[saab95]

....at expanding the Welfare State

How much is that deficit to be?

[Millennium]

A sad state of affairs, indeed. I long for the days when people actually followed the ideology they professed to follow, whether it be an established political party or (preferably) their own personal platforms.

Think about it. When was the last time we had a President that consistently stuck to his platform? Dubya sure isn't doing it. Neither did Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan,. Any further back hits administrations that I'm too young to remember (or ended before I was born), so I don't feel right commenting, but I'd be surprised if we've had one since the Great Depression, if even before then.

[thunderous_funker]

I think one must differentiate between the public platform and the private platform.

They tell the public what they think the public wants to hear to get elected, but then they do what's best for the party and the party's financial supporters once they are in office.

I am convinced the administration knows exactly what they are doing with the budget. They fully and consciously intend to bankupt the Fed so that they can finally argue for aboloshing all the programs they could never convince the public to give up: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

They will leave voters with no choice but to abandon the very programs that created a stable society.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think one must differentiate between the public platform and the private platform.

They tell the public what they think the public wants to hear to get elected, but then they do what's best for the party and the party's financial supporters once they are in office.[/quote]
And that's exactly the problem: there shouldn't be a 'private platform'.

They will leave voters with no choice but to abandon the very programs that created a stable society.

To give these programs credit for 'creating a stable society' is going just a little overboard, don't you think? Though they've certainly made their contributions, a stable society existed long before them, and will continue to exist long after.

But if they're unsustainable, then they're unsustainable. I don't think these guys are deliberately trying to bankrupt the government; I believe that bankruptcy is an inevitable consequence of the mismanagement of these programs up to this date, to the point where frankly they are past the point of repair. The only way out is to totally scrap them; perhaps with better-managed replacements, but I doubt that would be a politically popular move.

Then again, this is a common kind of trick for both sides to play. Everyone in politics knows that when it's time to cut the budget, you always cut the essentials first, because you know that next year you can get the money back for those while still keeping the junk.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[B]I am convinced the administration knows exactly what they are doing with the budget. They fully and consciously intend to bankupt the Fed so that they can finally argue for aboloshing all the programs they could never convince the public to give up: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Damn. There's some doom and gloom... And we the people will just sit back and let them do it? I certainly hope not.

[thunderous_funker]

Those programs created the middle class. I credit the emergence of America's huge middle class as the primary reason we didn't have to endure the massive class warfare that spread across half the globe in the last 80 years.

America's military didn't stop communism, America's prosperity did.

And it isn't government mismanagement that makes SS unsustainable. Its the simple fact that the private sector externalized all its costs onto the government. When's the last time you had a job that offered a pension? How about your father or mother?

Increased reliance on SS tracks identically with the disappearance of private pensions.

Medicare and Medicaid continue to operate with less than half of the overhead of most private healthcare providers, despite skyrocketing costs.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I don't think these guys are deliberately trying to bankrupt the government; I believe that bankruptcy is an inevitable consequence of the mismanagement of these programs up to this date, to the point where frankly they are past the point of repair. The only way out is to totally scrap them; perhaps with better-managed replacements, but I doubt that would be a politically popular move.

I am not sure you're really paying attention. I don't think the events that led up to the Depression indicated a stable society see.

So should we scrap everything? Or just programs that attempt to help the poor, sick and elderly? Let's stop farm susidies for huge Agri-business and savings and load bailouts while we're at it though.

That the programs have been mismanaged is likely but debatable. What progams have not been mismanaged? The Defense Department is still going strong do you thinkg that is managed better? It looks very likely that the CIA is mismanaged. It is a well known fact that the FBI was/is mismanaged. Yet no one wants to scrap them.

The reason we think it might be ok to scrap social programs is because it is OK to say that. See no poor kids are going to jump our case for saying that. They don't have computers. They can't get into our gated communities.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
America's military didn't stop communism, America's prosperity did.

What actually stopped communism was MASSIVE corruption.

Sound familiar?

The costs of the private sector have all been absorbed by the people. Yet the people still have to pay for the products.

Example: Texas Rangers baseball stadium. Who paid for it? Not the Texas Rangers. So why should the public have to buy tickets to a stadium that they paid for?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I don't think these guys are deliberately trying to bankrupt the government;

If they're not trying to clean out the register, what exactly are they trying to do? It's pretty well established that Bush touts tax cuts as a panacea for every social condition. Surplus in the Treasury? Give it back with tax cuts. Climbing deficits? Tax cuts. Stagnant economic growth? Tax cuts. Jobs disappearing? Entitlement programs circling the bowl? Tax cuts.

I literally don't see any other explanation for this administration's bizarre single-mindedness on this issue, unless they really believe that crippling the government will somehow usher in a new Golden Age of Prosperity.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I am convinced the administration knows exactly what they are doing with the budget. They fully and consciously intend to bankupt the Fed so that they can finally argue for aboloshing all the programs they could never convince the public to give up: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

They will leave voters with no choice but to abandon the very programs that created a stable society.

Jeez, enough with the conspiracy theories.

Social Security will bankrupt itself. Why? Because the baby boomers are living to ripe ages and there are not enough of us (Gen X and younger) to pay for their retirement. Simple economics of supply vs. demand.

Bush has the right idea of using SS by investing it. Unfortunately the stock market is just too unstable for longterm investments, at least at my age (29). Regardless I'd rather invest in my own social security rather than having some grandma dumping it at the local casino.

All the programs that which you speak of are no longer needed. They haven't been needed since the 60's.

I say abolish them. Let me invest my own money where I see fit.

It's too bad that you'll never own a house living out in La-La land. Houses are about the best investment one can have. Your political system out there however has basically eliminated affordable housing.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
What actually stopped communism was MASSIVE corruption.

Sound familiar?

I meant what stopped communism from taking a real hold on America. It wasn't our guns that stopped commies from taking over America, it was the fact that enough Americans were doing pretty damn well and felt like they had real opportunity and a Safety Net to protect them in their old age.

If Americans had been in the same financial straights as, say, Brazil, we'd have converted to communism in a second.

Prosperity and the huge middle class are also what preventing the 60's counter-culture from over-throwing the system. Not enough Americans felt there was a problem requiring a revolution.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Jeez, enough with the conspiracy theories.

Social Security will bankrupt itself. Why? Because the baby boomers are living to ripe ages and there are not enough of us (Gen X and younger) to pay for their retirement. Simple economics of supply vs. demand.

Bush has the right idea of using SS by investing it. Unfortunately the stock market is just too unstable for longterm investments, at least at my age (29). Regardless I'd rather invest in my own social security rather than having some grandma dumping it at the local casino.

All the programs that which you speak of are no longer needed. They haven't been needed since the 60's.

I say abolish them. Let me invest my own money where I see fit.

It's too bad that you'll never own a house living out in La-La land. Houses are about the best investment one can have. Your political system out there however has basically eliminated affordable housing.

Its not simple supply and demand. In fact, nothing is simple supply and demand. Supply and demand calculations are infinitely complex.

But if you want to make it simple:

Demand on Social Security for retirement income increased as supply of private pensions decreased. As more and more companies did away with private pensions, people started relying entirely on Social Security.

My dad worked for the government for 30 years. He's now 74. He has a pathetic government pension. That pension promise was the main reason he stuck it out for 30 years. He grew up in the depression, he can't spell "stock market" nor would he invest in it if he could. He's doesn't know the first thing about IRAs. In fact, neither do I and I have one.

Putting $100 bucks in a savings account every paycheck will never secure a retirement because it will never increase to match basic inflation let alone heathcare inflation.

For decades, working families who didn't have other options put their trust in Social Security to provide for them when they retired.

Medicare and Medicaid are garunteed insurance. Your disdain for the program suggests you don't have anyone in the family on dialysis. For millions, government garaunteed insurance is the only insurance they can get.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Prosperity and the huge middle class are also what preventing the 60's counter-culture from over-throwing the system. Not enough Americans felt there was a problem requiring a revolution.

ha.

Thats funny. The counter-culture never had the clout you'd like to envision it having.

Once you get older you'll understand.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
ha.

Thats funny. The counter-culture never had the clout you'd like to envision it having.

Once you get older you'll understand.

And why didn't they have any clout?

Because not enough people in the country agreed with them.

And why didn't enough people in the country agree with them that we needed a revolution?

Because most people in the country felt like they were doing pretty well despite some lingering social issues like civil rights.

Thanks for supporting my point.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by GG Allin:

Example: Texas Rangers baseball stadium. Who paid for it? Not the Texas Rangers. So why should the public have to buy tickets to a stadium that they paid for?

That's not a reasonable example - I own shares of stock in Coca-cola, but I still pay for my soda!!! LOL, I wish it worked this way though! I'd buy stock in Apple!

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I meant what stopped communism from taking a real hold on America. It wasn't our guns that stopped commies from taking over America...

Oh I see what your saying.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
I say abolish them. Let me invest my own money where I see fit.

Yeah you do that. But don't come crying to the government when all the money you've invested has been stolen by corporations and stock brokers. And you've been fired from your job and you can't pay your mortgage.

Depending on when you bought your house you may soon find yourself upside down on your home mortgage if the housing market slides. Your home may be worth less in the future. Smug confidence is a warning sign.

Just like riding a motorcycle. If you're not scared your stupid or crazy.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Medicare and Medicaid are garunteed insurance. Your disdain for the program suggests you don't have anyone in the family on dialysis. For millions, government garaunteed insurance is the only insurance they can get.

Nothing in life is guaranteed.

What applied 30 years ago, no longer applies.

With modern medicine people are living longer than they damn well should.

Life styles will have to catch up with modern medicine.

That means healthier life styles so those who wish to live to ripe ages can do so without relying on the government to take care of them.

My grandmother is on dialysis. I'm trully glad that she is still with us when even 10 years ago she would be dead because of her health related issues. Problem is that all her life she smoked. The doctors have all stated that those years of smoking and inactivity (she retired too young) greatly disminished her health. My grampa however is going strong still working 2-3 days a week for the Parks department. He still has to visit the doctor but he is in no way the same drain on the system as my grandmother is. Reason: He takes better care of himself. He quit smoking after WWII, never drank and gets plenty of exercise.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
That's not a reasonable example - I own shares of stock in Coca-cola, but I still pay for my soda!!! LOL, I wish it worked this way though! I'd buy stock in Apple!

I am simplifying.

It works the same with Coca-Cola. It is publicly owned as are most large corporations. Yet do you you have any say in how Coca-Cola operates? Absolutely not. Yet you own part of it. They take your money and do what the wish. Then in return they make you feel special by giving you a little money back if you are lucky.

Public ownership / Private control

You subsidize it / CEO's and mega shareholders keep the profits.

Very clever mind control.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

For decades, working families who didn't have other options put their trust in Social Security to provide for them when they retired.

Medicare and Medicaid are garunteed insurance. Your disdain for the program suggests you don't have anyone in the family on dialysis. For millions, government garaunteed insurance is the only insurance they can get.

This is ESPECIALLY true.... Many people do not get the "hot start" to life that some of us do.... you know, a college education, a 40k per year job at the age of 22 (with full benefits including a 401k). Some people struggle for awhile and don't hit their stride right away.... Don't get me wrong, I'm all for personal accountability. But TF is right... once you know someone that needs this 'insurance' and it's life or death... you change your tune real quick...

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
My grampa however is going strong still working 2-3 days a week for the Parks department.

Privatize the parks department and fire that miserable worn-out grandpa is what I say!

Ha your grandpa is supported by the state and you bitch about government.

Oh wait I see that you are a Libertarian. Ah ok that helps. You're problem is that you think that government is bad but corporations are ok. So... what is the government? Isn't the government supposed to be of the people and for the people? So the government is actually you and I. But you want to weaken the government. So what takes it's place? Private industry. Corporations. So you think that lots of little private tyrannies is better than a large Democracy. I say anarchy is better.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
I am simplifying.

It works the same with Coca-Cola. It is publicly owned as are most large corporations. Yet do you you have any say in how Coca-Cola operates? Absolutely not. Yet you own part of it. They take your money and do what the wish. Then in return they make you feel special by giving you a little money back if you are lucky.

Public ownership / Private control

You subsidize it / CEO's and mega shareholders keep the profits.

Very clever mind control.

You continue to simplify... It's more complicated than that... I understand your point, but let's look at the motives of the "private control" - Their inflated salaries are still miniscule to the amount they stand to lose/gain by the performance of the stock. Basically, all these "private control" guys have a bunch of shares in their company (Coca-cola in this example). If they mis-manage the company, the stock will plummet, and they will lose fortunes... it is in their best interests to keep the common investor (or sucker, as you would put it) happy... not because they care about you, but because they want there to be more buyers (suckers) than seller (those than have seen the light).

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Nothing in life is guaranteed.

What applied 30 years ago, no longer applies.

With modern medicine people are living longer than they damn well should.

Life styles will have to catch up with modern medicine.

That means healthier life styles so those who wish to live to ripe ages can do so without relying on the government to take care of them.

My grandmother is on dialysis. I'm trully glad that she is still with us when even 10 years ago she would be dead because of her health related issues. Problem is that all her life she smoked. The doctors have all stated that those years of smoking and inactivity (she retired too young) greatly disminished her health. My grampa however is going strong still working 2-3 days a week for the Parks department. He still has to visit the doctor but he is in no way the same drain on the system as my grandmother is. Reason: He takes better care of himself. He quit smoking after WWII, never drank and gets plenty of exercise.

So your grandmother doesn't deserve to live? What are you an insurance actuary?

Well, the reason the government got into the insurance business in the first place was to cover the people who a) couldn't qualify for insurance otherwise (like people with severe kidney disease); b) those who couldn't pay for insurance.

If you want to argue those people don't deserve medical treatment, go right ahead. I'm more than happy to contribute from my paychecks to provide that Safety Net. Who knows, someday I might need the same help despite my best efforts as securing my own retirement for myself.

PS. My uncle who has never smoked, never drank and was a model of healthy eating and regular exercise for 78 years was just diagnosed with leukemia last week. His insurance promptly dropped him.

Yep. Nothing in life is garaunteed. That's why every rich society on earth provides for the poor and elderly who can't do for themself. We consider it a very very basic measure of our humanity.

[Millennium]

Medicare and Medicaid are garunteed insurance. Your disdain for the program suggests you don't have anyone in the family on dialysis. For millions, government garaunteed insurance is the only insurance they can get.

I am not arguing that these are not nice things to have. But if they cannot be sustained, then they cannot be sustained, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Shall we take more from people who don't use it to pay for those who do? Fine, but even then, costs will only continue to increase, until eventually you're taking away 100% of people's income and it's still not enough to pay for everyone. That's the situation we're very quickly approaching: as the Baby Boomers start to retire, we're going to get to a point where more people are drawing out than paying in. What will we do then?

Besides, nice though they may be, I ask: why should anyone be entitled to such a thing? I don't doubt that I would very much like to have such a thing should anyone in my family require it -and that day may very well come, given the health of some of my family members- but why exactly should I be entitled to such a thing?

I am somewhat playing Devil's Advocate here; I would very much like to see these programs -or some better-managed replacement- continue. But I have never been able to answer this question: why are people entitled to this? As far as I can tell, there is no reason.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Yep. Nothing in life is garaunteed. That's why every rich society on earth provides for the poor and elderly who can't do for themself. We consider it a very very basic measure of our humanity.

So you're a proponent for bankrupting the system with socialized healthcare. I hope you're willing to pay for it out your already miniscule paycheck. You forget who pays for half of your social security now. Your employer. Do want a job next week? Do you care whether you have to double the work because your employer cannot afford to hire anyone else?

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So you're a proponent for bankrupting the system with socialized healthcare. I hope you're willing to pay for it out your already miniscule paycheck. You forget who pays for half of your social security now. Your employer. Do want a job next week? Do you care whether you have to double the work because your employer cannot afford to hire anyone else?

Evan_11 - What is your solution then?? It's easy to be in your twenties or thirties and pay out a few bucks for health insurance, but when you get to be in your sixties and seventies, health insurance costs a fortune! What do we do about this?? Before you respond, keep in mind that you will be that old someday, and health insurance premiums will be even more outageous.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
I am simplifying.

It works the same with Coca-Cola. It is publicly owned as are most large corporations. Yet do you you have any say in how Coca-Cola operates? Absolutely not.

Words spoken by a man who owns no stock whatsoever.

I just got my annual reports and proxies. I voted for the direction I wished the company to take, and if I really wanted it to take a direction not under consideration, I could have put forward forth a stockholder's initiative or proposal, which would have been voted on proxies and at the stockholder's meeting.

You absolutely DO have a say as an owner, you simply have to exercise it.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So you're a proponent for bankrupting the system with socialized healthcare. I hope you're willing to pay for it out your already miniscule paycheck. You forget who pays for half of your social security now. Your employer. Do want a job next week? Do you care whether you have to double the work because your employer cannot afford to hire anyone else?

No. I'm in favor of balancing the budget without throwing the poor and elderly out into the cold.

Not all presidents are as incompetent with money as Dubya.

If you want to have the healthcare debate, dig up the "single payer system" debate thread we had a while back. That covered most of the bases.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Words spoken by a man who owns no stock whatsoever.

You absolutely DO have a say as an owner, you simply have to exercise it. [/B]

I do own individual stocks and mutual funds.

I have no illusions that I control any of the companies that I am part owner of.

As a small shareholder go tell Coca-Cola to stop using public water supplies in developing countries to then turn around and sell that water back to them with "value-added" sugar in it. Tell them to stop clear-cutting forest to build on. See how far you get.

Wise up.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
No. I'm in favor of balancing the budget without throwing the poor and elderly out into the cold.

And you're certain that this can be done in a way which is sustainable in the long term? How would you suggest we do it?

Or rather, do you think we can do it in a manner which is truly fair to all people, including those who never end up needing it? If this cannot be done, then is it worth doing?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
I do own individual stocks and mutual funds.

I have no illusions that I control any of the companies that I am part owner of.

As a small shareholder go tell Coca-Cola to stop using public water supplies in developing countries to then turn around and sell that water back to them with "value-added" sugar in it. Tell them to stop clear-cutting forest to build on. See how far you get.

Wise up.

Again, I call shenanigans.

You really want them to do those things, collect a majority of shareholders who agree with you, introduce a stockholder proposal, and hold the vote on it. Stockholder proposals regularly get introduced, and do succeed. If you can't get enough fellow stockholders behind you, then too darn bad. But don't for a moment believe that stockholders can't effect change- they absolutely can.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I am not arguing that these are not nice things to have. But if they cannot be sustained, then they cannot be sustained, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Shall we take more from people who don't use it to pay for those who do? Fine, but even then, costs will only continue to increase, until eventually you're taking away 100% of people's income and it's still not enough to pay for everyone. That's the situation we're very quickly approaching: as the Baby Boomers start to retire, we're going to get to a point where more people are drawing out than paying in. What will we do then?

Besides, nice though they may be, I ask: why should anyone be entitled to such a thing? I don't doubt that I would very much like to have such a thing should anyone in my family require it -and that day may very well come, given the health of some of my family members- but why exactly should I be entitled to such a thing?

I am somewhat playing Devil's Advocate here; I would very much like to see these programs -or some better-managed replacement- continue. But I have never been able to answer this question: why are people entitled to this? As far as I can tell, there is no reason.

First of all, I take issue with the assertion that these programs are inherently unsustainable. IMO, there are solutions to the problems that are putting these programs in peril.

I don't believe we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Specifically, Bush's proposal to let people opt out of SS is mind-bogglingly short-sighted. If the fund is in peril of being bankrupt in 10 years because the payer/payee ratio is out of whack, how exactly is significantly reducing the number of payers going to fix that? That would bankrupt it in 5 rather than 10 years.

The unavoidable fact is that we have to adopt a 50 year solution, not "buy some votes for this november" solution.

Even ending the system (which I think is unnecessary) has to be on a 50 year timeline. Why? Because you can't take away the only pension that tens of millions of AMericans are paying into on short notice. They don't have time to do something else.

A transition away from SS would have to say that everyone who has paid in for 10 years or less can move funds out and not pay in any more, but everyone else has pretty much got to stick with it.

I'm pulling those numbers out of my ass. It would take math skillz well beyond my whiz to figure out exactly where the cut-off would need to be or how much to reduce continued payments or recuce payouts, etc for an effective transition that wouldn't simply abandon a massive chunk of Americans.

I'll never get SS, I don't believe. But I'm willing to continue to pay it because I know it is the only thing that supports millions of Americans who have no other form of retirement investment to rely on. That's not because they are stupid, lazy, incompetent or parasites. Its because they operated in an environment that didn't offer legitimate alternatives.

I'm not counting on SS to be there for myself, but I recognize that someone set to retire in 2015 probably didn't have the same choices I do.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
You continue to simplify... Their inflated salaries are still miniscule to the amount they stand to lose/gain by the performance of the stock. Basically, all these "private control" guys have a bunch of shares in their company (Coca-cola in this example). If they mis-manage the company, the stock will plummet, and they will lose fortunes...

If I didn't simplify these thread would be unreadable.

Yes and no. if they mis-manage the company the stocks MAY DIP until they find the next mis-manager. haha Or they may employ deceptive accounting procedures to hide the fact that the company is mis-managed. Also the shares they own may be controlling shares so they have full control of the company in one way or another. They know when to sell them. You don't. Do you think Martha Stewart is the only insider trader?

Sadly as an owner of Coca-Cola stock you are an owner of a company that is raping the world to make you a few bucks. You are in fact living on the misery and mistreatment of people all over the world. This is not sustainable not to mention immoral and unethical.

Sorry.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
If they're not trying to clean out the register, what exactly are they trying to do?

I used to believe in the "starve the beast" theory of Republican overspending/cutting taxes. Not any more. What they're trying to do is very simple, IMO: get re-elected. Cutting taxes is the easiest thing in the world, politically. Everyone loves it. But if you do that, you really should cut spending too, right? But that could be as politically dangerous as raising taxes. So instead, you raise spending!

But that would be wrong, because common sense suggests that you'd get deficits, debt, higher interest payments, and a depressed economy. So what do you do? You come up with a theory, called supply-side economics or the Laffer curve, and you say that it's actually economically sound to cut taxes and raise spending! Why, because as if by magic, you won't incur deficits! It's politically brilliant! And the Republicans have been doing it as far back as I can remember.

It's pure, crass, political expediency. I really don't think there's any long-term political strategy to cut gov't funding. If that was the case, why wouldn't they cut gov't in the present? Nope, it's just about doing what's politically popular, damn the long-term consequences.

I think maybe, just maybe, with all the clear evidence over the years now, people will reject it. But it's just so good to get them tax cuts and those extra bennies from the guv, that I'm really not sure.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Again, I call shenanigans.

You really want them to do those things, collect a majority of shareholders who agree with you, introduce a stockholder proposal, and hold the vote on it. Stockholder proposals regularly get introduced, and do succeed. If you can't get enough fellow stockholders behind you, then too darn bad. But don't for a moment believe that stockholders can't effect change- they absolutely can.

Fair enough and this does indeed happen. But I think you see my point. And these actions take a massive ammount of pressure to have any affect. They have historically had little affect regarding social problems because you can't get enough shareholders to risk losing a little money in the short-term. Comes down to fear. The more you have the more you have to lose. I have no way of knowing what the day-to-day decisions of those companies are. Even large shareholders are largely in the dark and very much at the mercy of the management.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I used to believe in the "starve the beast" theory of Republican overspending/cutting taxes. Not any more. What they're trying to do is very simple, IMO: get re-elected.

The contol of the country no longer lies in the hands of public servants (politicians.) It doesn't matter who gets elected sometimes. The same people fund both parties and candidates.

Control is firmly in the hands of industry. Government is becoming irrelevant. The people are becoming irrelevant. Globalization is creating corporations that are not accountable to anyone and the plan is clear. The corporate plan is to pillage the world just as any ancient army did.

Look at Cargill and Monsanto.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Fair enough and this does indeed happen. But I think you see my point. And these actions take a massive ammount of pressure to have any affect. They have historically had little affect regarding social problems because you can't get enough shareholders to risk losing a little money in the short-term. Comes down to fear. The more you have the more you have to lose. I have no way of knowing what the day-to-day decisions of those companies are. Even large shareholders are largely in the dark and very much at the mercy of the management.

And tommorrow you may get hit by a car... you never know... you can't live your life in fear.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The unavoidable fact is that we have to adopt a 50 year solution, not "buy some votes for this november" solution.

Even ending the system (which I think is unnecessary) has to be on a 50 year timeline. Why? Because you can't take away the only pension that tens of millions of AMericans are paying into on short notice. They don't have time to do something else.

A transition away from SS would have to say that everyone who has paid in for 10 years or less can move funds out and not pay in any more, but everyone else has pretty much got to stick with it.

I'm pulling those numbers out of my ass. It would take math skillz well beyond my whiz to figure out exactly where the cut-off would need to be or how much to reduce continued payments or recuce payouts, etc for an effective transition that wouldn't simply abandon a massive chunk of Americans.

I agree, the only way to end the programs (as I wish they would) would be to designate an end-of-life cutoff for them.

I'll never get SS, I don't believe. But I'm willing to continue to pay it because I know it is the only thing that supports millions of Americans who have no other form of retirement investment to rely on. That's not because they are stupid, lazy, incompetent or parasites. Its because they operated in an environment that didn't offer legitimate alternatives.

I'm not counting on SS to be there for myself, but I recognize that someone set to retire in 2015 probably didn't have the same choices I do.

Here I strongly disagree, as well as with your earlier remarks about the government safety net creating the middle-class. I find no honor nor do I take pride in contributing my hard earned money towards broken programs run by dishonest politicians jockeying for power. I don't have any particular problem with unemployment assistance or healthcare for the poor and elderly, but I do have a problem with it on the federal level. Our federal social programs are constantly in a state of flux, being overhuled and redesigned under the guise of improved care or service, but what they really do is line the pockets of the rich and powerful. Keep these things more focused on the state level where it's a bit easier to have rigid cost controls and oversight, and I'd feel better about it.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by The Mick:
Here I strongly disagree, as well as with your earlier remarks about the government safety net creating the middle-class. I find no honor nor do I take pride in contributing my hard earned money towards broken programs run by dishonest politicians jockeying for power. I don't have any particular problem with unemployment assistance or healthcare for the poor and elderly, but I do have a problem with it on the federal level. Our federal social programs are constantly in a state of flux, being overhuled and redesigned under the guise of improved care or service, but what they really do is line the pockets of the rich and powerful. Keep these things more focused on the state level where it's a bit easier to have rigid cost controls and oversight, and I'd feel better about it.

Evidence suggests that medicare operates considerably more effeciently than most HMO's. It has much much lower overhead and I think you'd find that most seniors who rely on it find it no more messy or inscrutible than private insurance.

Other than the propensity for Congress to raid the Social Security fund from time to time, I'm sure I understand your cynicism there either.

IMO, only a federal system could hope to be equitable. They balance the mississippi delta with Malibu. I don't think isolated state agencies could hope to provide equitable protection.

I'm also curious why you think State government is easier to regulate and oversee than Federal government. Participation in state government is probably even more spotty than participation in national government. Most people I know have no idea who their state officers are or even their state legislators.

And Media coverage of state politics is even more pathetic than national coverage. I don't know about your local news, but mine alternates between looking like an episode of COPS and an episode of Entertainment Tonight. Newspapers still try, but readerships are at all time lows.

It also seems to be that the idea that State government is somehow more insulated against corrupton than federal government to be largely unfounded. Not only do I know of more state scandals than federal scandals, but history would indicate that the persistent trend of moving power to the federal authority from the state is direct response to the problems of rampant local corruption.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by The Mick:
Keep these things more focused on the state level where it's a bit easier to have rigid cost controls and oversight, and I'd feel better about it.

State programs as T_F has said have just as poor a track record as federal programs. It would be a fun experiment but I'm afraid it would lead to huge problems.

What if there were regional governments? Maybe we could let the south try to secede again?

Why is it that the military and defense are exempt from this discussion? What about the Dept. Of Homeland Security? EPA? National Parks.These are programs that would cease to exist without federal dollars and control. Nothing makes one program inherently better run than others.

Of course if you got rid of ALL the programs maybe you'd have something there. The states rights argument is a smokscreen.

[theolein]

Some time last year a well known company here near to where I live in Switzerland, Gretag, makers of high end printing and imaging technology, went out of business. Switzerland is a very capitalistic country and loads of people own stocks and shares in various companies, especially in the Banks (what else, it's switzerland) and things like Swissair, the airline that went bankrupt in 2001.

In fact, shareholder meetings of the UBS (biggest Bank, part of UBS Warburg) used to get more attention in the press than sports or politics. That's how seriously it got taken.

Since 2001, things have taken a heavy nosedive here, with the Banks making billions in losses last year, well known companies such as Gretag (Known in the states as well) and Swissair going belly up.

I remember the enormous difference between the atmosphere of UBS shareholder meetings in the mid 90's and the long drawn tense faces at the recent shareholder meetings where the companies were announcing their insolvency. A lot of those people had lost everything, having stuffed most of their cash into big companies that were supposedly rock solid.

Same happened with Enron and Worldcom, and yet I still see people like vmarks claiming that they can make a difference, as if the companies aren't just as vulnerable to market trends as anything else is.

I think that radicals, such as Evan_11 need to grow up personally, as they obviously have no idea of some of the hardships that life can deliver, whether they were nice clean living individuals or perverted pigs. Life itself doesn't care. My best friend died of cancer at the age of 26, he didn't smoke and didn't drink much either. My Father died in a car accident when he was 42, and his smoking and drinking didn't have much influence on that. My mother's later boyfriend died of cancer at the age of 50, although he didn't smoke or drink.

I see this sometimes as a kind of thin red line of continuity when I look at the attitudes of the hard-a$$ brigade, who think that they should never show pity for people who are worse off than them and think it's those people's own fault. What happens to them when they land in a pile of life's manure is then very interesting to watch...

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by theolein:

And bailouts like the airlines here in the US are bailed out to save large shareholders. The public pays the bill for mismanagement and that money goes directly to the wealthy.

Public ownership = Private profits + Private Irresponsibility = Public debt

Corporations are above the law. Where is Simey? What was the law that gave corporations the rights of a citizen?

[vmarks]

And corporate bailouts arguably shouldn't happen from a conservative point of view-

If a company can't make it on their own, it isn't the government's job to use the citizens' money to help them limp along.

The only reason you could possibly set up is for the government to buy stock in a company and get some kind of return on their investment- as it is, we just surrender the money because -- omigosh-- it's a crucial transportation system that we need to have!

-- Nevermind that when John Gilmore contests that he should be able to travel with his privacy assured, the government tells him that he doesn't need to fly, he can drive or walk. --

[mr. natural]

Posted by GG Allin:
Corporations are above the law. Where is Simey? What was the law that gave corporations the rights of a citizen?

If truth be know, there was no such "law" that gave corporations the rights of a citizen. There were, however, many Supreme Court decisions handed down which lent legal precedent to this patently absurd notion, based entirely on a misbegotten non-binding statement from the SC bench in 1886 prior to handing down a legally binding decision entitled: "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad," or "Santa Clara" for short; and this first known Supreme Court decision that actually cites Santa Clara, and affirms this misbegotten distinction upon corporations and their personhood under the 14th amendment, is the following one. (I've copied & pasted here the first three paragraphs, and, unlike a lot of other supreme court decisions, this one is an easy and astounding story.)

Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 (1889)

"This case comes before us from the circuit court of Kossuth county, Iowa, the highest court of that state in which the controversy between the parties could be determined. Rev. St. 709. It was an action for the value of three hogs run over and killed by the engine and cars of the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company, a corporation existing under the laws of Minnesota and Iowa, and operating a railroad in the latter state. The killing was at a point where the defendant had the right to fence its road. The action was brought before a justice of the peace of Kossuth county. Proof having been made of the killing of the animals, and of their value, and that notice of the fact, with affidavit of the injury, had been served upon an officer of the company in the county where the injury was committed more than 30 days before the commencement of the action, the justice gave judgment for the plaintiff against the company for $24, double the proved value of the animals. The case was then removed to the circuit court of Kossuth county, where the judgment was affirmed. To review this latter judgment the case is brought here on writ of error.

"The judgment rendered by the justice was authorized by section 1289 of the Code of Iowa, which is as follows: 'Any corporation operating a railway that fails to fence the same against live stock running at large at all points where such right to fence exists shall be liable to the owner of any such stock injured or killed by reason of the want of such fence [129 U.S. 26, 28] _ for the value of the property or damage caused, unless the same was occasioned by the willful act of the owner or his agent; and in order to recover, it shall only be necessary for the owner to prove the injury or destruction of his property; and if such corporation neglects to pay he value of or damage done to such stock within thirty days after notice in writing, accompanied by an affidavit of such injury or destruction, has been served on any officer, station or ticket agent employed in the management of the business of the corporation in the county where the injury complained of was committed, such owner shall be entitled to recover double the value of the stock killed or damages caused thereto.' The validity of this law was assailed in the state court, and is assailed here, as being in conflict with the first section of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, in that it deprives the railway company of property without due process of law, so far as it allows a recovery of double the value of the animals killed by its trains; and in that it denies to the company the equal protection of the laws by subjecting it to a different liability for injuries committed by it from that to which all other persons are subjected.

"It is contended by counsel as the basis of his argument, and we admit the soundness of his position, that corporations are persons within the meaning of the clause in question. It was so held in Santa Clara Co. v. Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396 , 6 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132, and the doctrine was reasserted in Mining Co. v. Penusylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 189 , 8 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 737. We admit also, as contended by him, that corporations can invoke the benefits of provisions of the constitution and laws which guaranty to persons the enjoyment of property, or afford to them the means for its protection, or prohibit legislation injuriously affecting it."


So, here we have a case before the Supreme Court in which a Railroad Co. is arguing against paying $24 for three hogs that were run over by the railroad company's train.

What the fack!? It probably cost the Railroad thousands of dollars just in legal fees to argue this BS! You have got to be kidding me! But NOOOOooooo, here it is in all it's utterly insane glory!

The 14th Amendment was written just after the bloodiest conflict in history (over 650,000 humans) to secure the equal protection of the newly freed men, women, and children of slavery, and yet, here it is being used to defend a corporation against paying an extra $12!!!!!!!!!! WOW!

F*cking unbelievable!

Of course, that wasn't the real reason, it was just part & parcel of the ongoing business as usual ploy to keep pressing the issue of corporate personhood.

And here at last, the Supreme Court affirmed this monumental Constitutional distinction with a legally binding decision, based on the Santa Clara case, which said no such thing, and to top it off, over a $12 plate of ham!

Any novelist who thought this up would of been crazy, but, God Damn, this one really takes the cake when it comes to the truth is stranger than fiction department! No matter how you slice it, this is one amazing feat of cold legal calculus.

I'll leave it to Simey to explain how this is all perfectly legitimate and in keeping with the Constitution.

[vmarks]

This wasn't about 12 dollars. That was more than it is now, but still was small money in the face of real profits made by the railroad.

The danger to them here was two-fold.
One, it was that property could be taken from them without due process

and in order to recover, it shall only be necessary for the owner to prove the injury or destruction of his property; and if such corporation neglects to pay he value of or damage done to such stock within thirty days after notice in writing, accompanied by an affidavit of such injury or destruction, has been served on any officer, station or ticket agent employed in the management of the business of the corporation in the county where the injury complained of was committed, such owner shall be entitled to recover double the value of the stock killed or damages caused thereto.'

All the owner had to do was serve any lowly employee of the corporation and then take double the value of the damages. Without any officer of law or court governing such an award. Due process? Wha?

And two, being subject to different liability. Where else was a standard 'damages * 2' award applied?

Or do you think the words 'equal protection under law' shouldn't apply?

[mr. natural]

Posted by vmarks:

Or do you think the words 'equal protection under law' shouldn't apply?

Not with the 14th Amendment and a legal fiction known as a 'corporation.' Show me the word "corporation" in there.

All the owner had to do was serve any lowly employee of the corporation and then take double the value of the damages. Without any officer of law or court governing such an award. Due process? Wha?

The owner of the pigs followed the law, and after 30 days of non-payment the penalty was doubled. I don't know what your beef is.

As you note, 12 dollars may have been a lot of money back then, but worrying about the railroad's loss (who had a virtual monopoly on what they charged, and if you know any railroad history, they gouged everyone) as compared to the farmer's loss (who was probably dirt poor), just shows whose interests you're in league with.

Property rights my ass!

[vmarks]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Not with the 14th Amendment and a legal fiction known as a 'corporation.' Show me the word "corporation" in there.



The owner of the pigs followed the law, and after 30 days of non-payment the penalty was doubled. I don't know what your beef is.

As you note, 12 dollars may have been a lot of money back then, but worrying about the railroad's loss (who had a virtual monopoly on what they charged, and if you know any railroad history, they gouged everyone) as compared to the farmer's loss (who was probably dirt poor), just shows whose interests you're in league with.

Property rights my ass!

So apply this to any other business, not just railroads.

Company liability is double that of anyone else's, and awards can just be taken without a court of law? Proof of damage doesn't have to be shown in court, just to any cashier or night stockboy?

What would that do to small business? It'd kill it.

Property rights matter. Just because you love to beat up on corporations doesn't mean that they don't start out as small privately owned businesses owned by regular people.

See, the law is about equality and balance. You would balance it extremely in the favor of any person who could possibly claim damage-- inviting fraud. That's what I'm in league with, balance and rule of law. Property rights.

[mr. natural]

Get a grip, man. This pivotal and precedential case about the use of 14th Amendment (after some 650,000 lives were wasted and much more crippling and blood lost to win this human right over the property rights of slave owners) was used to overturn a $12 penalty of railroaded ham back in 1889!

County courthouses in Iowa were probably far and few from this poor farmer's doorstep. The local 'justice of the peace' was probably as close to a legally binding law enforcement personel as he could get to. As far as I know this law had nothing to do with singling out *companies.* Hell, the pig farmer's neighbor would of been subject to this fine doubling if he'd ran over the pigs with his horse drawn tractor and didn't pay up in 30 days.

Yet, the SC of the US takes on this ridiculous case, as persisted by the Railroad company and their legal eagles, not becasue they didn't want to pay, but becasue they were after an extension of the 14th Amendment toward corporate "personhood" -- and they got what they wanted.

Talk about judicial activism!

The laws of Iowa at the time may not have been fair, but if you don't like them, as conservatives are so fond of saying, change them by local referendum, not judicial edict; and especially not by hood-winking a blood soaked human right amendment purely for corporate gain!

Posted by vmarks:
See, the law is about equality and balance... Property rights.

Yeah, tell that to the pig farmer. He was a small business man too.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Evidence suggests that medicare operates considerably more effeciently than most HMO's. It has much much lower overhead and I think you'd find that most seniors who rely on it find it no more messy or inscrutible than private insurance.

Other than the propensity for Congress to raid the Social Security fund from time to time, I'm sure I understand your cynicism there either.

IMO, only a federal system could hope to be equitable. They balance the mississippi delta with Malibu. I don't think isolated state agencies could hope to provide equitable protection.

I'm also curious why you think State government is easier to regulate and oversee than Federal government. Participation in state government is probably even more spotty than participation in national government. Most people I know have no idea who their state officers are or even their state legislators.

And Media coverage of state politics is even more pathetic than national coverage. I don't know about your local news, but mine alternates between looking like an episode of COPS and an episode of Entertainment Tonight. Newspapers still try, but readerships are at all time lows.

It also seems to be that the idea that State government is somehow more insulated against corrupton than federal government to be largely unfounded. Not only do I know of more state scandals than federal scandals, but history would indicate that the persistent trend of moving power to the federal authority from the state is direct response to the problems of rampant local corruption.

You're contrasting the current state of affairs with my perceived ideal. IMHO, if state run programs were the ones that had a direct effect on people's well-being instead of a massive federal program, then they would pay those programs more attention, and the media would follow suit.

I never claimed that corruption would not occur at the state level, but I do think that government and/or private oversight of a program covering 4 million people (like here in CO) would be a bit easier versus one that covers 290 million. My vote and my voice on a particular issue are amplified if I am one of a million voters instead of one out of 100 million. Voter empowerment goes a long way in my book.

Again you return to the idea that the federal government's responsibility is to ensure equal protections, and with respect to legal protection that's true. But the federal government was never charged with ensuring equal retirement benefits or healthcare coverage in the Constitution. Perhaps some differentiation between the states could be a good thing. States could offer more social programs and protections to the working class and entice corporations or factories (what few we have left) to move to their state based on quality of life instead of shifty tax deals and kickbacks.

Your positions seem to be trending towards socialism and/or communism lately, e.g. removal of social classes as a result of balancing tax rates according to cost of living, the removal of property ownership, and nationwide equitable social programs. If that's your stance, it's cool, I just thought you were a bit more moderate than that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Not with the 14th Amendment and a legal fiction known as a 'corporation.' Show me the word "corporation" in there.

Here we go again. Do you realize that corporations long predated that supreme court opinion you like to rant on about? Corporations predate America. In fact, several of the American colonies were corporations. That's how they were legally founded.

That supreme court opinion only dealt with the interaction of corporations and the then-relatively new 14th Amendment. But it didn't make the sweeping changes you ascribe to it. The idea of corporate personhood was already in existance.