foraker Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 These statements that are made over and over again are seldom supported by facts: That government agencies are not subject to auditing. That federal employees are immune from firing for poor performance. That government workers are less efficient than private sector workers. Try working at one of our vaunted National Labs...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 So are you looking forward to caring for your parents? Are you looking forward to someday moving in with YOUR children, assuming you have any? It may be true that this is common in other countries, but given a choice, it is not what most people would want. Yes. I am thankfull for the way my parents raised me and will show my gratitude by taking care of them when they needed it. They took care of me when I needed it; it is the least I can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 If someone "dies" then that is everyone's problem, and moral responsibility to prevent. People need to stop using the government as a surrogate for them. You say it is our moral responsibility to care for our elderly, yet you call for removal of the system that does exactly this thing? How do you reconcile this? I'm not sure why you want to abolish social security, but I suspect it has to do with you not wishing to subsidize others. If this is the case, then where is the moral responibility there? Any statements of "local charities" or "let families care for their own" are just dodges of not wanting to care for what you consider someone else's burden. Where is the moral responsibility there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 If someone "dies" then that is everyone's problem, and moral responsibility to prevent. People need to stop using the government as a surrogate for them. You say it is our moral responsibility to care for our elderly, yet you call for removal of the system that does exactly this thing? How do you reconcile this? I'm not sure why you want to abolish social security, but I suspect it has to do with you not wishing to subsidize others. If this is the case, then where is the moral responibility there? Any statements of "local charities" or "let families care for their own" are just dodges of not wanting to care for what you consider someone else's burden. Where is the moral responsibility there? Those who feel a moral obligation to care for those in need can and should do so. Privately. It is not the government's role. And I reject the notion that throwing money at government social programs is an act of compassion and care. It seems that many people in support of these big government social programs think that by supporting them, they've done their part. And they don't have to make any personal sacrifices to do so - how convenient. And the best part of all - make some one else pay for it ("those selfish/rich/whatever" people). I characterize this attitude as indifference not compassion, and find it hypocritical, especially in light of continuous demagoguery about how conservatives supposedly don't care about the "less fortunate". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 It seems that many people in support of these big government social programs think that by supporting them, they've done their part. And they don't have to make any personal sacrifices to do so - how convenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 You rail about people who want to make someone else pay for it. And that person is you! Sheesh. You don't want to pay money into social security. Look, if you do think it's OK to let the less fortunate die on the streets, you could say so. That would at least make your sentences consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 You rail about people who want to make someone else pay for it. And that person is you! Sheesh. You do realize that SS is money you put away for yourself, right? It is not a transfer payment. In other words, you are promised to get back every cent you put into SS plus interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 (edited) Are we talking about two different things here? If you abolish social security, then many people will be even less prepared than they are now come old age. If we keep it, less people will be indigent at old age. You say you get all your money back, plus interest. Then where is the sacrifice? What is your problem with it? I assume it's because you would rather do something your consider smarter with the money (or you're planning on dieing at an early age?) If you would rather not make this sacrifice of acquiescing to put some of your money away at a guaranteed rate in order to assure that thousands of elderly will not be destitute, then I say yes, it's you who is abrogating the moral responsibility. Edited November 19, 2004 by chucK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Look, if you do think it's OK to let the less fortunate die on the streets, you could say so. I think many would like to see more personal responsibility and with that comes more liberty. S.S. is a croc. GWB is making a good move in enabling us to decide at least how a portion of it is to be invested. Its a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Are we talking about two different things here? If you abolish social security, then many people will be even less prepared than they are now come old age. If we keep it, less people will be indigent at old age. You say you get all your money back, plus interest. Then where is the sacrifice? What is your problem with it? I assume it's because you would rather do something smarter with the money (or you're planning on dieing at an early age without heirs or something?) If you would rather not make this sacrifice in order to assure that thousands of elderly will not be destitute, then I say yes, it's you who is abrogating the moral responsibility. I said that I wanted to grandfather out social security. That would take many years to accomplish. I would receive less than 100% of my benefits under such a plan, and would be transferring money to current (and future) recipients. But there would be an end to the program eventually. Hopefully this could be done such that my contributions would taper off and I could invest in my own retirement concurrently. The question of "dying elderly" that I was addressing was for those people who did not save for SS as the program tapered off and eventually went away. They would be my peers and younger people, who, in 30 or 40 years would have reduced benefits - eventually no benefits (i.e. an 18 year old kid today). The challenge was raised that this was not fair - the government needs to "force" people to be responsible and save for their future, and make sure they do it safely (not on volatile markets). So, we are arguing two things: 1) people who think they are going to get benefits because they paid in to the program. Yes, I think they should get them - proportional to their age as the program winds down 2) people who know that the program is going away and refuse to save for their own retirement, or "lose" their savings in volatile investments My "problem" with SS is that I do not have the freedom to invest (or not) as I wish. I am forced to contribute to some fund, and other people decide what to do with it. The money is mismanaged - and there is constant talk of needing to fix it, before it goes bankrupt. If other people like it, cool. I want to opt out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 My "problem" with SS is that I do not have the freedom to invest (or not) as I wish. I am forced to contribute to some fund, and other people decide what to do with it. The money is mismanaged - and there is constant talk of needing to fix it, before it goes bankrupt. If other people like it, cool. I want to opt out. Your SS funds are invested in TBills, one of the most stable investments in the world. The low rate of return on the investment stems from the Ponzi nature of SS - your money is paying off those who have withdrawn more than they contributed. It isn't "mismanaged" it's invested to minimize risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distel32 Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 get back on topic.......social security thread drift like whoa.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 get back on topic.......social security thread drift like whoa.... I think we need some more pics of iron horse riding steppe children to get back on track Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 get back on topic.......social security thread drift like whoa.... Fair enough. I get the impression that most people considering this "move" are young and single, or at least single. I'd like to see some discussion of where is a great place to move if you have families. As a single guy, I didn't worry too much about living in a small apartment with roomates, or worry about crime, the quality of schooling, corruption (police, legal system) etc. Once you get a house and a couple of kids, all this changes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 well now I'm looking at Iceland - working at becoming 100% petroleum free! Geo-thermal energy and Bjork - what more could you want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 well now I'm looking at Iceland - working at becoming 100% petroleum free! Geo-thermal energy and Bjork - what more could you want I read somewhere that the Icelanders (sic?) are the most happy people on the planet. I'm not sure I remember what the specific criteria were, or how they were weighed, but recall it was interesting. I'm not sure how open they are to foreigners though. I believe they have strict rules about preserving their culture (like naming children with traditional icelandic names). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattLinden Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Whoa. Slow down. I spent nine days mountain biking and sightseeing in Iceland this summer. My guide said that he believed just the opposite of what KK said - the guide said that depression was very common in Iceland. Given that it rains or snows most days there, I can understand. I certainly experienced lots of rain, even in one of their drier summer months. I didn't see a tree until my sixth day there. Mostly it is an open, grassy, and mossy place. Some ice and glacier climbing, but I didn't catch wind of much of a rock climbing culture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Yeah, but they get cool s#$% like this: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Where in the Hell is Gaston Lagoffe? Our very own 6 foot 6 Icelander. I was surprised to learn from him that Icelanders are way into supermodified American 4x4 diesel rigs that run up to $100K, the ultimate being a mega-modified Ford Econoline that can rip up the glaciers. They are working on the hydrogen thing but for now at least some of them dig the American horsepower. Guilty pleasure perhaps. Anyway - Iceland does sound pretty cool, and we may all benefit from the fact that they've licensed out their genome for research... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Ask Fleblebleb (sp?) he's from Iceland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squid Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 My next move is to Beirut. I want more bang for my buck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 NICE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Anyway - Iceland does sound pretty cool, and we may all benefit from the fact that they've licensed out their genome for research... Pay $50 for a pizza and tell me what you think then. Any country that has fermented cod skeleton as a historical delicacy is not one where I want to live . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distel32 Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 don't diss the strange fermented foods! some more pics for ya since you asked! ok I'm done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 Distel - I hope you're getting Photoshop for xmas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.