Youre not talking about the subsidies argument you made, are you?

 

Hey, heres my novel idea, no subsidies for anyone or anything. None! Because all it does is take our money, filter it through a bureaucracy then take whats left and dump it to whoever is politically connected enough. You wouldnt like that though, becomes someone needs to pay for your vocal chords and it sure as hell wont be you.

 

And even if I had to accept a world with subsidies I'd rather they go to food than your voice.

So in this no-subsidy, no-regulation world of yours, doctors and pharma companies should be able to charge whatever they want, right? And you expect them to keep prices reasonable out of the goodness of their hearts? Explain how this system would work.

Yea, I didnt mean who won it narrowly in some political racehorse. Over 40% of anyone making over $30k (which is on the low low end of middle class) still voted R despite pandering and promises of free s***. Id like to think they all share my philosophy, but I'd be delusionally hopeful.

So in this no-subsidy, no-regulation world of yours, doctors and pharma companies should be able to charge whatever they want, right? And you expect them to keep prices reasonable out of the goodness of their hearts? Explain how this system would work.

Ok, when I said "food" I was merely referring to it as an umbrella term for stuff we absolutely need to sustain life in reference to an example you gave. Changing your example does not effectively dodge my argument.

 

And yea, hmm I wonder if we stopped subsidizing Big Pharma and doing other fun little things to entrench their status as a state-endorsed oligopoly we might introduce a great cost limiting mechanism known as competition. I dont know, just a thought.

Ok, when I said "food" I was merely referring to it as an umbrella term for stuff we absolutely need to sustain life in reference to an example you gave. Changing your example does not effectively dodge my argument.

 

And yea, hmm I wonder if we stopped subsidizing Big Pharma and doing other fun little things to entrench their status as a state-endorsed oligopoly we might introduce a great cost limiting mechanism known as competition. I dont know, just a thought.

I didn't ask for a snarky hypothetical. Please explain how this system would work in your Utopia.

I didn't ask for a snarky hypothetical. Please explain how this system would work in your Utopia.

If you're going to get sassy and butthurt with me at least bother to write more than one line. Seriously, I gave you enough material to warrant an actual response. Unless you're done? Are you? I'd like to have had this settled and just go on to a blissful Soxtalk experience ignorant of your existence.

If you're going to get sassy and butthurt with me at least bother to write more than one line. Seriously, I gave you enough material to warrant an actual response. Unless you're done? Are you? I'd like to have had this settled and just go on to a blissful Soxtalk experience ignorant of your existence.

I'm just asking you to answer my original question. That's all. How would a subsidy and regulatipn-less society work? How would consumers be protected from exploitation?

I'm just asking you to answer my original question. That's all. How would a subsidy and regulatipn-less society work? How would consumers be protected from exploitation?

You seriously don't know what I'm going to say here? Really?

 

Yea I'm not stupid, you know my reply and probably have some big "gotcha" planned that I'll weasel out of and eventually this back-and-forth runs put of gas. All the while you get more posts and more pages between the last reply of this thread and that initial post I made that has pretty obviously made you feel uncomfortable. "Answer this simple question", "I asked you to answer my question", "WHY WONT YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION WAHHH", that kind of talk is the hallmark of someone trying to come about on something previously brought up because it scares the crap out of them.

 

You've deflected everything I've said that applies to you to other people or organizations. You want to be judged against them because you know you're a lot less fundamentally evil than Monsanto, Halliburton or Eli Lily. Congratulations, you are a lot less evil than they are. I don't think any single person save genocidal dictators is as evil as Big Pharma. You aren't off the hook though just exonerating yourself from that level of theft and murder those people engaging.

 

But I pretty openly challenged you to provide an ethical rationale for your leeching the system, and by extension, other people. No response. My tone in that post was pleading, it was intentionally desperate for you to either prove you can justify your frivolous healthcare expenses passed on to the general healthy public or (highly unlikely) snap out of this free-money induced coma you're in. What's it going to be? You want to keep engaging me? You want to talk? Well, make it f***ing interesting! If the best you can do is "explain to me a society without regulati-- zzzzzzz" then I'm just going to flat ignore you.

Edited November 25, 201312 yr by DukeNukeEm

The reason the wage earning "middle class" (is there one?) votes conservative is Jesus. The end. But that's another discussion.

 

And yes Balta is right, I think Duke meant lower class.

 

The Catholic and Jewish votes went to Obama.

You seriously don't know what I'm going to say here? Really?

 

Yea I'm not stupid, you know my reply and probably have some big "gotcha" planned that I'll weasel out of and eventually this back-and-forth runs put of gas. All the while you get more posts and more pages between the last reply of this thread and that initial post I made that has pretty obviously made you feel uncomfortable. "Answer this simple question", "I asked you to answer my question", "WHY WONT YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION WAHHH", that kind of talk is the hallmark of someone trying to come about on something previously brought up because it scares the crap out of them.

 

You've deflected everything I've said that applies to you to other people or organizations. You want to be judged against them because you know you're a lot less fundamentally evil than Monsanto, Halliburton or Eli Lily. Congratulations, you are a lot less evil than they are. I don't think any single person save genocidal dictators is as evil as Big Pharma. You aren't off the hook though just exonerating yourself from that level of theft and murder those people engaging.

 

But I pretty openly challenged you to provide an ethical rationale for your leeching the system, and by extension, other people. No response. My tone in that post was pleading, it was intentionally desperate for you to either prove you can justify your frivolous healthcare expenses passed on to the general healthy public or (highly unlikely) snap out of this free-money induced coma you're in. What's it going to be? You want to keep engaging me? You want to talk? Well, make it f***ing interesting! If the best you can do is "explain to me a society without regulati-- zzzzzzz" then I'm just going to flat ignore you.

 

I think you just posted why I haven't posted here in nearly a year.

The Catholic and Jewish votes went to Obama.

That's not who I was talking about and you know it

You seriously don't know what I'm going to say here? Really?

 

Yea I'm not stupid, you know my reply and probably have some big "gotcha" planned that I'll weasel out of and eventually this back-and-forth runs put of gas. All the while you get more posts and more pages between the last reply of this thread and that initial post I made that has pretty obviously made you feel uncomfortable. "Answer this simple question", "I asked you to answer my question", "WHY WONT YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION WAHHH", that kind of talk is the hallmark of someone trying to come about on something previously brought up because it scares the crap out of them.

 

You've deflected everything I've said that applies to you to other people or organizations. You want to be judged against them because you know you're a lot less fundamentally evil than Monsanto, Halliburton or Eli Lily. Congratulations, you are a lot less evil than they are. I don't think any single person save genocidal dictators is as evil as Big Pharma. You aren't off the hook though just exonerating yourself from that level of theft and murder those people engaging.

 

But I pretty openly challenged you to provide an ethical rationale for your leeching the system, and by extension, other people. No response. My tone in that post was pleading, it was intentionally desperate for you to either prove you can justify your frivolous healthcare expenses passed on to the general healthy public or (highly unlikely) snap out of this free-money induced coma you're in. What's it going to be? You want to keep engaging me? You want to talk? Well, make it f***ing interesting! If the best you can do is "explain to me a society without regulati-- zzzzzzz" then I'm just going to flat ignore you.

 

Oh, come on. Let's be honest. You just can't help yourself with me.

 

Ok, you want the answer to why I don't feel I'm leeching the system? Very simple as well.

 

1) I'm not going to get social security, so I might as well get something out of the gov't seeing as how I'm paying for the retirement of all the baby boomers but won't see a dime of it myself.

 

2) If/When I become successful - whether in acting or otherwise - I'll be putting my money back into the system. And being as I'm a good person, if I ever had ANY semblance of notoriety I would absolutely use that power to help other people where and when I could. Does this happen for everyone? No. But people like JK Rowling for example are a perfect model of why government assistance can be a boon to society. It's a long term investment, and when it pays off, it pays off in a big way.

 

Oh, come on. Let's be honest. You just can't help yourself with me.

 

Ok, you want the answer to why I don't feel I'm leeching the system? Very simple as well.

 

1) I'm not going to get social security, so I might as well get something out of the gov't seeing as how I'm paying for the retirement of all the baby boomers but won't see a dime of it myself.

 

2) If/When I become successful - whether in acting or otherwise - I'll be putting my money back into the system. And being as I'm a good person, if I ever had ANY semblance of notoriety I would absolutely use that power to help other people where and when I could. Does this happen for everyone? No. But people like JK Rowling for example are a perfect model of why government assistance can be a boon to society. It's a long term investment, and when it pays off, it pays off in a big way.

 

where do you get the idea of #1? I mean, I'd like to see SS shored up too, and stop the practice of IOU's against it... but it will be solvent for a few more decades even without changes, and much longer with even small tweaks. And I don't believe there is any real chance they let it fail.

 

where do you get the idea of #1? I mean, I'd like to see SS shored up too, and stop the practice of IOU's against it... but it will be solvent for a few more decades even without changes, and much longer with even small tweaks. And I don't believe there is any real chance they let it fail.

 

It's a popular thing to say, but I agree with you. Social Security is one of the most stable government programs there is, but if you listen to what people say or regurgitate what you've heard spread through the media, it's on the verge of collapse and you won't get it anyway!

 

If you're paying in SS now, there is a very very very good chance you will get SS benefits later in life. Is there a chance this won't happen? Yes. But there is a chance you'll win the lottery, too.

where do you get the idea of #1? I mean, I'd like to see SS shored up too, and stop the practice of IOU's against it... but it will be solvent for a few more decades even without changes, and much longer with even small tweaks. And I don't believe there is any real chance they let it fail.

And I'm just supposed to hope and pray it exists 40 years from now and NOT take a health care credit because of that? That's a hell of a lot of faith to put in our clearly dysfunctional government.

And I'm just supposed to hope and pray it exists 40 years from now and NOT take a health care credit because of that? That's a hell of a lot of faith to put in our clearly dysfunctional government.

 

See, you and Duke agree after all.

Edited November 25, 201312 yr by Jenksismybitch

And I'm just supposed to hope and pray it exists 40 years from now and NOT take a health care credit because of that? That's a hell of a lot of faith to put in our clearly dysfunctional government.

 

I have a better idea. Take the heath care credit, AND collect SS when the time comes.

And I'm just supposed to hope and pray it exists 40 years from now and NOT take a health care credit because of that? That's a hell of a lot of faith to put in our clearly dysfunctional government.

 

Which political party will allow the program to die and basically destroy the elderly?

Which political party will allow the program to die and basically destroy the elderly?

Both. They won't agree to a fix, and it will thus run out of money. I mean... shut down anyone?

Both. They won't agree to a fix, and it will thus run out of money. I mean... shut down anyone?

The 2013 version of the House Republican budget, written by Paul Ryan, raises the age for full benefits to 70 and, importantly, takes Social Security out of being its own program and puts it in the general fund so that it is no longer secure or funded via its own revenue stream. That's on top of very large additional cuts (with the excess funds from the payroll tax used to fund high-level tax cuts)

 

The 2012 version fully privatized it.

 

Both of these versions were passed by the House Republicans. I'll leave it to you to figure out whether that constitutes "shutting it down".

Both. They won't agree to a fix, and it will thus run out of money. I mean... shut down anyone?

 

Using current projections, if absolutely nothing is done, benefits will be reduced to ~77% of what's required by statute in 2033 (this changes yearly when the trustees publish their reports because there's a lot of assumptions that go into 75 year projections).

 

I'd like to see the payroll tax cap eliminated and SS expanded, but it will still be around when we go to retire.

Using current projections, if absolutely nothing is done, benefits will be reduced to ~77% of what's required by statute in 2033 (this changes yearly when the trustees publish their reports because there's a lot of assumptions that go into 75 year projections).

 

I'd like to see the payroll tax cap eliminated and SS expanded, but it will still be around when we go to retire.

 

It better be. I'm spending all of my retirement savings on random crap I don't need. I'm counting on those SS checks.

Ok?

Using current projections, if absolutely nothing is done, benefits will be reduced to ~77% of what's required by statute in 2033 (this changes yearly when the trustees publish their reports because there's a lot of assumptions that go into 75 year projections).

 

I'd like to see the payroll tax cap eliminated and SS expanded, but it will still be around when we go to retire.

It is worth pointing out that 77% of what is required in 2033 would actually be a larger amount of benefits than paid out today due to the fact that OASDI increases at a rate greater than that of inflation under the thought that if the country is becoming more prosperous it should be reflected in how we treat the elderly.

It is worth pointing out that 77% of what is required in 2033 would actually be a larger amount of benefits than paid out today due to the fact that OASDI increases at a rate greater than that of inflation under the thought that if the country is becoming more prosperous it should be reflected in how we treat the elderly.

And in 2033 I'll be 47. Probably not quite to retirement age I'd imagine.

And in 2033 I'll be 47. Probably not quite to retirement age I'd imagine.

 

So then you don't have to worry about it for a long time.