[911_993_911]

His charisma kept the U.S. from going Red.

[mr.nemo]

Social Security -- so successful it broke the back of the assuption that old age = poverty.

new labor laws -- which gave the U.S. the most robust middle-class in the world.

TVA -- Electrified the Tennessee Valley.

Wall Street reform -- ended the boom-bust cycles...at least until the Reagan-Bush rollback of these safeguards, which lead to the banking crunch, the S&L scandals, massive airline bankruptcies, the Enron et al corporate scandals, the dot.com bust, the mortgage bust, the credit crisis, etc.

The Manhattan Project...

[fgfblog]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Social Security -- so successful it broke the back of the assuption that old age = poverty. You regard ponzi schemes as somehow being a good thing?

[PrettyFifa12]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How is social security supposed to pay for itself?

Well, it wasn't supposed to be raided to fund the regular budget.

and is it better for the elderly to be the wealthiest segment of the population when their living expenses are so much lower?

Wealthiest segment of the population?! If it wasn't supposed to be 'raided' to fund the regular budget then why was the revenue unceremoniously dumped into the general revenue stream? In any event the lock box approach does not address the income shortcomings of the pay as you go system social security


the 61-65 age group is the wealthiest

[sterofthemasteool]

Originally posted by Geronimo
the 61-65 age group is the wealthiest I did not know that. That's pretty disturbing

[trorseIrripsy]

Originally posted by Geronimo
If it wasn't supposed to be 'raided' to fund the regular budget then why was the revenue unceremoniously dumped into the general revenue stream? In any event the lock box approach does not address the income shortcomings of the pay as you go system social security Because politicians are greedy ****s?

the 61-65 age group is the wealthiest Duh... but how does this support the assertion that the elderly are the "wealthiest segment of the population"? 65 is normal retirement age in this country. That's also when SS kicks in. Of course the last few years of working people will earn the most (seniority). But they ain't elderly yet.

In fact, from the link, the over 65 crowd has substantially less wealth. The 50-55 and 55-60 have far more. Of course the income and earnings for the over 65 group are less than any other group except the under 25.

[AccusaJalsBub]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Socail Security ain't no Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is one which pays a return on investment so high that the only way to pay old investors is to divert the monies being invested by new investors. Thus, it requires and ever-increasing number of investors to survive (i.e. a pyramid), and because the number of investors is not infinite,.... I thought you were trying to convince me that my position wasn't correct rather than trying to support it.

[RooxiaNof]

Originally posted by Krill
Originally posted by Zkribbler Wall Street reform -- ended the boom-bust cycles...at least until the Reagan-Bush rollback of these safeguards, which lead to the banking crunch, the S&L scandals, massive airline bankruptcies, the Enron et al corporate scandals, the dot.com bust, the mortgage bust, the credit crisis, etc.


The dot.com bust started before bush came to power iirc...

nice troll though. He said Reagan-Bush so he was probably not referring to W.

[br`lorance]

Originally posted by David Floyd

And by the way - did these New Deal programs end the Depression? Not really. Nope. What they did do is, after WWII, built up the middle class until the U.S. was the richest nation in the world. They also stablized the boom-bust cycles of the stock market until the Reagan Counterrevolution began to kick out all the safeguards.

[Terinalo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How is social security supposed to pay for itself?

Well, it wasn't supposed to be raided to fund the regular budget. Source?

[durootrium]

Originally posted by David Floyd
FDR was basically Red himself. OK, that's an exaggeration, but he was extremely left wing and his WW2-era policies were extremely pro-Stalin/pro-USSR, when they did not need to be.

As for the US going Communist, Chegitz, there was never any real danger of that, even during the Depression. The Communist/Socialist vote combined never amounted to more than a pinprick, nationally, and the rolls of registered Communists/Socialists never even approached the number of registered Republicans or Democrats. This is the most contradictoy thing I've seen posted. According to you the people overwelmingly elected a Red as president of the US, but there was never any danger of communism.

[spamkillerj]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The "Red" comment was a)an exaggeration I admitted to immediately, and b)much of what that comment referred to was his willingness to bend over backwards to prop up the most brutal regime in history (Stalinist USSR). Of course I don't think FDR was an actual Communist - he was simply the closest thing to communism that could ever have been elected in the US. Henry Wallace, who was probably an ACTUAL Communist, was so despised by the Democratic Party that FDR had to dump him from the ticket in 1944. Doesn't creating huge government for the poor count for anything? Of course, it might have been illegal in your eyes, but there's no way the government could have gotten away with not doing something for the poor without creating some kind of fascist state to force the government onto the people, but then that would be illegal also wouldn't it?

[Scukonah]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Social Security -- so successful it broke the back of the assuption that old age = poverty.

new labor laws -- which gave the U.S. the most robust middle-class in the world.

TVA -- Electrified the Tennessee Valley.

Wall Street reform -- ended the boom-bust cycles...at least until the Reagan-Bush rollback of these safeguards, which lead to the banking crunch, the S&L scandals, massive airline bankruptcies, the Enron et al corporate scandals, the dot.com bust, the mortgage bust, the credit crisis, etc.

The Manhattan Project... S&L happened 78-82. And the basic system underlying what happened with S&L went back 2 decades.


Originally posted by Geronimo
Pay as you go is surely shortsighted but it seems the Social Security Administration has a
rebuttal to accusations that it is a Ponzi scheme. except that people live longer, draw more, and so on. In order for the conveyor analogy to hold wages must remain constant or rise,population of payers must remain constant or rise, and life expectancy must not change.

None of those is really true.

[cbUDaNFRu]

Originally posted by Whoha
except that people live longer, draw more, and so on. In order for the conveyor analogy to hold wages must remain constant or rise,population of payers must remain constant or rise, and life expectancy must not change.

None of those is really true. "except that"?

You just agreed with everything I said. Are you saying this would somehow make the system a ponzi scheme rather than merely shortsighted?

[nancywind]

Oh, and to preempt someone from bringing up the other obvious example - I also believe that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was both unjustified and unconstitutional. It's called consistency in belief, Kid - try it out.

[Seeseeskeva]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, that's your conception of what you wish we had as a system of government. In reality, we are ruled by the people through their elected representatives, who are constrained by the law - both legislative law and the Constitution. You're the one making wishes. FDR is a case in point. You are arguing against historical fact.

[finnmontserrat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That makes no sense. Of course FDR's court packing scheme is historical fact. That was my point - by making that threat to SCOTUS, FDR abused his executive power. I'm not arguing that he didn't abuse his power. We have a system where power can be abused if it's in the best interest of the people.

[wp6Eg2Fm]

Originally posted by Geronimo


So you're not opposed to abuse of power per se so long as you approve of the ends? What about setting precedent that will allow the same abuse to be used towards ends you disagree with? If I was living in a Hooverville I would certainly approve.

[gerturiotf]

Kid, I really don't think you're as dumb as your posts make you look.

He really, really is. Give up.

[Ternneowns]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I still say if Dubya did the same thing, you'd call for his impeachment, and if I made the same argument in defense of him, you'd call me an enemy of the people Me calling for his impeachment isn't going to be very effective if it's just me.