• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama's "Truth Team" Explains "You Didn't Build That"

Does anyone know if this fuckfaced asshole actually went to Wake?
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Don't worry about it, asswipe boss fucker.
Click to expand...

Pretty obviously not talking to you. You sound like an a non-WF alumnus apparatchik. If you actually did honorably graduate Wake you probably would have a different response.

See what I did there? Now run along.
 
AMCDeac said:
As illustrations rather than a complete summary of libertarian philosophy, I submit that libertarians would support laws that protect individual freedoms, such a criminal restrictions against harming others -- murder, rape, assault, etc. Libertarians would also support laws that protect individual property rights -- real property (trespassing limitations), intellectual property (patent), etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this. As the 2012 libertarian convention shows, it's hard to get libertarians to agree on anything, but I think the general idea is that they support laws that maximize freedom for the most people. What "freedom" means can vary quite a bit, obviously. But I think even libertarians recognize that some amount of laws is necessary for maximum freedom in a society. [nerd] If you plot "freedom for all" on the Y axis, and "amount of laws" on the X axis, it'll be something like a bell curve, with maximum freedom somewhere between 0 laws and 100% laws. [/nerd]
 
Small and large businesses like the government, and they like government programs. The entitlements and support system that conservatives and libertarians love to hate are very good for business. Reducing the federal government to only providing for national defense would be horrible for businesses. The natural cycle of our economy would devastate thousands of businesses every few years if government programs were not in place to provide stability. This argument is insane. Of course the government helped all businesses all over the country. So what? Why is this anathema to conservatives who purport to love business so much?
 
RJKarl said:
but they don't support things like the civil rights of a customer not to be denied service because of his/her race.
Click to expand...

True a statment of philosophy and theory, with the idea being that companies who refuse to hire the best qualified candidate will lose in the marketplace, but it is also fair to say that actual views fall along a spectrum. I lean libertarian, and I mostly defend companies in employment lawsuits, but I also represent employees in circumstances of egregious discrimination. So I am amphibious.
 
WakeandBake said:
Small and large businesses like the government, and they like government programs. The entitlements and support system that conservatives and libertarians love to hate are very good for business. Reducing the federal government to only providing for national defense would be horrible for businesses. The natural cycle of our economy would devastate thousands of businesses every few years if government programs were not in place to provide stability. This argument is insane. Of course the government helped all businesses all over the country. So what? Why is this anathema to conservatives who purport to love business so much?
Click to expand...

What programs provide such stability? You mean like federal home loan mortgage corporations? Or subsidies?

I think Plutarch said it best. "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits".
 
pick through all the posts made by jhmd, DODO, Raleigh, etc and find all the government programs they wring their hands about and there you have it
 
Social Security and Medicare provide stability and have be hugely successful.
 
No question about it. SS needs to start upping the age and means testing.
 
the only other option is to up taxes. People are living much longer than the program was designed to be used.

Definition of "means testing"-(Social Welfare) a test involving the checking of a person's income to determine whether he qualifies for financial or social aid from a government.

If the "means test" is, if you have X$ of income, you don't get SS, it will help the system.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
the only other option is to up taxes. People are living much longer than the program was designed to be used.
Click to expand...

Ah, no, that's not the only other option. You can broaden the tax base, you can raise rates (as you suggest), you can reduce benefits in a variety of ways, you can grow the economy. All of those are vaible options. Raising the age and means testing are garbage options
 
Reducing benefits would devastate millions of people. It's far worse than upping the age appropriately.

Growing the economy will mot balance out people living to 85+.

"By the group's estimates women would to live to be 89 to 94 on average instead of the government's estimate of 83 to 85 years. For men, the group expects they will live to be 83 to 86 instead of the government's projection of 80 years average life expectancy in 2050."

Unless you mean "grow the economy" by paying people to have more kids, that's not a solution.
 
RJKarl said:
the only other option is to up taxes. People are living much longer than the program was designed to be used.

Definition of "means testing"-(Social Welfare) a test involving the checking of a person's income to determine whether he qualifies for financial or social aid from a government.

If the "means test" is, if you have X$ of income, you don't get SS, it will help the system.
Click to expand...
We've been over this before. SS is already means tested. You're simply suggesting a more stringent form, which would create very little savings.

http://http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ss-2011-03.pdf
"...over 75 percent of social security benefits go to individuals with non-Social Security income of less than $20,000 and 90 percent goes to those with non-Social Security income of less than $40,000 a year as of 2009. If means testing that phased out benefits at 10 percent were applied to those who make $100,000 a year and assuming no change in behavior, it would only save Social Security 0.74 percent of its outlays. At a 20 percent rate, this would only yield savings equal to1.33 percent of costs. If the phase out were dropped down to $40,000, hardly wealthy by any standard, the overall savings would just be 2.77 percent of costs at the 10 percent rate and only 4.65 percent of costs at the 20 percent rate. Accounting for behavioral responses would lead to even smaller savings, could cut these potential savings by half or more..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top