Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past

Guarantee current benefit levels as if they paid direct into social security as basement level they are guaranteed, but if their private investment account exceeds that amount, then they get nothing from the social security administration. If their pay-out falls short, then it's still a better deal for the government because the checks will be lower.Or we can do what you want. Keep the current system and the government can take those billions of retirement people's money and purchase a few more tanks, air-bases, or maybe pay off some dictator somewhere for being pro-American.The choice in some ways is up to the American people.I think their retirement money should go to their retirement. You think Congress and the President should have that money.It's clear to me which is the better choice.

Compare the rates for those on welfare and those not on welfare and show that the ones on welfare increased substantially in comparison to the others.Otherwise this is (another) post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Society has changed, and part of that change is the fact that it is more acceptable for a mother to be single, thus there is an increase across the board.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Look at the increase in the numbers of children borne and reared without a father in the home since welfare was instituted.

---

Show me.Specifically, show me that it is causative and not just correlated.

quote:

---

You can twist stats any way you want, but the bottom line is encouraging teen-age girls to be welfare Moms was a disaster.

---

How are the stats twisted?Be specific.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-11-2005 06:37 PM

quote:

---

Or we can do what you want. Keep the current system and the government can take those billions of retirement people's money and purchase a few more tanks, air-bases, or maybe pay off some dictator somewhere for being pro-American.

---

Or maybe we can get a president and congress that that is fiscally responsible and can balance the budget.Oh, wait, we had one of those, but we got rid of the competent President and elected an idiot, kicked out the competent Congresspeople and Senators and now have idiots in charge.Don't blame me, I didn't vote them in.You and the rest of the Republicans have only yourselves to blame.

quote:

---

Look at the increase in the numbers of children borne and reared without a father in the home since welfare was instituted.

---

Shouldn't you also look at the level available of sex education, free bith control programs, availability of abortion services, and the effectiveness of abstinence programs during this time as well?If I recall correctly, sex education and promotion of birth control dropped in recent years, and we have seen a corresponding increase in teen pregnancies.

You know, they can't not pay it back. You're aware of that, right? About why a government bond is the world's safest investment?The US government can't default on those bonds. Or won't, anyway. Governments defaulting on their bonds is usually what gets Los Presidentes lined up against the wall in other countries. If the US government were to default on its bonds (which form one of the major backbones of international finance) your problems would be much, much greater than saving for your retirement. You'd be looking at the complete destruction of the global economy.So, yeah. On one hand, we've got a system where we turn over people's savings to the people themselves, the vast majority of which don't have the training or time to manage them effectively, and where you lose 20% of your pay-in to fees and administration, not to mention the risk of losing it all on the whim of the markets; or we could share the risk in a system run by experts with an overhead of less than .6, and that guarantees benefits and survivorship regardless of market conditions or even the actual amount you were able to save. Yeah, me too. Luckily for all of us it's been clear to the American people for decades.

The sky is falling too, I suppose. You don't lose 20% at all to Pay-in fees as you claim. That's unsubstantiated BS.Moreover, you fail to realize that the government bonds are to the government. If I owe myself something, I cannot default even if I don't pay.You are ignoring a basic reality. If the government does not have enough money to meet obligations under social security, all they have to do is lower those obligations. It's that simple. They can and will lower benefits or raise the retirement age. The bond issue is a total non-starter, essentially completely besides the point and not germane at all to the discussion.Let's say on paper, there is plenty of money in the IOUs to meet projected benefits, but all of the sudden there is not enough cash. The government will just either borrow money or lower benefits. The IOUs from the government to the government don't matter too much either way.

Just to let you know, I am from the US. Spent most of my life there. And indeed am still quite the American. Indeed often times I feel quite proud to be an American when I see some of the backwards crap which goes on in other nations.But I am also openminded and have travelled to other nations, seeking ways that may be different and better. Over the course of the last ten years I have spent much time in Europe, particularly those with better standards of living and more freedoms.What you have just done is tried to argue that successful programs that are actually working in other nations, must not actually work, or that they could never work in the US based on a (lets assume for arguments sake) failed program within the US.Now remember, I am cutting you a huge amount of slack by even accepting your claims to be true regarding that program's effects. I see others are attacking your claims and I will let them handle that. Here I will show you that I don't even need to address that in order to shoot down your argument.What does a singular social program conducted experimentally within the US, tying aid to children, rather than simply making sure all people have aid, have anything to do with what I was talking about?I cannot make a unicycle, fall off of it once and hurt myself badly, and then declare wheeled vehicles a failure and menace. And I certainly cannot do so, when right next door the neighbors have bikes and cars and get along just fine.I have pointed to a system that is functioning and has not had such results. Criticize what I am talking about, and don't bring in your unicycles, unless you are going to make the argument that all US citizens are inherently incapable of what northern europeans can handle. You look at what works in other nations, both their benefits and drawbacks, and create even better systems within the US. That is exactly what our founding fathers did. It has been one of the biggest mistakes the US has made, to believe it can no longer learn anything from the rest of the world, and instead everyone must take a lead from us.If you want specific answers for specific problems I can answer them, but I fully admit I do not have all answers for all problems.What I can tell you for sure is that what is NOT an acceptable answer, is allowing medical care and social welfare to be a conducted using a gambling model of for profit enterprise. It makes no logical sense at all, nor practical sense.Despite claims about how wonderful our system of medicine is, the population does not receive its benefits, and the costs can be destructive. A wealthy nation is capable and should put in place supports so that things we all must face (ill health and old age and times of unemployment) do not destroy a person and become a self-perpetuating cycle.There is no question that the US is at the top of third world countries, and about the bottom of first world countries in quality of life issues. We can do better ane we should do better.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oh, is it? How much are the fees, then? Less than .6%? Can you substantiate that? I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. The US Treasury has a legally binding obligation to make good on those bonds, an obligation that they've consistently upheld. In order to default on those bonds they would have to explicitly change the law, with catastrophic results to the worldwide economy.You're right in that it would be possible for the US government to not pay those bonds. But the consequence of such an action would literally be the meltdown of the global economy.Somehow, I don't think they're going to do that. Why, do you? But it turns out that they don't even have to. According to the most realistic estimates, no benefit cuts will be required at all. Sure, they could do it. They don't have to, though, and so they won't.So you didn't answer the question. Why would you be dumb enough to trade a guaranteed benefit for nothing more than a guaranteed contribution?

quote:

---

Look at the increase in the numbers of children borne and reared without a father in the home since welfare was instituted.

---

Show me.Specifically, show me that it is causative and not just correlated.

quote:

---

You can twist stats any way you want, but the bottom line is encouraging teen-age girls to be welfare Moms was a disaster.

---

How are the stats twisted?Be specific.

Crash. it's beginning to be clear that it is useless to discuss things with you, but I will say this, a savings account earning no interest is available to all Americans, but Americans choose to invest their retirement money in investment vehicles that earn them a return over the long run.It appears you cannot understand why anyone would invest their money at all when they have a guaranteed place to put their money without any risk of losing it.I really don't have time to explain such elementary things to you anymore. My suggestion would be to ask someone, maybe your parents, but someone that has chosen to invest money and still does why they would do that, and then maybe you will understand. Ask a liberal that you trust so you won't think they are lying to you.But as for me, if you are that ignorant of some basic concepts about modern life, don't waste my time trying to argue that those of us not so ignorant somehow just don't understand how it is better to put your money somewhere "guaranteed." What some of us want to offer lower income workers is a chance for their retirement money to be used as the rest of American's retirement money is used rather than spent by Congress each year with nothing but a promise from them to give them a very low pension when they retire, usually insufficient to cover their basic needs.

Well, they do. Social Security hasn't made it illegal to make your own investments, and most Americans have private investments for their retirement. I certainly do, and I believe that you've said that you do, too.So what are you arguing about? As it is right now you've got the best of both worlds. You've got your own private investments, which will probably, but not definately, have a great return; if you're disabled or killed, though, you've got the guaranteed benefits of Social Security to fill in for the investments you're no longer able to make.Only an idiot would think it was a bad deal to have two levels of protection. What you mean is, you don't have any more arguments.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-12-2005 01:17 PM

As I said here: Just substitute "social security" (or something simular) for the "school funding issues" in the above.People - Can't any of you do topic drift control on your own?This topic also closed.Adminnemooseus

---