george bush is faster than ben johnson
it returned over 3 million results
Then I put in:
“george bush is faster than ben johnson”
which thank god returned zero results.
This is a huge waste of both our time, but obviously coming out on top is worth it.
OH INTERNET VICTORY YOU TASTE SO SWEET
LET ME BASK IN YOUR GLORY
MAN WHAT A RUSH
WOOOOOOOOOOOOO
(I’m being sarcastic)
Irregardless of what it was under, again, Social Security was designed orginally to force people to save up for the future, because the government failed to see that citizens could do it themselves.
But, you said what I was about to say, which was that there is much more important things to do than argue over such a trivial matter. Anyways, once again, this thread is going off topic.
Irregardless ain’t not no word. HAD TO!