Luigi

Sometimes it is though, like a company that builds spaceships and scientific equipment for other planets. You better hope the government nevers builds it itself, and those companies never would have been able to pull anything off without the funding.

Companies like KBR are a different story, it's about the relationship of government and the people who vote them in. We allow it, so it happens. Collectively saving (Taxes) and electing people to distribute that capitol wisely, investing in private business and technologies beneficial to our society and oursleves can be a good thing, assuming people are paying attention and voting.

Hall of shame 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Spivey
Yeah im a bad man when they call me a sheepfucker..

Originally Posted by Zaragrunudgeyon
Whatever you do, don't listen to scientists. Trust your own instincts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton3
Why do people get all huffy about fighting for oil?

Advertising

Blueneck

I have a feeling part of the problem with this is, while the amount of subcontracting and privatization has increased, the oversight hasn't, so there is more corruption. The government just can't keep tabs on everyone.

Maybe we should have mandatory minimum sentences for those defrauding the government, instead of just fines.

Picky

Pragmatist, what's wrong with Luigi's view of Social Security? You say it's Welfare, but he says it isn't.Is Social Security a reliable, mandatory bank account managed by the federal government, or is it welfare? If it's only a bank account, opting out is fine; if it's welfare, other people are depending on you to pay in.

Personally, I think it's a federal pyramid scheme (a.k.a. welfare).

Pragmatist

[quote]You might like it to not be your problem but that is an unrealistic and narrow-minded position. Without something such as SS we would have a large segment of the population that would reach retirement without the means to support themselves. We live in a civilized country that is not going to adopt the policy of "fuck em, it's not my problem". They will have to be cared for and would you rather they be forced to save during their working years in order to help pay that tab, or do you want to pick it up entirely.

No SS is not welfare. Those recieving SS checks are not recieving free money from the state. They are recieving funds that they earned during their working years. Funds that many of them would not have, had they not been forced to set them aside. Without something such as SS many of them would truly have to turn to welfare and you would have to help pay that tab. We are not, will not, and should not let them starve as you have suggested by saying "it's not my problem". If they are US citizens and you are a US citizen it would be your problem whether you like it or not.

I don't think you have a clue what SS is because it sure as hell is no charity. Those recieving SS checks earned that money, it's not simply being given to them.

Neither do I. But I am also not foolish enough to think you can dismantle SS without addressing the needs that it satisfies and I would choose the current system over welfare, which is what would have to fill the void unless you intend to let them starve.

I thought the other guy who responded on my behalf did quite well. Sure Edwards would like to eliminate poverty but he never claimed he could or would be able to do it over the course of his term or without a concerted effort of others. What did he say it would take, 30 years?

Pragmatist

I am going to assume you meant Z and not Luigi.

SS is simply not welfare. Welfare is basically free money given to someone by the state who is deemed in need. It is paid for in some form or fashion by your tax dollars. SS on the other hand is not free money, it is funds being paid back to you that you have saved over the course of your working years by that SS deduction from your paycheck. To insinuate that those individuals who are living on their SS checks are living on welfare is simply untrue, they earned those dollars.
I don't know if I would consider it reliable with idiots such as Bush in charge stealing from it to fund things such as needless war, but yes it is a mandatory bank account managed by the federal gov't. Simply because those who recieve SS funds now are dependant on the working class continuing to contribute to it does not make it welfare. They paid for it when working and are simply getting it back when retired. It makes no difference that the funds I contribute now go to John Doe tomorrow, because the funds Frank Smith contributes 25 yrs from now may go to me.
Although not a pyramid scheme I can easily see that similarity being drawn because the dollars you contribute go to someone else now while the dollars you recieve later are paid by someone else later. Nevertheless, it is not welfare and until someone comes up with another plan that addresses the need that SS currently satisfies, it must remain intact. The fuck you starve it's not my problem attitude will always be an unacceptable alternative for a country as great as ours. At least I hope so!

Blueneck

All these government versus the free market threads always seeem to boil down to arguments involving "laziness" versus "greed".

So how could a marriage between the two be a good idea?

Picky

AFAIK, the government has always drawn money out of SS to fund different things, replacing that money with IOUs. Those IOUs actually represent the deficit dug under the excuse and lie that we had the money for that other stuff. When the government turns SS into a bank account that no one gets into, not even the citizen until the qualifications are met, I'll consider (in light of the other stipulations) supporting it. Until then, it's just a false excuse for them to spend more of our money than they would otherwise have (embezzlement, another characteristic of pyramid schemes).

But I find your general position to be in conflict with your last post:They are receiving money from the public via the state, that others have earned recently. You'll have to incorporate that (your position) into your argument that it's not welfare.

By the way, I'm not going to defend Bush on the charge of embezzling SS, but it's more like "idiots such as [whoever set the trend, possibly FDR]." I see Bush simply as the better alternative to Gore or Kerry; we need a responsible, small-government conservative again (although I'm not sure who the last one was - possibly Reagan).

Picky

And no, I meant Luigi, the one trying to mediate SS for conservatives and liberals.

Pragmatist

There is no doubt that I agree the beurocracy has misused the funds on many occasions but until you find an alternative, or fix it such that these abuses don't take place, you cannot scrap it.

There is nothing conflicting in my previous posts and I thought I made it perfectly clear that the funds paid out today come from the working class of today and that it goes to the working class of yesterday. That in no way negates from the fact that those recieving that money earned it, it is not welfare.

Fine, find em and fix it. Just don't think you can dismantle SS and fuck all those who have paid into it without a logical alternnative that does not include "fuck you, it ain't my problem".

Picky

Do those dependent on Social(ist) Security ever receive more than they put in, particularly by dishonest means? I don't have the answer because I haven't done the study, but I leave the question open for anyone who knows. If they have (dishonestly or not), then it is welfare, and, if they have dishonestly, it's something worse like easily manipulated welfare. But anyway, I'm glad that we've agreed that it's a drain on the system and needs to be fixed ASAP. I suspect it to be (part of) the cause of the Second Great Depression; here's hoping we fix this one without WWIII or another drain on the system.

For the record, that's not my philosophy; I just don't believe the government will ever produce an effective solution. I think poverty is several private problems, only to be solved by several private solutions (charities).