So the government is better at planning your retirement than you are? I'm sorry if that's true, but they sure as shit aren't better at it than I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Printable View
So the government is better at planning your retirement than you are? I'm sorry if that's true, but they sure as shit aren't better at it than I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
It has nothing to do with that, but having each and every person in this country investing in the stock market is a stupid fucking idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It's ironic that Chelsea Clinton is a hedge fund manager. I'll bet she realizes that the feds couldn't do it better than the private sector.
So you don't trust the same people who you want to elect the most powerful person in the world to plan their own retirement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Here's how we fix social security: Let Mexicans immigrate. Brown baby-boom will pay for us when we're old and gray.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You deserve rep for that one.
edit: Damn it... I've given it to you to recently.
1) Who said I trust them to do anything? Fuckers let me down two elections in a row.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
2) It has nothing to with trust, I just think infusing that much money into the stock market at the hands of laymen will lead to disastrous overspeculation which could destabilize the market.
Privatizing doesn't mean letting them buy their own stocks. It's more likely a choice of what % to put in what mutual fund would be provided. That's the way my company's 401(k) works.
Even still, the sheer amount of investment would have to inflate the market beyond its worth.
That's not even possible. It's a self-correcting system and would be an enormous boon for the economy.
Most corporations don't help throw California into an energy crisis or play a major part in creating national energy policy - while they're crashing down from illegal activities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I'll let you have this one. The stock market seems like a big auction with no product to me, but I'm going to plead semi-ignorance on the finer workings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
California is in a economic crisis of multiple kinds because their former Democratic governor that was removed ran the state into the ground, making corporations pick up and leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
I can understand that view. It's without a doubt legalized gambling in a lot of ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I never said anything about California's economy. I said energy crisis. Nice side step though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I love how people "just" know this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
not everything is putting monkeys on the moon
It's a side effect of the same mismanagement was my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Every area where utilities have been privatized has been a disaster. Some things just don't belong in the private sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Really? Because I have privatized electricity and gas and have had zero problems. And I have city water, and we damn near ran out this fall because they government didn't plan for population growth well. We were down to less than 30 days worth.
That might have something to do with, I don't know, the severe drought that hit the entire southeast. That's just a guess, though.
A side effect that made Enron lots and lots of money at people's expense. It's a good thing we had them working on our national energy policy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
That depends. They privatized the telephone company here (PRT), and it's worked out very well. Where you only had one option before, we now have 4 digital phone companies, and cell phones have exploded to the point that people are dropping their lands lines entirely. Privatization has given consumers more options.
Corruption is exclusive to corporations and never is found in political circles, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
I don't like corporations or politicians. I'm an anarchist!
Not many people do, unfortunately they're a necessary evil.
The White House would say yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Over no 20 year period in this country's history has the stock market lost money. If the average person started investing modestly in treasury bonds at age 18 and also bought into a diversified securities portfolio they'd retire at 65 with a shitload of money. The stock market only gets risky when you expect to get a lot of money out of it within a few years. 40 years of responsible investing essentially guarantees a wealthy retirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
That doesn't really work for the people that will need it. The whole reason there's a social security crisis is not because of our generation, but the aging baby boomers who are too numerous to be supported by the current system. They do not have 40 years to invest.
By the time our turn rolls around the problem will be long gone.
If by long gone you mean, not long gone, then yes. Its an issue of life expectancy as well, and rising costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
The issue will only be long gone if we start raising the age significantly and/or reducing the benefits.
Edit: Oh yeah I looked into it, if the bush tax cuts were removed, and MAGICALLY congress did not increase the government size, even relative to the GDP, we would be out of deficit around 2014. God damn, Clinton rocked.
I'm a stone's throw from Yoshi, and my city did plan for such an issue. We had plenty of water, and sold it to neighboring cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Durham is pretty much an urban clusterfuck, too bad all the good jobs are there too.
Explain to me exactly why the deficit, at its current level, is bad. No one answer for him. I can't wait for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destin
If you guys are ever in the UK, take a ride on one of our railways. Proof (if any were needed) that some things should not be privatised.
I've been all over England on the trains and I found it alright. Not great (or on time) but it got you where you were going (sort of).
Also expensive, overcrowded and currently costing the taxpayer more than British Rail did (even before you take into account the above-inflation increases in price should you actually want to stand in an atrium for five hours because there aren't any seats left).Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
I'm just bitter. I've had many poor experiences on the railways but this weekend I stood for five hours on a train that was half an hour late and paid £80 for the privilege. That's considerably more than £1 for every two miles travelled.
Amtrak.Quote:
Originally Posted by red_war_machine
So is any form of investment. There are no guarantees and you're always taking on the risk of loss. The difference is the volatility involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I like the privatization of retirement funds because it makes people realize you can't go through life being ignorant about money.
Investing is not gambling. Gambling is all about luck. Investing puts money in someone's hand so they can produce something. Gooch, you know this.
Yes, risk is involved in both endeavors, but the difference is that straight gambling doesn't DO anything. Putting my money into a company or entrepreneur's hands allows them to be productive and make/design/sell/whatever something.
The only similarity b/w the two is that they both involve risk and money.
Right, but the reason is because the government has long since spent all the money the boomers put into the general fund under the banner of Social Security. The government can always be counted on to waste money, which is why putting that money into private investments is far more reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
The baby boomers are going to be fine, it's our generation that is going to get fucked with Social Security.
That's not how it works. It's not money you saved up. The current working pay for the current retired.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
That's how it's working in practice unfortunately but that's not how it was designed to work. We're getting the fuck taxed out of us to pay for the most worthless generation in history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I know, Japan's been dealing with it for 10 years. Luckily our population and workforce is growing again (thanks latinos) so it won't be as bad for us.
That's the most persuasive argument I've heard for letting millions of Mexicans flood the country. I say we trade Mexico our baby boomers for their migrant workers.
Mexicans, come to the US and help us pay to baby old honkeys =D
It works even better/faster if you give them legal status and tax them.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
I'm not even kidding. A young, eager workforce will help to boost our economy and balance out the aging boomers. We need to stop fighting immigration and find a way to make it work for us.
IBTN. Better for the long haul. Racism times immediate necessity= current situation. There's nobody in power far-sighted enough to make that point though.
I assume you are aware of the differences from off budget and on budget deficits?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Its fairly simple really. The general agreed goal is some degree of fairness amongst generations. Say, the comparative debt/interest that you are dealing with in your current age, versus what a hypothetical "me" would pay if I actually worked. Why? Because there is no reason I should have to deal with more of debt and higher taxes to cover net interest outlays later because you want more shit now. The counter argument for a deficit above 0%, is that a balanced budget places too heavy a burden on the current generation, and is unfair since they did not ask for the debt. (My personal viewpoint is that with our track record of hitting our target deficits, its better to aim a bit higher. Congress always knows how to use funds, but never how to cut it.)
So what can be done to keep thing fair for you, and me. Well, if debt is kept at a constant percentage of GDP, then the burden of debt is equal for our generations. That means you get to keep running your deficit. But how much do you get? If the budget were balanced, the debt would slowly dwindle because although it is still just as big as ever, our ability to produce continues to expand.
The current Percentage of GDP debt held by the public is 36.8%(CBO). Current GDP increases clock in at around (2.2) That means you get to run a deficit of the amount of .736%.
Your total on budget deficit is 2.6% (The Budget and Economic Outlook:
Fiscal Years 2008 to 2018).
2.6% > .736%
So in addition to outlandish projected medicare/social security spending I will have the pleasure of paying to you, you are living it up now on my dollar.
That is why I think running our current deficit, is a bad thing.
Edit: Oh yeah, having a bunch of comparatively low productivity workers enter the system is considered one of the primary reasons for our 1970's issues (re:women). Fuck that noise, raise the age.
I have no idea what all of that just said.
Explain it to me in one word.
Maths.
http://politicalpokeman.ytmnd.com/
Turn down the volume before you visit the link.
Deficit = better life now, worse life later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
It was mostly cause Yoshi couldn't wait to be wrong.
The Barack sprite is so awesome.
QFMFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
And its even better if you don't let them in, and instead accept the same number of people with the highest qualifications/education from various countries. Immigrants that legally get in generally have a very good work ethic, and pass that on to the second generation, although it begins to fade after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Get real. :rolleyes:
Life is very depressing when you do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
If I could be a superhero
I'd be Immigration Dude
I'd send all the foreigners back to their homes
For eating up all of our food
And taking our welfare and best jobs to boot
Like landscaping, dishwashing, picking our fruit
I'd pass a lot of laws to get rid of their brood
'Cause I'd be immigration dude.
stuffwhitepeoplelike #77
THEY TOOK UR JIBS! >_<
Except that none of what you posted backs any of that. It's random "facts" that show your ability to regurgitate bullshit rather than an understanding of the concept. The majority of the US debt is to the US. It's a hugely overhyped issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destin
No one will hire them for minimum wage. They work because they undercut American workers. If you're going to be able to tax them, they have to make minimum wage, so your argument falls apart right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
This is the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destin
Yes they will. They bust their asses and they don't bitch about needing smoke breaks every half hour like spoiled white kids do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Why? We're already overeducated as a society. We spend too much time in college instead of working for not enough benefit and half the people that do go to college still do shit jobs when they get out. We're not a productive society. We have an education glut and a lack of people that will work hard at unskilled jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destin
They'd bitch if they didn't fear deportation and knew they had rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Are you arguing that we should make it harder for people to get an education? The more access to education a citizenry has the less productive it tends to be because nobody wants to do shitty jobs if they don't have to. Try to find a janitor in Sweden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
So who cleans up all the shit?
Ah, yes, every immigrant workforce that has come to this country in the past has always been hard working with a strong nuclear family, but the Mexicans will only do this if they don't have residency rights. It would be trite to attribute this to racism, but it's either that or a severe lack of historical perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
Also, you've clearly not met many legal Mexican immigrants.
Not at all. But I'm just saying if we're picking and choosing what we "need" from an immigrant work force, it's probably not what we already have too much of.Quote:
Are you arguing that we should make it harder for people to get an education?
...they still wouldn't bitch, because the concept of worker rights is utterly alien to them - the virtue of serfdom as taught by the conquistadors is still deeply ingrained in their culture. This is why being a worker in Latin America sucks even worse than being an illegal here.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
to be fair, they are even more educated, normally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Mexicans?
Foreign people that come here legally with high education.
So foreign people with a high education generally have a lot of education? Glad we cleared that up.
more education than their American peers imo
We still have a lot of people with a high education to take low paying jobs. They're called liberal arts majors.
If you think a liberal arts major is going to actually do manual labor, I have terrible news: Probably not.
Unless the gov't sets up a program to get 'em working in salt mines if they can't pay off their loans.
is that why our government has this delusion of the US becoming a mass of service jobs?
stupid white kids?
And Jews are evil and like to horde money. And blacks like chicken and are lazy. And mexican's fire guns in to the air when celebrating and nobody cares about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Actually we need positive stereotypes here. Black people are good at basketball and are well endowed, Jews are good with finances and are funny, Mexicans have a great work ethic and keep quiet about their hardships.
Mexicans can cook too, son. Shooooooootttttt
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormy
All male liberal arts majors, and the ugly female ones, should be removed from the gene pool.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Somebody's gotta be left to write quips for Hannity, Yoshi.
We wouldn't need Hannity if we exterminated all the LA idiots.
I am in agreement with you on the "LA sucks" front. Horrible, brainless place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The funniest thing about the immigration argument (besides what complete douchebags like Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh have to say about it) is that every single argument the Right brings up on this issue is unrealistic to the point of absurdity.
This country does not have the man power, the resources, or the intelligence to remove the millions of illegals from this country. When a politician gets on his soapbox and states that if he is elected he will vow to get rid of illegals, he may as well be saying he'll vow to give us all magic pixie dust (which we all know turns tears into jellybeans), if we vote for him.
Unrealistic ideas are not a solution. Period.
Just up and pulling out of Iraq is unlikely, because of the sheer damage it would cause, but not unrealistic because it is "possible."
Hunting down, and deporting the millions of illegal immigrants in this country, is unrealistic, simply because its not possible. Its like when Reagan started this just completely trite war on drugs.
Just complete, unwinnable, bullshit, rhetoric.
That's not entirely true. If you could strangle their ability to make a living by doing something like making the penalty for hiring them a $100,000 fine per count, then they would stop coming. You're right about it being nearly impossible to forcibly move them though. It has to be motivation of other kinds.
But why would you do that, for any reason other than "fuck THOSE guys"?
Is anybody lined up to replace 'em?
Generalize much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
You gotta wonder how low they would go to make them appealing to employers even against such a fine. I imagine what they have here is a good deal in their eyes so who knows what they would come up with to keep a good thing going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
a lot of people would not miss them. I don't really need orange juice that bad, buy shitty walmart furniture, or need to look at really well groomed rich people yards. I guess I would hate that a lot of Chinese restaurant would close though.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
I'm kind of curious how many Mexicans (illegal and otherwise) you guys actually work with. The entire back of the house crew at every restaurant I've ever worked at has been Mexican (Illegal and otherwise). They work harder and complain less than we do. It's just how it is.
If it were that simple, that wouldn't be so bad at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
But it is not.
Wal Mart would probably go out of business without mexicans
The stub that's left of the goddamn economy would finish tanking without mexicans.
I'm glad to see you've all lumped every Hispanic race together and just called us Mexicans. I guess you're too busy drinking your faggot lattes and paying $2k for pussy you can't attract for free eh, white people?
Get a job.
Sorry that the back of house guys I know were MEXICAN, douchebag.
don't get upset at the honkey's just cause we can't tell you guys appart. You don't see us getting pissy when someone can't tell a wop from a german.
I'm the douche bag for feeling offended when you dick jockeys cannot tell the difference between Hispanics? There are other illegals in this country from all over South America that aren't Mexican.
No kidding, but they weren't the people I was talking about.
Oh sorry, there's one. The Sous chef is Costa Rican.
Brown (not black) people? Spanish/Indian Mutts (Variety Pack)? Hardworking, Squinty, Jeans and Flannel types? People of the sun? Spanish speaking non-Spaniards?
Or just hispanics. Latin Americans!
pretty muchQuote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
Ramon, please, they prefer the term, "Latino."
Using that word is like a Bat-Signal for Type Ryan.
Hispanic is not the correct nomenclature. Asian-American, please.