# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  social security, medicare, the economy, and drunken spending binge

## Kratos

Social Security and Medicare finances worsen
Recession hurts latest forecast for two biggest benefit programs


WASHINGTON - The financial health of Social Security and Medicare, the government's two biggest benefit programs, have worsened because of the severe recession, and Medicare is now paying out more than it receives. 

Trustees of the programs said Tuesday that Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, one year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner. 

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year and will be insolvent by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report. 
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the head of the trustees group, said the new reports were a reminder that "the longer we wait to address the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security, the sooner those challenges will be upon us and the harder the options will be." 

Report no surprise
Geithner said that President Barack Obama was committed to working with Congress to find ways to control runaway growth in both public and private health care expenditures, noting the promise Monday by major health care providers to trim costs by $2 trillion over the next decade. 

The findings in the trustees report, the annual checkup given the two benefit programs, did not come as a surprise. Private economists had been predicting that the dates the programs would begin to pay out more than they take in and the dates the trust funds would be insolvent would occur sooner given the economic recession. 

The deep recession, the worst the country has endured in decades, has resulted in a loss of 5.7 million jobs since it began in December 2007. The unemployment rate hit a 25-year high of 8.9 percent in April. 

Fewer people working means less being paid into the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare. 

The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that Social Security will collect just $3 billion more in 2010 than it will pay out in benefits. A year ago, the CBO had projected that Social Security would have a much higher $86 billion cash surplus for the 2010 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

The trustees report projected that Social Security's annual surpluses would "fall sharply this year," then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year's projections. The report said that the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting increased demands from the wave of 78 million baby boomers retiring. 

That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. The trustees projected the trust fund would be depleted in 2037, four years earlier than the 2041 date in last year's report. 

Tapping the trust fund
At that point, the annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083. To tap the trust fund, the government would have to increase borrowing or raise taxes because Social Security bonds exist only as bookkeeping entries. 

While the government is obligated to redeem those bonds, it has already spent the excess Social Security collections over the years to fund general government operations, providing the trust funds with IOUs. 
While the smaller surpluses that will begin this year will not have any impact on Social Security benefit payments, the government will need to borrow more at a time when the federal deficit is already exploding because of the recession and the billions of dollars being spent to prop up a shaky banking system. 

Medicare's condition is more precarious, reflecting the pressures from soaring health care costs as well as the drop in tax collections. 

Obama on Monday praised the pledge by the health care industry to achieve $2 trillion in savings on health care costs over the next decade, but it was unclear how much help those pledges would be in achieving Obama's goal of extending coverage to some 50 million uninsured Americans. The administration is pushing Congress to pass legislation in this area this year, preferring to tackle health care before Social Security.

The trustees report is likely to set off renewed debate over Social Security and Medicare. Critics have charged that the Obama administration has failed to tackle the most serious problems in the budget  soaring entitlement spending. 

The administration on Monday revised its federal deficit forecasts upward to project an imbalance this year of $1.84 trillion, four times last year's record, and said the deficits will remain above $500 billion every year over the next decade. 


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30698248

----------


## jfalco

Easy soulution. Start making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. 

A statistic I often hear "conservatives" use to support tax cuts for the wealthy is that the top 5% of wealth pays 60% of the taxes. What they never mention is that this same 5% is responsible for 90% of the wealth, so they are actually should be responsible for another 30%. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

These numbers are taken from wealth to which the wealthy admit. I'm sure that if all the hiden wealth was included the numbers would be staggering. Yet the poor and middle class has historically been fooled into voting against their own self interest and allowing this shit to go own. What tools do the wealthy use to make this happen?
Religion, racism, and bigotry.

Go ahead and call me a socialist and a malcontent. The poor and middle class of this country are getting screwed. The very same people who need their social security and won't be getting it are the ones who have been fooled into keeping the status quo for the last 30 years.

----------


## jfalco

Pretty far fetched to blame the current recession for a situation that the entire country has been fully aware of for at least 20 years.

----------


## Kratos

> Easy soulution. Start making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. 
> 
> A statistic I often hear "conservatives" use to support tax cuts for the wealthy is that the top 5% of wealth pays 60% of the taxes. What they never mention is that this same 5% is responsible for 90% of the wealth, so they are actually should be responsible for another 30%. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
> 
> These numbers are taken from wealth to which the wealthy admit. I'm sure that if all the hiden wealth was included the numbers would be staggering. Yet the poor and middle class has historically been fooled into voting against their own self interest and allowing this shit to go own. What tools do the wealthy use to make this happen?
> Religion, racism, and bigotry.
> 
> Go ahead and call me a socialist and a malcontent. The poor and middle class of this country are getting screwed. The very same people who need their social security and won't be getting it are the ones who have been fooled into keeping the status quo for the last 30 years.


Strange stance on the whole issue.
So because they have 90% of the wealth does that mean they have 90% of the income...or that they are able to save some money and assets more easily. Should you be taxed on your wealth or on your income...you decide...should I be able to come in and tax you on the money you already have in your bank account and paid income taxes on, and will pay sales taxes on should you decide to spend it...should what you have in your bank account determine your tax rate...is this what you really want?

Social security isn't a tax or a welfare or at least it wasn't ment to be. It's a means for saving for retirement...what you get out is based on what you put in...the problem is it doesn't work.

----------


## Kratos

> Pretty far fetched to blame the current recession for a situation that the entire country has been fully aware of for at least 20 years.


not blaming the recesion on...it's a consequence of
and the fact less dollars are flowing in is making the eventual failure of these programs more expedient pending less injection of additional cash. Cash we will have to borrow, some of which was initially borrow from social security will have to be borrowed again from elsewhere to repay social security. More cost over runs, in the face of a huge deficit. or the alternative, not paying people who paid in to the system and not providing the elderly with medical care.
it's evidence of the financial irresponsibility of our gvmt

----------


## jfalco

> Strange stance on the whole issue.
> So because they have 90% of the wealth does that mean they have 90% of the income...or that they are able to save some money and assets more easily. Should you be taxed on your wealth or on your income...you decide...should I be able to come in and tax you on the money you already have in your bank account and paid income taxes on, and will pay sales taxes on should you decide to spend it...should what you have in your bank account determine your tax rate...is this what you really want?
> 
> Social security isn't a tax or a welfare or at least it wasn't ment to be. It's a means for saving for retirement...what you get out is based on what you put in...the problem is it doesn't work.


All good points. 

Where I stand is that distribution of wealth is so unfair that a tax system based solely on income is not fair. 

The wealthy in a large part have built their wealth by exploitation of the poor. I don't really think your tax rate should be based on your total wealth, and I did not say that. What I was trying to say is that the common complaint of the wealthy that a graduated tax is unfair is BS. I think the top end of income should be taxed at a higher percentage that it currently is. Recently Warren Buffett pointed out that he pays about 16% of his income in taxes where as his secretary pays close to 30% of hers. Does that sound fair to you?

I understand that social security is meant to be a savings account of sorts, but in reality it is a tax. If you are 30 or younger you are required to pay into social security, but it is beginning to seem like you will not get a dime back out. 

At least we agree that social security doesn't work. I say let the wealthy who have built their wealth on the backs of the poor pay for the poor to retire. This seems fair to me.

----------


## soulstealer

Our system worked well, government is too big now, and politicians are stealing too much...

----------


## jfalco

> not blaming the recesion on...it's a consequence of
> and the fact less dollars are flowing in is making the eventual failure of these programs more expedient pending less injection of additional cash. Cash we will have to borrow, some of which was initially borrow from social security will have to be borrowed again from elsewhere to repay social security. More cost over runs, in the face of a huge deficit. or the alternative, not paying people who paid in to the system and not providing the elderly with medical care.
> it's evidence of the financial irresponsibility of our gvmt


The title of the thread certainly seems like blaming. Nothing else in it would suggest that. I agree with you that deficit spending is a problem. My solution is taxing those who can most afford to pay. 

Or contiunue with a culture of greed and watch our country crumble.

----------


## Kratos

> Recently Warren Buffett pointed out that he pays about 16% of his income in taxes where as his secretary pays close to 30% of hers. Does that sound fair to you?


Warren Buffett has recently either lost his marbles
or
he thinks he is going to live forever and is looking for public support, as he has become much more of a public figure lately, for political gain. Political gain for an investor is usually helps their wallet...but he may be board with money too and be looking for a new way to entertain himself.

anyway, capitol gains is different from income tax is different from the tax small businesses pay and in the end pass on to their owners is different from corperate tax rate. You can't assume all wealthy people are paying 16% because Warren Buffet says he is.

----------


## jfalco

> Warren Buffett has recently either lost his marbles
> or
> he thinks he is going to live forever and is looking for public support, as he has become much more of a public figure lately, for political gain. Political gain for an investor is usually helps their wallet...but he may be board with money too and be looking for a new way to entertain himself.
> 
> anyway, capitol gains is different from income tax is different from the tax small businesses pay and in the end pass on to their owners is different from corperate tax rate. You can't assume all wealthy people are paying 16% because Warren Buffet says he is.


This was just an example. 

I understand that there are different kinds of taxes, but I'm not sure what your point is.

Why do you think Warren Buffet is crazy? Because he gave away the majority of his wealth? As far as I know, he has no political aspirations and he kept more than enough money for his family to live out their natural lives. He gave 1 billion to each of his children and said there is no need for more than this. In fact I think this is a very sane idea. Why keep much more wealth than you need? 

Warren Buffet is a very shrewd business man and he made this comment to illustrate that our tax system needs reform and does not function as it should. When he made the comment he was standing next to his tax return which was a stack of paper almost as tall as him. His point, which I'm not sure I agree with, was that a flat tax would actually make wealthy pay more because our tax system is so complicated and has so many loopholes.

----------


## thegodfather

> All good points. 
> 
> Where I stand is that distribution of wealth is so unfair that a tax system based solely on income is not fair. 
> 
> The wealthy in a large part have built their wealth by exploitation of the poor. I don't really think your tax rate should be based on your total wealth, and I did not say that. What I was trying to say is that the common complaint of the wealthy that a graduated tax is unfair is BS. 
> 
> *Why? Does a wealthy person somehow use more of a Federally funded highway than a person of middle or lower income? Basing taxes on consumption would be 'fair', for instance excise taxes, which a person has the ability to opt out of. Dont like cigarettes, dont smoke. Gas too expensive, dont want to pollute the environment? Ride your bike. etc,etc. 
> 
> Income referrs to profit&gains. When you work for them and perform a task, be it physicall or mentally intensive labor, you are performing an EXCHANGE. You give work, in exchange for payment. For the IRS, Federal government, or anyone else, to try and delineate which part of that EXCHANGE is profits&gains is absolutely insane. How do you decide which part of your hour was an exchange, and which part is profit? Its impossible to do and one reason that a tax on a persons income is completely illogical and illegitimate.* 
> ...


My responses are in bold.

----------


## jfalco

What clear political ax does Warren Buffet have to grind? 

I firmly believe that there is not reason why anyone should have more than they need or could ever use while others live in poverty. 

When you say things like laissez-faire economics works, I would have to ask who it works for. If your only concern is increasing GDP, sure laissez-faire economics works. 

And just curious Mr. Libertarian, are you wealthy?

----------


## Kratos

What do you know about poverty? Let me guess you had to hold off until next year to buy a new big screen TV. More efficent economy means there is more for everyone, that's why you don't have to worry about the important stuff, like affording enough rice for dinner.
http://dmiessler.com/blog/warren-buf...a-why-dont-you
Warren Buffet enjoys celb status and plenty of political influence...a billion for each kid may be plenty in his case but we're talking about targeting everyone who makes over 150k...and he may be giving all his money away, but guess who he's not giving it to...the govmt, and he'll avoid every tax he can until he gives it awy, and do you know why?...because they'll waste the shit out of it. Private charity is much more efficent at doing good for the public, like private enterprise.

----------


## jfalco

You should not make assumptions about me. I will try not to make assumptions about you. You are right that I do not live in poverty. There have been brief periods of my life when I could barely afford to eat, but I have never been anywhere near poverty. But I am not complaining about my own situation. I have seen plenty of poverty and I don't like to see it. You don't have to be a member of a group to be concerned about them. I give to charity every year and have when I was making as little as 24k. I am definitely not talking about targeting folks making 150k a year. These people are not wealthy. I am talking about wealthy people. 
Warren Buffet gave his money to the Bill and melinda Gates foundation, because he thought this was the group that would most efficiently use his money to help humanity (not america). I'm sorry I used him as an example. What I was trying to show is that wealthy do not pay their fair share. He just happened to be the only rich guy for whom I knew the percentage of his income which went to taxes.
I agree with you that raising taxes on folks making 150k is a bad idea. I just look at a country with a debt that needs to be paid and I say, let the people who accumulated the most (and I am only talking about people with much more than they need or can use) pay it. I agree 100% that the government is ineficient and corrupt.

----------


## j4ever41

"Where I stand is that distribution of wealth is so unfair"

Please explain the statement above.

----------


## RA

And now he wants govt healthcare which is going to end up like medicare...running out of money and puting a price on peoples lives.

----------


## jfalco

> "Where I stand is that distribution of wealth is so unfair"
> 
> Please explain the statement above.


Some people have quite a bit of wealth where as others have none and the main determining factor in this distribution is birth. 

Before you start giving me examples of people born without money that became wealthy, I know that does happen, but it is unusual. This is just my opinion on what is fair. I understand that you my not agree. I can not prove this statement as it is just an opinion.

----------


## RA

Any stats on this because I think its just a jealous bs rant. Most of the people I know with money were self made..busting their asses and going the extra mile so people like you could hate them for what they have and want to take it away.




> Some people have quite a bit of wealth where as others have none and the main determining factor in this distribution is birth. 
> 
> Before you start giving me examples of people born without money that became wealthy, I know that does happen, but it is unusual. This is just my opinion on what is fair. I understand that you my not agree. I can not prove this statement as it is just an opinion.

----------


## jfalco

> Any stats on this because I think its just a jealous bs rant. Most of the people I know with money were self made..busting their asses and going the extra mile so people like you could hate them for what they have and want to take it away.


Nope no stats. 

I'm not jealous. I have everything I need, more than most. It was just an answer to a question. I was asked what I meant by unfair distribution of wealth, and that was my answer.

I would guess that the people you know with money are not what I would consider wealthy. I don't know you, so this is just a guess. Maybe you know some self made billionairs, but I doubt it. I'm not really talking about people who worked hard and made a good life for themselves. I am talking about the kind of wealth that does not go away.

I don't hate the wealthy for their good fortune any more than I hate the poor for their misfortune. I am neither wealthy nor poor. I just see a problem and a simple solution. We have a very large national debt. It needs to be paid. I think those who are most capable of paying should be the ones who pay.

----------


## Kratos

Have you ever thought the people with enough money to be what you would think of as wealthy wouldn't be able to make a dent in the national debt. A debt now expanding at more then 4 times the previous record. That maybe we're giving too much of our assets to the less fortunate in this country. Not everyone can be rich in a society, it's just how it goes.

Do you really think the average Joe is ready to run Donald Trump's empire...no, but his kids are, and they're damn hard workers too. More is passed on then money.

Have you ever thought it strange we need to import Mexicans to pick the fruit and clean the bathrooms, but after only a few years in this country, they don't feel like doing it either?

----------


## jfalco

> Have you ever thought the people with enough money to be what you would think of as wealthy wouldn't be able to make a dent in the national debt. A debt now expanding at more then 4 times the previous record. That maybe we're giving too much of our assets to the less fortunate in this country. Not everyone can be rich in a society, it's just how it goes.
> 
> Do you really think the average Joe is ready to run Donald Trump's empire...no, but his kids are, and they're damn hard workers too. More is passed on then money.
> 
> Have you ever thought it strange we need to import Mexicans to pick the fruit and clean the bathrooms, but after only a few years in this country, they don't feel like doing it either?


Actually I think capitolism is a flawed system that will inevitably lead to the distruction of humanity. 

I agree that not everyone can be rich. But everyone can live well. We currently have the technology to solve most of the worlds problems, but it doesn't happen because it isn't profitable. We have known how to supply all of the worlds energy w/o poluting since the 70's but it doesn't happen, because there is no profit in it. We can easily provide the entire population of the world with enough to eat, clean water, and decent living conditions, but it is not profitable. Greed is a powerful motivator, and until huminity finds a better motivation we are doomed.

Maybe we should all clean our own bathrooms and pick our own fruit. Picking fruit isn't really that bad, but the pay sucks.

I agree with you about a lot of what you are saying. I don't think the average jo is ready or wants to run doland trump's empire. I don't think dolald trump's empire should exist.

How's that for a rant.

----------


## Kratos

profit is only a measure of suplus resources, if you do things that are unprofitable it comes at the expense of something else.

How is capitolism going to end the world?

what technology could supply the world with food and energy? and if not capitolism, what force will bring it to reality?

I didn't mean the bathrooms in our homes, and there are no fruit trees were I live to pick from.

It's a confusing rant at best, I don't understand what you are wanting us to do...I mean the gvmt is already draining the resources of this country and morgaging our future. But, to you business is the enemy and more gvmt sounds like what you want.

----------


## vpchill

I have many Friends from diff ethnic backgrounds. One thing that two of my older Russian friends seem to tell me is that they enjoyed living under a communist government. (Meanwhile, one will never go back - Nonetheless) As they explain it everyone is equal. The system is flawed (They admit) but no one was better than anyone. then a Big discussion of how the Russian gangsters took over due to lack of solid government when communism was over in Russia.
The point is, They speak very highly of communism and how the ideas are better than most.
Just thought Id throw that out there. I always thought it was interesting, because we are lead to believe communism is so bad.

----------


## jfalco

There has never been a true communist government.

----------


## vpchill

As I said, Im just speaking on My Friends. They both tell me Russia was better with that form of government than now. I just always find it interesting how highly they speak and yet One of them will never ever go back.

----------


## jfalco

> profit is only a measure of suplus resources, if you do things that are unprofitable it comes at the expense of something else.
> 
> How is capitolism going to end the world?
> 
> what technology could supply the world with food and energy? and if not capitolism, what force will bring it to reality?
> 
> I didn't mean the bathrooms in our homes, and there are no fruit trees were I live to pick from.
> 
> It's a confusing rant at best, I don't understand what you are wanting us to do...I mean the gvmt is already draining the resources of this country and morgaging our future. But, to you business is the enemy and more gvmt sounds like what you want.


Clean enery is available in solar and wind power. Very simple technologies.

Agriculture can provide the entire world with food.

Modern plumbing can give clean water to the entire world.

The problem is there is no profit in helping people for the sake of doing good. There is enough of everything to go around, but it would require people to be motivated by nothing other than the common good. I don't see it happening any time soon, so I think some bad times are in our future.

Profit is not a measure of surplus resources. Profit is the making of gain in a business activity for the benifit of the business owner.

----------


## jfalco

BTW vpchill, are you calling me a commie? lol.

----------


## vpchill

Not Yet Bro.. LOL

----------


## jfalco

I prefer pinko commie bastard when it gets to that point.

----------


## vpchill

You got it.

----------


## Kratos

> Clean enery is available in solar and wind power. Very simple technologies.
> 
> Agriculture can provide the entire world with food.
> 
> Modern plumbing can give clean water to the entire world.
> 
> The problem is there is no profit in helping people for the sake of doing good. There is enough of everything to go around, but it would require people to be motivated by nothing other than the common good. I don't see it happening any time soon, so I think some bad times are in our future.
> .


Don't you have plumbing and food and energy just as about everyone in America does? What you're complaining about is our nation isn't giving it to the rest of the world. Our economy works so well we can afford to give some away. So the problem can't be our economy isn't working efficently, it's that the economy of other counties works so crappily that we have to give them a slice of our resources. And no, there isn't enough to go around...we can't provide an army of plumbers for the world...we can't grow all the food here for the world...It is estimated that if everyone in world ate as US citizens do (deriving about 25% of our calories from meat or animal products), much less than half of the present world population could be fed even on the tremendous woldwide grain harvests of 1985 and 1986. Sorry, there just isn't enough pie in the world for everyone in the world to have as big a slice as present day Americans. We're a nation of a few hundred million in a world of billions, they must provide some for themselves.

alt energy worked poorly in the 70's and has come a long way, but still isn't the total soloution to our energy needs.

----------


## Kratos

> There has never been a true communist government.


because they fall apart and crumble from within with corruption

pure free market eliminates corruption as an inefficency

----------


## thegodfather

> We have known how to supply all of the worlds energy w/o poluting since the 70's but it doesn't happen, because there is no profit in it.


You are completely wrong with that statement. We can provide pollution free energy at a cheaper cost to consmers via nuclear power. The reason we cannot do this however, is because of LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who have embraced the far left environmental movement much in the same way as neo-conservatives have embraced the religious whackos on the bible belt. 500,000 people die every year worldwide from the burning of coal for energy. Nuclear power would eliminate this, but liberal Democrats lobby so heavily against nuclear power that they have not allowed any plants to be built since the 70s. THATS the reason, its purely political, as I assure you there are plenty in private industry who would love to build more nuclear power plants to COMPETE(free market anyone?) with the ones still using more harmful forms of energy production.

----------


## jfalco

> Don't you have plumbing and food and energy just as about everyone in America does? What you're complaining about is our nation isn't giving it to the rest of the world. Our economy works so well we can afford to give some away. So the problem can't be our economy isn't working efficently, it's that the economy of other counties works so crappily that we have to give them a slice of our resources. And no, there isn't enough to go around...we can't provide an army of plumbers for the world...we can't grow all the food here for the world...It is estimated that if everyone in world ate as US citizens do (deriving about 25% of our calories from meat or animal products), much less than half of the present world population could be fed even on the tremendous woldwide grain harvests of 1985 and 1986. Sorry, there just isn't enough pie in the world for everyone in the world to have as big a slice as present day Americans. We're a nation of a few hundred million in a world of billions, they must provide some for themselves.
> 
> alt energy worked poorly in the 70's and has come a long way, but still isn't the total soloution to our energy needs.


Clearly I wasn't talking about america.

You don't know what you are talking about on alternate energy sources. The only problem is that there is no profit in producing it. Windmills are very simple technology. You're right about solar energy from the 70's being inefficient, but even with that version of solar, solar panels could provide all the energy needs for a home in a sunny area. People have been living sucessfully off the grid in New Mexico for over 20 years (google earth ships), and the concept has been used sucessfully in almost every climate.

I agree with you that people can't eat like americans. That's why I am a vegetarian. I try to practice what I preach as much, but I admit I am not always succesful.

----------


## jfalco

> because they fall apart and crumble from within with corruption
> 
> pure free market eliminates corruption as an inefficency


actually it is because a central concept of communism is that it could only happen in the most advanced societies. It has only been attempted in some of the least advanced societies.

----------


## jfalco

> You are completely wrong with that statement. We can provide pollution free energy at a cheaper cost to consmers via nuclear power. The reason we cannot do this however, is because of LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who have embraced the far left environmental movement much in the same way as neo-conservatives have embraced the religious whackos on the bible belt. 500,000 people die every year worldwide from the burning of coal for energy. Nuclear power would eliminate this, but liberal Democrats lobby so heavily against nuclear power that they have not allowed any plants to be built since the 70s. THATS the reason, its purely political, as I assure you there are plenty in private industry who would love to build more nuclear power plants to COMPETE(free market anyone?) with the ones still using more harmful forms of energy production.


Nuclear is not the only alternate power source. I agree with you that burning coal is assanine. Nuclear is definitely preferable to coal as a power source, but there are better solutions. 
The way we live is destroying the world. If you don't believe that, I don't know how to convince you. The changes needed are drastic and I don't really see it happening. So live you life however you choose. I don't see myself living my life out in th U.S. anyway and currently I don't really see fit to bring children into this world, so I don't know why I care. But I do care.

----------


## Kratos

> actually it is because a central concept of communism is that it could only happen in the most advanced societies. It has only been attempted in some of the least advanced societies.


and why is that? Why can't it work and bring advancement to a less advanced society?

----------


## Kratos

> Clearly I wasn't talking about america.
> 
> You're right about solar energy from the 70's being inefficient, but even with that version of solar, solar panels could provide all the energy needs for a home in a sunny area. People have been living sucessfully off the grid in New Mexico for over 20 years (google earth ships), and the concept has been used sucessfully in almost every climate.
> .


Wind was pretty shitty shit too for providing the amount of power Americans use. Maybe people could get by in New Mexico huddled around a little 12v light bulb, but that isn't how most Americans choose or desire to live. And, it sure wouldn't have provided enough electricity for any type of industry.

Check out the solar system at Fed-ex main distribution center...alt energy is finally becoming an economical option...proof the free market is working when something begins to make sense.

Wind is starting to get attractive, too, but the gvmt should not be involved in pushing the technology before it's ready. Who stands to benifit? Well, GE for one since they make a lot of the turbines...how about T.Boone Pickins who has a multi-billion dollar wind farm under way and threw Obama his thumbs up for the election will get a windfall (shameless pun) of profits you can bet (green dollars, not desire for green energy). Yup, corruption is everywhere when the gvmt gets involved.

----------


## jfalco

> and why is that? Why can't it work and bring advancement to a less advanced society?


Ask Karl Marx. It was his idea not mine. 
Basically he said it was the next step in the evolution of society beyond democracy and it could only be sucessful in the most advanced society.

----------


## jfalco

> Wind was pretty shitty shit too for providing the amount of power Americans use. Maybe people could get by in New Mexico huddled around a little 12v light bulb, but that isn't how most Americans choose or desire to live. And, it sure wouldn't have provided enough electricity for any type of industry.
> 
> Check out the solar system at Fed-ex main distribution center...alt energy is finally becoming an economical option...proof the free market is working when something begins to make sense.
> 
> Wind is starting to get attractive, too, but the gvmt should not be involved in pushing the technology before it's ready. Who stands to benifit? Well, GE for one since they make a lot of the turbines...how about T.Boone Pickins who has a multi-billion dollar wind farm under way and threw Obama his thumbs up for the election will get a windfall (shameless pun) of profits you can bet (green dollars, not desire for green energy). Yup, corruption is everywhere when the gvmt gets involved.




The people you refered to in new mexico do not live huddled around on 12 v light bulb. They enjoy all of the comforts that the averave american enjoys.

Wind technology has been "ready" for quite some time. You could not immagine a simpler technology. It's basically just a bunch of magnets.

You are 100% correct about green dollars driving innovation. I can envision a world where people are motivated by the common good rather than greed. I wish that there were more people who thought like me. On an individual level most people will help someone out if they can. Why can't we behave the same way as a society and just do things because they should be done without concern for personal gain? I believe that a capitalist system prevents this sort of behavior because if you do something without concern for personal gain someone else is probably taking advantage of you and profiting from your hard work. You are left feeling like a chump.

I can't argue with you about the way things work. You seem to understand that very well. What I am saying is it doesn't have to be this way.

----------


## thegodfather

> Ask Karl Marx. It was his idea not mine. 
> Basically he said it was the next step in the evolution of society beyond democracy and it could only be sucessful in the most advanced society.


So you haven't even read Marx and you're trying to advance his ideology? What credentials do you even have to debate these topics then if you haven't read some of the most basic and fundamentals of political ideology.

----------


## jfalco

> So you haven't even read Marx and you're trying to advance his ideology? What credentials do you even have to debate these topics then if you haven't read some of the most basic and fundamentals of political ideology.


Sorry but I am not trying to push Marx's ideas. I simply stated that there has never been a communist government and then I was asked to elaborate. I have not read the entire communist manifesto, but I have read excerps from it. These excerps could be discribed as "some of the most basic and fundamentals of political ideology".

That's why I said ask Marx. 

I am not now nor have I ever been a communist.

----------


## MuscleScience

> So you haven't even read Marx and you're trying to advance his ideology? What credentials do you even have to debate these topics then if you haven't read some of the most basic and fundamentals of political ideology.


All I can say is when and how did our educational system fail to teach the principle of capitalism and how this is a competitive society which brings the best out of its citizens. Hell with it take from the rich and give to the poor who choose not to compete in society.

----------


## thegodfather

> All I can say is when and how did our educational system fail to teach the principle of capitalism and how this is a competitive society which brings the best out of its citizens. Hell with it take from the rich and give to the poor who choose not to compete in society.


Government largesse, for instance the Department of Education, the centralised education 'planners' are responsible for the deterioration in the quality of our public education system. There is absolutely no competition among the schools, meaning there is no incentive to educate students to higher levels. In fact, in some cases schools are given LARGER budgets if a significant portion of their students fail. It lends to an even bigger over arching ideology here I believe. For instance, in many public schools they have banned dodgeball, or games where there is a "clear winner and loser." It's this hippy left wing bullshit that "everyone should be a WINNER." Well unfortunately life doesn't work like that, and they are doing these children a GREAT disservice in their education by trying to indoctrinate them that everyone wins, and we can all sit round the campfire, roast f**kin marshmellows and sing Kum-Bah-Ya...They are in for a rude awakening once they hit the real world. Unfortunately, education in general, and especially higher education is overrun with left wing LIBERAL Democratic ideology.

----------


## MuscleScience

> Government largesse, for instance the Department of Education, the centralised education 'planners' are responsible for the deterioration in the quality of our public education system. There is absolutely no competition among the schools, meaning there is no incentive to educate students to higher levels. In fact, in some cases schools are given LARGER budgets if a significant portion of their students fail. It lends to an even bigger over arching ideology here I believe. For instance, in many public schools they have banned dodgeball, or games where there is a "clear winner and loser." It's this hippy left wing bullshit that "everyone should be a WINNER." Well unfortunately life doesn't work like that, and they are doing these children a GREAT disservice in their education by trying to indoctrinate them that everyone wins, and we can all sit round the campfire, roast f**kin marshmellows and sing Kum-Bah-Ya...They are in for a rude awakening once they hit the real world. Unfortunately, education in general, and especially higher education is overrun with left wing LIBERAL Democratic ideology.


Geez we think a lot alike.

----------


## jfalco

> Government largesse, for instance the Department of Education, the centralised education 'planners' are responsible for the deterioration in the quality of our public education system. There is absolutely no competition among the schools, meaning there is no incentive to educate students to higher levels. In fact, in some cases schools are given LARGER budgets if a significant portion of their students fail. It lends to an even bigger over arching ideology here I believe. For instance, in many public schools they have banned dodgeball, or games where there is a "clear winner and loser." It's this hippy left wing bullshit that "everyone should be a WINNER." Well unfortunately life doesn't work like that, and they are doing these children a GREAT disservice in their education by trying to indoctrinate them that everyone wins, and we can all sit round the campfire, roast f**kin marshmellows and sing Kum-Bah-Ya...They are in for a rude awakening once they hit the real world. Unfortunately, education in general, and especially higher education is overrun with left wing LIBERAL Democratic ideology.


Spoken like someone who has never been inside a school in the ghetto.

----------


## Kratos

> Sorry but I am not trying to push Marx's ideas. I simply stated that there has never been a communist government and then I was asked to elaborate. I have not read the entire communist manifesto, but I have read excerps from it. These excerps could be discribed as "some of the most basic and fundamentals of political ideology".


I wasn't asking you to quote Marx...or attempt to. But why would something that doesn't work in a society that isn't advanced, now sudenly start working when it becomes so? You haven't changed human nature. The system that caused the advancement should continue to do so...no?

----------


## Kratos

http://www.mathematical.com/windmill.html

This is where we were at in 1979 with wind...16 million dollars in today's money
for 14 kw

Today's mills can put out up to 8 MW thanks to the free maket

did you really want to scale up production of that peice of crap?

----------


## Kratos

are there solar panels on your house? or is it still do damn expensive?
development costs, materials, production
these take society's resources
when costs come in line with benifits that's how society votes on what's important

----------


## Kratos

> \
> . I can envision a world where people are motivated by the common good rather than greed. I wish that there were more people who thought like me. On an individual level most people will help someone out if they can. Why can't we behave the same way as a society and just do things because they should be done without concern for personal gain?.


sorry no, human nature
glad you aren't in charge cause nobody would have a pot to piss in
people only do the right thing when they have more then enough to feel secure regardless, it's a serve yourslef first policy no matter how far into the future we go.

----------


## jfalco

> I wasn't asking you to quote Marx...or attempt to. But why would something that doesn't work in a society that isn't advanced, now sudenly start working when it becomes so? You haven't changed human nature. The system that caused the advancement should continue to do so...no?


I am not a proponent of communism. I think I've said this a couple of times. I was just pointing out that it has never been tried. The governments that have been labeled communist were not.

----------


## jfalco

> are there solar panels on your house? or is it still do damn expensive?
> development costs, materials, production
> these take society's resources
> when costs come in line with benifits that's how society votes on what's important


You seem to be incapable of abstract thought. I, as you do, understand perfectly how our society works. You seem more than willing to admit that the current system doesn't work very well, but incapable of believing that there could ever be another sort of system.

----------


## jfalco

> sorry no, human nature
> glad you aren't in charge cause nobody would have a pot to piss in
> people only do the right thing when they have more then enough to feel secure regardless, it's a serve yourslef first policy no matter how far into the future we go.


Human nature is a cop out. People are capable of changing. At one time human nature involved taking what we wanted by force with no concern for those we took from. Fortunately society moved beyond this.

Currently most people, at least in the U.S. seem to be motivated by greed. I hope humanity can move beyond this too.

I'm glad I'm not in charge too. Dealing with the mess we have created would suck.

----------


## MuscleScience

> Human nature is a cop out. People are capable of changing. *At one time human nature involved taking what we wanted by force with no concern for those we took from.* Fortunately society moved beyond this.
> 
> Currently most people, at least in the U.S. seem to be motivated by greed. I hope humanity can move beyond this too.
> 
> I'm glad I'm not in charge too. Dealing with the mess we have created would suck.


LOL, what! 

We have not changed one damn bit!

----------


## Kratos

> You seem to be incapable of abstract thought. I, as you do, understand perfectly how our society works. You seem more than willing to admit that the current system doesn't work very well, but incapable of believing that there could ever be another sort of system.


the cost to society in resources is still the same no mater what system of gvmt...you don't understand that you can only distribute the resources you have and what you produce. How are you going to stimulate this level of production to distribute it with no additional gain for the producer? you can't

----------


## Kratos

> Human nature is a cop out. People are capable of changing. At one time human nature involved taking what we wanted by force with no concern for those we took from. Fortunately society moved beyond this.
> 
> Currently most people, at least in the U.S. seem to be motivated by greed. I hope humanity can move beyond this too.
> 
> I'm glad I'm not in charge too. Dealing with the mess we have created would suck.


If the shit the fan tomorrow
I had a gun and knew you had canned food
a couple of weeks goes by and I'm hungry
I'm gonna be the one eating
and I'm pretty civilized even by modern standards

----------


## jfalco

> If the shit the fan tomorrow
> I had a gun and knew you had canned food
> a couple of weeks goes by and I'm hungry
> I'm gonna be the one eating
> and I'm pretty civilized even by modern standards


Too bad my canned food will be boobie trapped. 

But if you came to me and said you were hungry I would share what I had and hopefully we could get more together.

Better yet, you could use that gun to hunt some food of your own rather than steal what little I had.

----------


## j4ever41

> Some people have quite a bit of wealth where as others have none and the main determining factor in this distribution is birth. 
> 
> Before you start giving me examples of people born without money that became wealthy, I know that does happen, but it is unusual. This is just my opinion on what is fair. I understand that you my not agree. I can not prove this statement as it is just an opinion.


so you think it should be taken away from them because it was inherited?

----------


## jfalco

> so you think it should be taken away from them because it was inherited?


no. and I never said that.

I was asked what I meant by unfair distribution of wealth and that was my answer.

----------


## j4ever41

i guess i am totally missin your point then and your use of the term "distribution"

----------


## jfalco

I am using distribution as in this definition:

7.A spatial or temporal array of objects or events: the distribution of theaters on Broadway


When I say distribution of wealth, it is just an easy way of saying different people have different quantities of wealth.

Hope that clears it up.

----------


## jfalco

Here is the Wiki definition of distribution of wealth. Perhaps it makes more sense than my rambling at 3 am:

Distribution of wealth is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society. It differs from the distribution of income in a manner analogous to the difference between position and speed.

----------


## Kratos

let me tell you a true story about how wealth gets distributed in this country.
My grandfather was a multi-millionaire and by that I mean not only was his business valued in several millions of dollars, but also that he had millions of dollars in stock and cash.
He only had two kids.
After the assets were split between his two kids (my parents being the only ones involved in the buisness so they decided to keep it), they had little left after deciding to stay in business. Their right to keep working included writing a check for over 5 million in death taxes...if my grandfather didn't die with that much cash, they'd either have to morgage the business or sell it.

My grandfather died much younger then he expected and didn't live in excess. He was always saving for the future and trying to leave something he could pass on. His house is on the market under a different owner for 600k right now. He had a 25 foot boat that he liked to fish on. He had a modest vacation property in Florida. He drove nothing more extravagant then a Cadillac. He didn't like to travel. One of the nicest and most popular people in the community (as are my parents). He gave more back to the community then he took for himself. He was self made in the greatest sense of the word...Both his parents were dead by the time he was 12 and left him nothing whatsoever, except for two older sisters to take care of him.

Now that he's been gone 10 years, my parents having their soul into the business (60hour + work weeks for both of them)...due to economic and mostly political conditions the future is uncertain. They have most of their personal assets supporting the business as an assurance for their line of credit. If the business fails they'll be left with a modest retirement and nothing to pass on.

If they are able to overcome and emerge profitable, they will maybe have enough time to save enough money to pass on the business to the next generation. Then we go around one more time.

I shit you not, true story. I am not involved in the day to day running of things and work for a major healthcare company at this time. I have 2 brothers and 2 sisters so I won't be even as lucky as they were.

This buisness has paid millions upon millions of dollars in taxes...employs over 50 people in well paying jobs...the gvmt has taken more then their cut. Nothing left for anyone else except stress, hypertension, and trying to hold it all together.

You wonder why the wealthy complain...there are no wealthy...they have to stand by and watch it all go up in smoke while the mob takes it all away.

----------


## Kratos

> But if you came to me and said you were hungry I would share what I had and hopefully we could get more together.
> 
> Better yet, you could use that gun to hunt some food of your own rather than steal what little I had.


I wouldn't be the only one hungry...how long are you going to be able to feed everyone who knocks on your door? you really think the deer running through the forest are going to support the whole population. I'm sorry but you're clueless to what you're capable of for survival, you'd do things you never thought possible.

Hell, I'd hunt people if I was hungry enough...I hear it tastes like chicken.

It's only out of this excess that we are finally able to turn our attention to ideals.

----------


## jfalco

Sorry to hear about you're parents struggles. I am sure they will pull through.

For 8 of the last 10 years their taxes have been cut, not raised so I don't understand how your story pertains to this conversation. If anything the Republicans mismanagement of their tax dollars is the cause of their woes. I would love to go back to the Clinton days.

"Conservatives" love to complain about liberals and big government, but the only time in the last 25 years that this country has experienced prosperity is for the eight years that a liberal democrat was in charge. Towards the end of those 8 years the republicans controlled congress and in that time they began the process of deregulation that has lead to the current situation. Less government control of business is the direct cause of the current recession.

BTW a modest retirement aint that bad, and since I can tell you are an intelligent and hard working guy, I am sure that you will build a fine life of your own.

----------


## jfalco

> I wouldn't be the only one hungry...how long are you going to be able to feed everyone who knocks on your door? you really think the deer running through the forest are going to support the whole population. I'm sorry but you're clueless to what you're capable of for survival, you'd do things you never thought possible.
> 
> Hell, I'd hunt people if I was hungry enough...I hear it tastes like chicken.
> 
> It's only out of this excess that we are finally able to turn our attention to ideals.


I would do the best I could because that is the kind of guy I am. You are right that my world view is not based on realism, but I can dream right.

Honestly, if the shit hit the fan to the point where folks were shooting each other over canned food, I would be in the mountains fending for myself and whoever chose to join me, far from the people fighting over cans. I would strategically place my door in a place where not many people had the back country skills to find it. So yes I would probably be able to attempt to feed everyone who came to my door.

----------


## j4ever41

Im sure Kratos will build a fine life for his self. The question is how much of it will be confiscated? Damn do we ever sleep,lol.

----------


## Kratos

> Sorry to hear about you're parents struggles. I am sure they will pull through.
> 
> For 8 of the last 10 years their taxes have been cut, not raised so I don't understand how your story pertains to this conversation. If anything the Republicans mismanagement of their tax dollars is the cause of their woes. I would love to go back to the Clinton days.
> 
> "Conservatives" love to complain about liberals and big government, but the only time in the last 25 years that this country has experienced prosperity is for the eight years that a liberal democrat was in charge. Towards the end of those 8 years the republicans controlled congress and in that time they began the process of deregulation that has lead to the current situation. Less government control of business is the direct cause of the current recession.
> 
> BTW a modest retirement aint that bad, and since I can tell you are an intelligent and hard working guy, I am sure that you will build a fine life of your own.


My parents are already in their late 50's...if they get to retire it will be well beyond the national average. They've worked a lot harder then the average person.

They let go of one of their managers not to long ago because he didn't feel like showing up for work more then 3 days a week. He was happy when they let him go..."now I'll have more time to work on my house." With unemployment now you not work for quite a while with no worries.

They have a girl in the book-keeping office...a single mom. She only works maybe 20 hours a week. Lives in a subsidized apt, food stamps. Only one kid who's 10 years old.

Many more cases like this where it's getting very easy for people who are becoming more and more happy to do very little.

I have no clue how you can even begin to assert those comments on prosperity based on Goverment. Clinton had growth in the economy despite himself due to the internet boom. Now we've had 125 years of economic downturn.

----------


## Kratos

fvck it you won't understand anyway

----------


## jfalco

Do you disagree that derelagutation of banking is one of the main causes of the current recession and the reason why your parents can need to martgage everything they have to get the credit they need to keep their business solvent.

You can't really think food stamps are bringing your folks down.

And FYI one of the things clinton did was reform the wellfare system and there is much less in the way of handouts then there was 30 years ago.

If this manager was fired with cause, he is not entitled to unemployment and your parrents should be able to sucessfully fight his claim.

People who are lazy and happy to live on handouts annoy me too, but I really don't see it as the cause of our problems. Most of the people living on unemployment want to work but can't find a job.

Since we are talking about parents, my mother has been unemployed for over a year. For most of that time she has not recieved any unemployment and when she has it was a very small amount of money. She has a biology degree and she is a certified teacher, but she can't find a job becuase she has to compete against much younger people with the same qualifications as her. Biologists are a dime a dozen in massachusetts. She has recently had to sell her house to survive, and if I hadn't been able to lend her money to pay her bills for the last year she would have been out on the street. I run a small business, and like your parents, money has recently become very tight for me, so it is a good thing my mother's house sold, because I can no longer afford to pay her bills.

I also have a cousin who had a kid when he was 20. Neither he of his wife have worked in 5 years. They expect everything to be given to them because somehow it is not their fault that they are too lazy to work and to stupid not to have a child that they can't afford. My cousin lives off SSI for a mental disability that is really only a drug addiction. Their kid is the dumbest 5 year old I have ever met. I can't stand them and I won't even talk to them anymore because they are so useless and such bad parents. So I get what you are talking about. Fvck these lazy pieces of shit. But there are two sides to ever coin. My mother, like most unemployed people, wants a job.

----------


## jfalco

> fvck it you won't understand anyway


I understand exactly where you are coming from. I just disagree with a lot of the things you say.

Other things you are saying I agree with, and I have tried to say that also.

----------


## Kratos

how long has she been teaching...it's almost always the first and second year teachers that get laid off I thought.

----------


## SMCengineer

I just read through most of this thread and I must say Jfalco your world view is extraordinarily naive. I respect and laud the fact that you admit though. I think your view comes from a thorough misunderstanding of economics, which is not a dispargement on you or your character but a common theme among most of the general populace (including most college professors and professional economists). To understand economics you need to study praxelogy or human action. That, at the core, is what economics will always boil down to.

Two people who I don't really agree with, but make excellent arguements on what you're discussing:
Milton Friedman on greed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Ayn Rand on altruism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTH...eature=related

On a side note, if you believe that capitalism is bad you need to realize that what our system represents is a system that's been moving towards State Capitalism for nearly a century. You also need to realize that greed, while bad on it's own merits, is absolutely essential for any society to experience prosperity and is *always* balanced by risk in a free market. This system of checks and balaces will keep what you describe as a maldistribution of wealth at bay. However, when external institutions remove the extraordinary regulatory power of risk, we experience what we see today. The only institution capable of removing risk from a free market is government and the means by which they achieve that is through regulation.

----------


## thegodfather

> Towards the end of those 8 years the republicans controlled congress and in that time they began the process of deregulation that has lead to the current situation. *Less government control of business is the direct cause of the current recession.*
> BTW a modest retirement aint that bad, and since I can tell you are an intelligent and hard working guy, I am sure that you will build a fine life of your own.



Im sorry, but you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. You are attempting to simplify extremely complex political and economic issues and you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. I would venture to guess that you are parroting an episode of Keith Olbermann or some other propagandized nonsense that you heard on MSNBC or CNN, maybe even Fox. Wall street bankers, mortgage companies, etc, etc, are not even close to being to blame for our economic woes. They have always been gready, always been misleading, and have never before caused an economic collapse because of their behavior. I mean, I could write a ****ing dissertation here and try to explain the reasons behind the economic collapse, but I would probably be wasting my breathe as its quite evident to mean you would not even understand many of the terms I would use to describe what is going on. I suggest you read the book "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. It would go far in educating you about the value and benefits of the free market. 

Instead of lecturing to you for hours on end and giving myself carpel tunnel syndrome, I will employ the socratic method here so that you might do your own reserach and become educated. You will not learn a damn thing from listening to talk show hosts with a political axe to grind, I assure you.

The cause of the economic crisis was the ongoing artificial manipulation of interest rates, credit, and the money supply by the Federal Reserve bank(a privately owned institution). Coupled with unequal deregulation of certain areas of finance and banking. Why did these factors cause the collapse? 

Attempt to answer that question by doing some legitimate research and you will understand. A good resource, albeit impartial one, would be the CATO Institute, which is a libertarian think-tank in Washington DC. They write articles about the economic collapse that may simplify it enough for you to understand. Please though, do not continue to spread misinformation on topics with which you have no knowledge. That kind of ignorance perpetuates itself through society, passing from whoever you heard it from, to you, to the next person that listens to you.

----------

