Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy Bernie!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Since when did retirement planning depend on your employer doing it? If your employer doesn't contribute that's not your fault. It's your fault you didn't plan around that.



    This statement is nothing short of stupid. In essence you are saying that because people didn't bother to contribute to their retirement it's a problem with the system not the idiot people who didn't bother to plan ahead. What kind of complete nonsense is that?




    Yep. Most people are idiots. You are showing us you're one of them by trying to pin the problem with not having an adequate retirement plan on anyone but the person retiring. That may be harsh, but it's a totally fair assessment.
    Well, social security has BOTH the employer and the employee contribute to the employees' retirement. This is one reason why SS benefits the low level employees who in the private market do not find jobs with generous perks and matching contributions by the employer


    The statement is not stupid. What is stupid is to support a system which does not conform to the needs of about 50% of the population. You cannot change the characteristics of the 50% of the population but you can certainly change the system. Choosing instead to call 50% of Americans are irresponsible is the REAL stupid statement.


    If most people are idiots, it is because they let smart jerks convince them that they have to accept a system that does not benefit them. This is totally fair assessment also. In any case, the "stupid majority" still has an interest in supporting a system that benefits them.

    Point taken for calling me an idiot. I will let moderators deal with such distractions.

    Meanwhile I prefer to show how smart you are by quoting your solutions to the healthcare problem which somehow proposes that employers do certain things which are not different in principle from what they do with SS

    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner
    ..
    Employers could open accounts for employees and use matching funds from employees to a set amount per year sort of like a 401K. This would then be used by the employee to pay for most medical services.
    Apparently you missed the fact that the above proposition is very similar to what SS does with respect to retirement and the matching contributions of employees and employers. So, your proposal shares the burden of healthcare expenses between employers and employees and is based on the same idea that you criticize in the retirement plans.

    Now feel free to post another stupid meme to show that you are not among the people you call "idiots"
    Last edited by pamak; 28 Feb 20, 00:12.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

      US healthcare is excellent.
      It is just expensive.

      The introduction of government control through obamacare didn't help. That form of government control pretty much did nothing to help. So, forgive me if I prefer the excellent system in place now even if it is expensive.

      Oh and unlike thoise western european nations we don't have a superpower that will step in and protect us. We must do that ourselves.
      The SS in Western Europe is broken .Politicians have,as usual, spent the savings for future SS on other things .The result is that they are now forced to dismantle SS .
      In Belgium most hospitals are broken and must increase their prices .To be insured, I have to pay each year 800 euro to a private insurance .The money I have paid all these years for my SS has been wasted by the politicians .

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pamak View Post

        Well, social security has BOTH the employer and the employee contribute to the employees' retirement. This is one reason why SS benefits the low level employees who in the private market do not find jobs with generous perks and matching contributions by the employer
        Irrelevant. The government is the holder of those funds, not the employer or employee. As such, the inefficiency of the government right now ensures that the money isn't well invested and growing at a rate that will make the employee have a decent retirement. If instead, that money went into a 401K or the like and was the employee's money and portable with job changes, it would do more for the employee than the SS Ponzi scheme.
        Your argument essentially revolves around the government being the best choice for worker / citizen retirement funds. My argument is that the government is a poor choice and giving that choice to the worker / citizen would be a better deal.


        The statement is not stupid. What is stupid is to support a system which does not conform to the needs of about 50% of the population. You cannot change the characteristics of the 50% of the population but you can certainly change the system. Choosing instead to call 50% of Americans are irresponsible is the REAL stupid statement.
        I'm not trying to change 50% of the population. I'm saying that if they won't invest in their own future, won't make decent choices, it isn't my, yours, or the government's responsibility to be their parent and do it for them. I have no sympathy for those that act irresponsibly. And, at least 50 % of Americans are stupid.

        If most people are idiots, it is because they let smart jerks convince them that they have to accept a system that does not benefit them. This is totally fair assessment also. In any case, the "stupid majority" still has an interest in supporting a system that benefits them.
        No, it's because they can't be bothered to actually learn something or work towards more than making it to Friday so they can party the weekend away. The problem with the current "system" is that those who put it in place think they know better how to run your life than you do. For the smart, that chaffs. For the stupid, they're oblivious to it.

        Meanwhile I prefer to show how smart you are by quoting your solutions to the healthcare problem which somehow proposes that employers do certain things which are not different in principle from what they do with SS
        What I proposed is different form social security. First, there is no annuity that pays out. Second, most of the plan is based on a combination of employer-employee relationship and personal responsibility. There is for almost no government holding of funds for future disbursement. And, it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

        Apparently you missed the fact that the above proposition is very similar to what SS does with respect to retirement and the matching contributions of employees and employers. So, your proposal shares the burden of healthcare expenses between employers and employees and is based on the same idea that you criticize in the retirement plans.

        Now feel free to post another stupid meme to show that you are not among the people you call "idiots"
        No, it isn't. It is more like a short-term 401K that is portable like an IRA. The employee can use the funds immediately and has incentives to not use it in the employer-employee plan as the split of left over funds per year can be used by the employee as a bonus to their pay for being healthy.

        I close with an appropriate song:



        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

          hahaha.

          If you understood the citizens united case I would be happy to explain why your comment demonstrates enormous ignorance about how the 1st Amendment works. I guess those RW media outlets haven't explained the decision to you and just gave you talking points.
          Unfortunately, I only have facts, logic and the law on my side, whereas you have your personal opinions.
          Corporations are people!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
            Corporations are people!
            hey. A talking point you don't understand and can't discuss..
            But at least you think you said something wise.

            The Citizens United case is very simple and also absolutely consistent witht he 1st Amendment. But you wouldn't know that because all you know are the talking points.

            Those RW media outlets aren't serving you well.
            Thanks for the laugh
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

              hey. A talking point you don't understand and can't discuss..
              But at least you think you said something wise.

              The Citizens United case is very simple and also absolutely consistent witht he 1st Amendment. But you wouldn't know that because all you know are the talking points.

              Those RW media outlets aren't serving you well.
              Thanks for the laugh
              Keep apologizing for corporations.
              Citizens United gives corporations the power to influence elections. I'll note you think corporations buying elections is a good thing...

              Countless pundits and politicians decry the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling for making federal elections murkier than ever, but nine years later, the impact of the 2010 Supreme Court decision has never been clearer.

              On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned restrictions on independent expenditures from corporations and labor unions. The infamous decision set a precedent that through later rulings would spawn the creation of so-called super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and other groups.

              In the election cycles following Citizens United, the balance of power has shifted more and more toward outside spending groups such as super PACs and “dark money” political nonprofits, unleashing unprecedented amounts of money toward political advertisements meant to influence voters
              https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...tizens-united/

              GettyImages-461896736.jpg

              Comment


              • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                Keep apologizing for corporations.
                Citizens United gives corporations the power to influence elections. I'll note you think corporations buying elections is a good thing...
                well if the decision is so obviously wrong, it should be simple to explain why.

                I'll wait.

                I'm dying to see if you can explain without talking points and avoidng the obvious contradicitions in your claims.

                Please educate me!
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                  well if the decision is so obviously wrong, it should be simple to explain why.

                  I'll wait.

                  I'm dying to see if you can explain without talking points and avoidng the obvious contradicitions in your claims.

                  Please educate me!
                  ? Super PACs spawned because of it. Dark money influencing elections. The problem with our election system is there's too much corrupt influence in the form of money buying elections. You shouldn't encourage it.

                  Do you like the name "Citizens United?" Has a nice ring to it right? Like it's a good thing for citizens. Like the "Patriot Act" too?
                  You're being sold out.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                    Keep apologizing for corporations.
                    Citizens United gives corporations the power to influence elections. I'll note you think corporations buying elections is a good thing...



                    https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...tizens-united/

                    GettyImages-461896736.jpg


                    Once again, tell me why the decision is wrong?


                    Your own quoted language explicitly includes labor unions. And yet you seem to have convinced yourself that it only applies to corporations. Those damn talking points misled you didn't they.

                    Do you know what a corporation is?
                    Do you know why a corporation retains free speech rights?


                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                      ? Super PACs spawned because of it. Dark money influencing elections. The problem with our election system is there's too much corrupt influence in the form of money buying elections. You shouldn't encourage it.

                      Do you like the name "Citizens United?" Has a nice ring to it right? Like it's a good thing for citizens. Like the "Patriot Act" too?
                      You're being sold out.
                      why is the decision wrong?

                      Money in elections is always an issue but that wasn't the point of the decision.
                      It is based on the 1st Amendment.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                        ? Super PACs spawned because of it. Dark money influencing elections. The problem with our election system is there's too much corrupt influence in the form of money buying elections. You shouldn't encourage it.

                        Do you like the name "Citizens United?" Has a nice ring to it right? Like it's a good thing for citizens. Like the "Patriot Act" too?
                        You're being sold out.
                        In anticipation of your typical weak effort to try and make me the focus of your response, I will comment further. This will give you more time to look up something that will support your claim the Citizens united decision was wrong. I know repeating talking points is easy, but they aren't a replacement for actual understanding. Funny you would fall into that trap after all the times you've accused others of being indoctrinated by propaganda.

                        I agree that the ability to spend massive amounts of money on political elections is a problem. But the SCOTUS had no authority to adderss that issue (I'll bet you didn't know that either)
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          Irrelevant. The government is the holder of those funds, not the employer or employee. As such, the inefficiency of the government right now ensures that the money isn't well invested and growing at a rate that will make the employee have a decent retirement. If instead, that money went into a 401K or the like and was the employee's money and portable with job changes, it would do more for the employee than the SS Ponzi scheme.
                          Your argument essentially revolves around the government being the best choice for worker / citizen retirement funds. My argument is that the government is a poor choice and giving that choice to the worker / citizen would be a better deal.




                          I'm not trying to change 50% of the population. I'm saying that if they won't invest in their own future, won't make decent choices, it isn't my, yours, or the government's responsibility to be their parent and do it for them. I have no sympathy for those that act irresponsibly. And, at least 50 % of Americans are stupid.



                          No, it's because they can't be bothered to actually learn something or work towards more than making it to Friday so they can party the weekend away. The problem with the current "system" is that those who put it in place think they know better how to run your life than you do. For the smart, that chaffs. For the stupid, they're oblivious to it.



                          What I proposed is different form social security. First, there is no annuity that pays out. Second, most of the plan is based on a combination of employer-employee relationship and personal responsibility. There is for almost no government holding of funds for future disbursement. And, it isn't a Ponzi scheme.



                          No, it isn't. It is more like a short-term 401K that is portable like an IRA. The employee can use the funds immediately and has incentives to not use it in the employer-employee plan as the split of left over funds per year can be used by the employee as a bonus to their pay for being healthy.

                          I close with an appropriate song:


                          Irrelevant? You are detached from economic reality when there is double contribution to the account. For a poor worker that is what it should be relevant and not some theoretical nonsense regarding who controls the account.

                          And I am saying that you have unreasonable expectations if you believe that 50% of the population are irresponsible. Such rate if "responsibility failure" is a sign of the system's failure to address the behavior of a normal person

                          You are again missing the point that a low level worker will not find a retirement plan in a company where the employer will contribute to the account. That is why programs like SS are very important to them. And in fact the population is smarter than what you think. That is why SS is still here. People, including those at the bottom half realize that it is to their interest to have this type of safety net


                          Social security again is not a Ponzi scheme. This is RW crap. As people live longer and as the population becomes older and the ratio of worker to retiree change some adjustment will be made in the form of SS tax increases, increase of the retirement age, and so on. The SS general fund is invested in the same government bonds that everybody else has. It is not a "worthless IOU" If the government essentially borrowed money (to cover unnecessary high debt from lower taxes) from the SS general fund, it can pay back the SS fund which can do its job of providing enough time for the government to implement some mild adjustments to overcome the hump of the retiring boomers. After this generation is gone the ratio of worker to retiree will improve. SS can still pay 80% of its obligations even if there is zero adjustment. This is not a sign of Ponzi scheme.

                          My point with your proposition was that on the one hand you tried to say that it is not the employers business to provide for an employee's retirement (which can also be challenged for someone who believes that fair compensation should provide for the retirement of the worker) and on the other hand, you have no problem with proposing a measure which uses both the employer and the employees contribution to address the employee's healthcare. So even you contradict your principle.
                          Last edited by pamak; 28 Feb 20, 09:13.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                            Keep apologizing for corporations.
                            Citizens United gives corporations the power to influence elections. I'll note you think corporations buying elections is a good thing...



                            https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...tizens-united/

                            GettyImages-461896736.jpg


                            Still waiting.
                            or does your silence mean that you've acknowledged that your talking point understanding of the citizens united case might have been wrong?
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                              why is the decision wrong?

                              Money in elections is always an issue but that wasn't the point of the decision.
                              It is based on the 1st Amendment.
                              Because money does not equal with freedom of speech. It is more appropriate to see money as volume of speech which helps it spread more efficiently during the elections.

                              The fact that unions can also spend money does not change the fact that their voice, which is the voice of hundreds of thousands or millions of people is not more efficient than the voice of very few wealthy individuals who can spend the same amount of money to spread their message.

                              On top of the above, the constant need to find huge amounts of money to support a political campaign corrupts politics. We do not see bribes of political persons or judges as an issue of limiting freedom of speech. We set some limits of how money can be spent in different settings because we see the dangers of corruption.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                                Because money does not equal with freedom of speech. It is more appropriate to see money as volume of speech which helps it spread more efficiently during the elections.

                                The fact that unions can also spend money does not change the fact that their voice, which is the voice of hundreds of thousands or millions of people is not more efficient than the voice of very few wealthy individuals who can spend the same amount of money to spread their message.

                                On top of the above, the constant need to find huge amounts of money to support a political campaign corrupts politics. We do not see bribes of political persons or judges as an issue of limiting freedom of speech. We set some limits of how money can be spent in different settings because we see the dangers of corruption.
                                So if a group of people bands together and calls itself a union it is good and has rights.
                                If that same group of people bands together and calls itself a corporation it is bad and has no rights?


                                Sorry, but constitutional rights are not based on the assumption that a one group is inherently good.
                                As you may recall, even the nazis have 1st Amendment rights.


                                The government cannot create content based restrictions on free speech (e.g. union speech is good)

                                By the way, the SCOTUS specifically said that " money is essential to disseminating speech," in the Citizens UNited case.

                                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X