RE: social security is broke

RE: social security is broke (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: social security is broke (8/9/2015 4:59:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bossman777 And don't forget that conservatives give far more to charity than the supposed caring, loving, democrat. There's been plenty published on that in recent years. Check out http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 for example. The same is true even in giving of blood! "If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent." It's pretty clear to me that political leftists (I hate using the term 'liberal' for leftists because they are anything but) are the stingy, selfish, greedy persons they like to accuse conservatives of being. They're truly only generous with other people's money. .....and to think, I've been advising people, just become a big bank or a big farmer, or big investor, or even a pentagon def. contractor and they could have truly enjoyed Billion$ of...other peoples' money. I guess liberals and moderates just cannot afford that kind of largess. Gee, maybe they don't have enough free speech [sic] in the bank.

Zonie63 -> RE: social security is broke (8/9/2015 5:39:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bossman777 And don't forget that conservatives give far more to charity than the supposed caring, loving, democrat. There's been plenty published on that in recent years. Check out http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 for example. The same is true even in giving of blood! "If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent." It's pretty clear to me that political leftists (I hate using the term 'liberal' for leftists because they are anything but) are the stingy, selfish, greedy persons they like to accuse conservatives of being. They're truly only generous with other people's money. From your link (which is from 2008, btw): quote: When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires. It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives. What the article didn't mention is that liberals could also argue that they support programs which promote fairness and better wages/working conditions which could lessen poverty significantly. There wouldn't be as much need for private charities for the needy if there weren't as many needy people in the first place.

thishereboi -> RE: social security is broke (8/9/2015 5:46:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: bossman777 And don't forget that conservatives give far more to charity than the supposed caring, loving, democrat. There's been plenty published on that in recent years. Check out http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 for example. The same is true even in giving of blood! "If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent." It's pretty clear to me that political leftists (I hate using the term 'liberal' for leftists because they are anything but) are the stingy, selfish, greedy persons they like to accuse conservatives of being. They're truly only generous with other people's money. I'm gonna give you a big 'Fuck off' about the donating blood thing right now. http://m.redcrossblood.org/m/eligibility/criteria-by-topic#lifestyle quote: The top priorities of the American Red Cross are the safety of our volunteer blood donors and the ultimate recipients of blood. On June 11, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability voted against recommending a change to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy of a lifetime deferral for men who have sex with other men. The FDA is responsible for determining donor eligibility requirements and the Red Cross is required to follow their decisions. However, the Red Cross does support the use of rational, scientifically-based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities. We will continue to work through the AABB (American Association of Blood Banks) to press for donor deferral policies that are fair and consistent and based on scientific evidence, while still protecting patients from potential harm. While I agree it's a fucked up policy, the people who are hurt when others refuse to give because of it are the ones who need blood and could die if it's not available. I doubt any of them had anything to do with the policy so why punish them?

DesideriScuri -> RE: social security is broke (8/9/2015 5:59:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 it rubs a little against my libertarian type grain, but id be willing to compromise that a bit knowing that so many people wouldn't take care of things and it would create chaos. are you thinking the personal account would be with a private investment firm? if so, the person's choice, or the governments? I'm quite Libertarian, too. I'd much rather see people take care of themselves, rather than letting government take care of them. I truly believe charity could fill the voids, if they were allowed to, and government stopped taking so much money from people. I've read before that part of the problem with charitable giving levels is that people know their taxes are going towards assistance programs, so why should they give more? They're already giving through taxes. I can see how it might be beneficial to have some options of plans, and letting individuals control their funds (they could also choose to allow government to invest those same funds). The problem that may be run into if government controls the investment, however, is what happens if those investments don't pan out worth shit? It's one thing if individuals do it themselves, because they decided and took the risks, but if government does it, then there will be lots of issues and disgust.

Zonie63 -> RE: social security is broke (8/9/2015 7:05:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I've read before that part of the problem with charitable giving levels is that people know their taxes are going towards assistance programs, so why should they give more? They're already giving through taxes. I think a lot of it also has to do with perceptions about some private charities being as bad or worse at handling money than government is. Not all of them are the same, but there are some which soak up a large part of their revenue for "administrative costs" while only a small percentage actually goes to the people for whom the charity is for. A few of the larger national-level charities have CEO salaries which are higher than the President of the United States. I know of a few local charitable organizations around here which went belly-up due to embezzlement. And then there's the religious organizations, which can also run up and down the spectrum. But when people hear stories of televangelists living in mansions and enjoying lavish lifestyles, that can also make one suspicious about their purported "good works."

bounty44 -> RE: social security is broke (8/10/2015 2:47:07 AM)
one wonders if private retirement accounts will ever replace social security. I don't think any of the presidential candidates are talking about such a move, but rather, are talking about how to continue to fund ss and make it viable.

JVoV -> RE: social security is broke (8/10/2015 3:46:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: bossman777 And don't forget that conservatives give far more to charity than the supposed caring, loving, democrat. There's been plenty published on that in recent years. Check out http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 for example. The same is true even in giving of blood! "If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent." It's pretty clear to me that political leftists (I hate using the term 'liberal' for leftists because they are anything but) are the stingy, selfish, greedy persons they like to accuse conservatives of being. They're truly only generous with other people's money. I'm gonna give you a big 'Fuck off' about the donating blood thing right now. http://m.redcrossblood.org/m/eligibility/criteria-by-topic#lifestyle quote: The top priorities of the American Red Cross are the safety of our volunteer blood donors and the ultimate recipients of blood. On June 11, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability voted against recommending a change to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy of a lifetime deferral for men who have sex with other men. The FDA is responsible for determining donor eligibility requirements and the Red Cross is required to follow their decisions. However, the Red Cross does support the use of rational, scientifically-based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities. We will continue to work through the AABB (American Association of Blood Banks) to press for donor deferral policies that are fair and consistent and based on scientific evidence, while still protecting patients from potential harm. While I agree it's a fucked up policy, the people who are hurt when others refuse to give because of it are the ones who need blood and could die if it's not available. I doubt any of them had anything to do with the policy so why punish them? How can you refuse to do something you're not allowed to do anyway? And who's being punished exactly? Gay & bisexual men are not allowed to give blood. FDA link God forbid somebody catches gay during surgery.

CreativeDominant -> RE: social security is broke (8/10/2015 9:55:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Please back up your claim regarding party vs recipient..... This might help... [image]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-etGndwrXG_E/T0VsyVn8yDI/AAAAAAAAAk0/jSAvBfaB9QA/s1600/maxwell.png[/image] That was taken from this article: http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2012/02/do-welfare-recipients-mostly-vote.html?m=1 In the article, you'll also find a link for NPR data showing much the same. And NPR certainly isn't a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. "Perhaps I spend too much time lurking around left-leaning blogs, but there are many myths taken as fact without any additional analysis. One of the most prominent? The notion that red states take the most aid from the government. Mitt Romney sparked outrage during the 2012 election for his comments about the “47 percent” of Americans who are dependent on government. Romney was actually quoting the percentage of Americans who pay no federal income tax, not the percentage of people who receive government aid, which is a slightly larger 49 percent. In an article published before Romney’s gaffe, liberal economist Paul Krugman blogged that “Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as ‘most conservative’ received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.” Romney’s comments only seemed to give the left more reason to summon up statistics like these to “prove” who the real moochers are. But as solid as the statistics Krugman provided might seem, we’re left with one glaring problem: States aren’t people. Could it be possible that liberals within conservative states are the ones taking the welfare dollars? A survey by the Maxwell Poll on the political affiliation of those receiving government aid showed this to be the case. Type of Benefit Received %Voting Democrat %Voting Republican Public Housing 81% 12% Medicaid 74% 16% Food Stamps 67% 20% Unemployment Compensation 66% 21% Disability (from Govt.) 64% 25% Welfare/Public Assistance 63% 22% Attributing the problem to red states is false; the problem lies in the blue parts of the red states." http://rare.us/story/81-of-people-receiving-public-housing-benefits-vote-democratic-and-thats-just-the-tip-of-the-handout-iceberg/ Here's another, more comprehensive story: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/ Some interesting elements from this story: [image]http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/12/SDT-2012-12-18-beneficiaries-06.png[/image]

bounty44 -> RE: social security is broke (8/10/2015 11:40:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: bossman777 And don't forget that conservatives give far more to charity than the supposed caring, loving, democrat. There's been plenty published on that in recent years. Check out http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 for example. The same is true even in giving of blood! "If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent." It's pretty clear to me that political leftists (I hate using the term 'liberal' for leftists because they are anything but) are the stingy, selfish, greedy persons they like to accuse conservatives of being. They're truly only generous with other people's money. I'm gonna give you a big 'Fuck off' about the donating blood thing right now. http://m.redcrossblood.org/m/eligibility/criteria-by-topic#lifestyle quote: The top priorities of the American Red Cross are the safety of our volunteer blood donors and the ultimate recipients of blood. On June 11, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability voted against recommending a change to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy of a lifetime deferral for men who have sex with other men. The FDA is responsible for determining donor eligibility requirements and the Red Cross is required to follow their decisions. However, the Red Cross does support the use of rational, scientifically-based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities. We will continue to work through the AABB (American Association of Blood Banks) to press for donor deferral policies that are fair and consistent and based on scientific evidence, while still protecting patients from potential harm. While I agree it's a fucked up policy, the people who are hurt when others refuse to give because of it are the ones who need blood and could die if it's not available. I doubt any of them had anything to do with the policy so why punish them? How can you refuse to do something you're not allowed to do anyway? And who's being punished exactly? Gay & bisexual men are not allowed to give blood. FDA link God forbid somebody catches gay during surgery. without resorting to the actual data that's out there, people have died from receiving HIV infected blood. the most famous case of which was arthur ashe. the law in place now is at least a holdover from the early days of that. there used to be an option that I imagine still exists, you can donate blood, but you can also stipulate you want it used for other than transfusion purposes.

bounty44 -> RE: social security is broke (8/10/2015 12:12:45 PM)
Famous Quote from Benjamin Franklin "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." (hard to know who actually said this, or some version of it, or at all. there are plenty of choices and authors out there. does the point remain regardless?)

DesideriScuri -> RE: social security is broke (8/10/2015 4:39:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I've read before that part of the problem with charitable giving levels is that people know their taxes are going towards assistance programs, so why should they give more? They're already giving through taxes. I think a lot of it also has to do with perceptions about some private charities being as bad or worse at handling money than government is. Not all of them are the same, but there are some which soak up a large part of their revenue for "administrative costs" while only a small percentage actually goes to the people for whom the charity is for. A few of the larger national-level charities have CEO salaries which are higher than the President of the United States. I know of a few local charitable organizations around here which went belly-up due to embezzlement. And then there's the religious organizations, which can also run up and down the spectrum. But when people hear stories of televangelists living in mansions and enjoying lavish lifestyles, that can also make one suspicious about their purported "good works." No disagreement here, Zonie.

DesideriScuri -> RE: social security is broke (8/10/2015 4:42:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 Famous Quote from Benjamin Franklin "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." (hard to know who actually said this, or some version of it, or at all. there are plenty of choices and authors out there. does the point remain regardless?) Yes.

thishereboi -> RE: social security is broke (8/11/2015 4:52:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV How can you refuse to do something you're not allowed to do anyway? And who's being punished exactly? I was referring to those who can donate but don't because they don't like the fucked up rule about gays donating. And the ones being punished would be anyone who needs blood but can't get any because they ran out. quote: Gay & bisexual men are not allowed to give blood. FDA link God forbid somebody catches gay during surgery. Yes I know that and mentioned in the post that I think it's fucked up. And I think we both know they were concerned with aids when they made the rule not with anyone catching "gay". But then again wording it your way makes them look even more ignorant than they already are and that seems to be the main goal these days. Even if it's not true.

KenDckey -> RE: social security is broke (8/11/2015 8:57:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV How can you refuse to do something you're not allowed to do anyway? And who's being punished exactly? I was referring to those who can donate but don't because they don't like the fucked up rule about gays donating. And the ones being punished would be anyone who needs blood but can't get any because they ran out. quote: Gay & bisexual men are not allowed to give blood. FDA link God forbid somebody catches gay during surgery. Yes I know that and mentioned in the post that I think it's fucked up. And I think we both know they were concerned with aids when they made the rule not with anyone catching "gay". But then again wording it your way makes them look even more ignorant than they already are and that seems to be the main goal these days. Even if it's not true. Just a quick question. Did you petition directly to either congress or the fda in any manner to have the FDA change the rule?

MrRodgers -> RE: social security is broke (8/12/2015 12:57:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 Famous Quote from Benjamin Franklin "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." (hard to know who actually said this, or some version of it, or at all. there are plenty of choices and authors out there. does the point remain regardless?) I am curious though, how does this relate to soc. sec. ? The only way possible, is if you seem to have a problem with what congress has added on to [its] original basic financial responsibilities. And furthermore, did do pandering to the respective constituencies...without asking further or say, more widespread deductions to pay for it or overpay for it as has been done for soc. sec. since 83.

JVoV -> RE: social security is broke (8/12/2015 1:34:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV How can you refuse to do something you're not allowed to do anyway? And who's being punished exactly? I was referring to those who can donate but don't because they don't like the fucked up rule about gays donating. And the ones being punished would be anyone who needs blood but can't get any because they ran out. quote: Gay & bisexual men are not allowed to give blood. FDA link God forbid somebody catches gay during surgery. Yes I know that and mentioned in the post that I think it's fucked up. And I think we both know they were concerned with aids when they made the rule not with anyone catching "gay". But then again wording it your way makes them look even more ignorant than they already are and that seems to be the main goal these days. Even if it's not true. Just a quick question. Did you petition directly to either congress or the fda in any manner to have the FDA change the rule? Nah, I just lie and get my $10 Red Lobster gift card every time that bus comes around.

KenDckey -> RE: social security is broke (8/12/2015 4:48:05 PM)
JVoV Now that you have become a professed liar. quote: Nah, I just lie and get my $10 Red Lobster gift card every time that bus comes around. please explain why you wouldn't respect the rule (even if I agree that it is wrong) and not petition the government (a constitutional right) to change it? Just doesn't make sense to me to lie and it degrades whatever you say, at least in my opinion.

quizzicalkitten -> RE: social security is broke (8/14/2015 6:48:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: bossman777 And don't forget that conservatives give far more to charity than the supposed caring, loving, democrat. There's been plenty published on that in recent years. Check out http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 for example. The same is true even in giving of blood! "If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent." It's pretty clear to me that political leftists (I hate using the term 'liberal' for leftists because they are anything but) are the stingy, selfish, greedy persons they like to accuse conservatives of being. They're truly only generous with other people's money. From your link (which is from 2008, btw): quote: When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires. It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives. What the article didn't mention is that liberals could also argue that they support programs which promote fairness and better wages/working conditions which could lessen poverty significantly. There wouldn't be as much need for private charities for the needy if there weren't as many needy people in the first place. But Seattle has living wages, the ever so wanted 15 whole dollars an hour, and people are taking hour cuts, asking to work less so they can stay on assistance. HOW is better wages getting people out of poverty exactly? http://m.snopes.com/seattle-15-minimum-welfare/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/24/seattle-sees-unexpected-fallout-from-15-per-hour-min-wage/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/seattle-sees-fallout-from-15-minimum-wage-as-other-cities-follow-suit/

JVoV -> RE: social security is broke (8/14/2015 8:35:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey JVoV Now that you have become a professed liar. quote: Nah, I just lie and get my $10 Red Lobster gift card every time that bus comes around. please explain why you wouldn't respect the rule (even if I agree that it is wrong) and not petition the government (a constitutional right) to change it? Just doesn't make sense to me to lie and it degrades whatever you say, at least in my opinion. Actually, it was a joke, though I suppose didn't hit the mark. It would be exhausting to fight every time I'm discriminated against because of my sexuality. I try to avoid the situations as much as possible. But I worry about the security of our blood supply if they rely on the honesty of donors, without having the ability to actually test the blood that's donated. Especially when any sort of gift is given for donating. HIV/AIDS isn't a gay disease, and the entire community shouldn't be treated as lepers because of it. I have been tested for HIV no less than twice a year since 1996, usually more often. My blood tests have revealed that I have a mutated gene that may prevent certain viral infections, such as HIV and Ebola. The research, while encouraging, isn't unanimous on that though, so I've been on Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for the last 6 months or so (yay Obamacare!). Seems like a waste since I've had sex all of three times since then, but it's become as routine as taking my vitamins.

KenDckey -> RE: social security is broke (8/14/2015 8:43:34 PM)
1. You didn't miss the mark. You missed the entire range. 2. I could care less about your sexuality (sis and bro in law are homosexual) 3. Bro in law got HIV after being raped. If you think the law is wrong the I seriously think you should petition the government (your legal right) to change it. Same with policies that the govt puts out. I have done it many times. won a few lost a lot. but at least I try.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875