Koch Brothers

[LikelyToBreak]

josephpalazzo believes in his Democrat Party ideology like Evangelicals believe in the bible. You can't argue with such ideologues. Facts don't matter. Theory supported by evidence don't matter. Only the true faith matters. Amen. In the meantime he doesn't realize that he is doing the bidding for the Koch brothers, and others of that ilk. Even when you point that out to him, he will deny, vociferate, and ad hominem you.

If Congress hadn't raided the Social Security taxes to pay for their boondoggles there would be no problems with the system.  But, the rich got their money from the system by getting lucrative government contracts by paying off Congress.  Now the rich want the money in the Social Security system in a much more direct manner, by getting it directly into the hands of the Wall Street moguls.  If the Republicans can't get through legislation giving the Social Security money to Wall Street, the Democrats will push it through in another session with a different name.  

Right now the idea is being floated to the masses to get them used to the idea.  So, when the Democrats actually do give Wall Street the Social Security money, they can claim it is just in response to Republican pressure and their plan is much better than the other one.  Kind of like how Romney's healthcare plan became Obama's healthcare plan.

[Solitary]

F. A. Hayek, the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize winner in Economic Sciences, was an economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought.

Note, not noted for his political campaigns.

Retard.

 :rollin:

Good argument! sarcasm!




F. Joseph Hayek's Summary
I am a member of the Conservative Party's Tory Reform Group. A compassionate Conservative, I hope to join other like minded right-of-centre thinkers in promulgating that message.

British Foreign Policy and Conservative Party's Foreign Policy are primary interests. Organisations such as the Conservative Middle East Council provide valuable information to Ministers, MPs and others and I support their work. It is important that the Party and the Government have a balanced and accurate view of the fast developing situations in the Middle East.

My current work includes canvassing for local elections, writing political literature, organising events with Ministers, MPs and members. Political Parties ought to be involving more people at a local level as a way of combating apathy. It is our job to make politics relevant to the electorate. This experience has opened my eyes to the machinations of local government as well as giving me the opportunity to meet and discuss issues with: MPs, Lords, Rt Honourables and a serving Foreign Office Minsiter, Home Secretary and Chancellor which bring valuable experience upon which I hope to build.

Specialties: Languages: French, German, Arabic.
Middle East: Understanding of the 3 monotheistic religions in the area. An intricate understanding of the history of different sections of the MENA region.
F. Joseph Hayek's Experience

Campaign Manager
Conservative Party
Nonprofit; 51-200 employees; Political Organization industry
June 2013 – Present (5 months)

Managing Director
Lidlockerz ltd
October 2010 – Present (3 years 1 month) Bowness-on-windermere
As part of my business, I have had many dealings with Cumbria County Council which has resulted in the installation of a necessary piece of infrastructure to do with my product.

My first client for my product has been the Lake District National Parks Authority and I hope to continue this relationship to extend the coverage of my product.

Campaigns Officer
Westmorland & Lonsdale Conservative Association
January 2012 – June 2013 (1 year 6 months) Kendal
As Campaigns Officer my duties include: Designing and producing campaign literature, organising political events, strategy & policy work. I have recently been put in charge of our Police & Crime Commissioner Candidate's campaign for the South of Cumbria.

I think you should get you facts correct before you call people retard!  :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:  Solitary

[lumpymunk]

Why would I do that when you're still clearly a fucking idiot.

If Hayek happens to be a conservative it says nothing about Austrian economics.  In fact a lot of Austrians are Anarcho-Capitalists.

Why do you choose to have opinions about things you know damn well you don't understand?

[Solitary]

josephpalazzo believes in his Democrat Party ideology like Evangelicals believe in the bible. You can't argue with such ideologues. Facts don't matter. Theory supported by evidence don't matter. Only the true faith matters. Amen. In the meantime he doesn't realize that he is doing the bidding for the Koch brothers, and others of that ilk. Even when you point that out to him, he will deny, vociferate, and ad hominem you.

If Congress hadn't raided the Social Security taxes to pay for their boondoggles there would be no problems with the system.  But, the rich got their money from the system by getting lucrative government contracts by paying off Congress.  Now the rich want the money in the Social Security system in a much more direct manner, by getting it directly into the hands of the Wall Street moguls.  If the Republicans can't get through legislation giving the Social Security money to Wall Street, the Democrats will push it through in another session with a different name.  

Right now the idea is being floated to the masses to get them used to the idea.  So, when the Democrats actually do give Wall Street the Social Security money, they can claim it is just in response to Republican pressure and their plan is much better than the other one.  Kind of like how Romney's healthcare plan became Obama's healthcare plan.

I think Josehpalazzo is choosing the lesser of two evils though. Solitary

[lumpymunk]

If Congress hadn't raided the Social Security taxes to pay for their boondoggles there would be no problems with the system.

Social Security is a ponzi scheme.  There was no "raiding" because there was nothing to be raided.  You think the Obama was stashing taxes collected to support Obamacare in some account for the last three years?  LOL  Nope!  Just an excuse to tax you for three years leading up to the launch date.

[LikelyToBreak]

lumpymunk, I am looking at the whole time Social Security has been instituted.  Not just the last three years or the last three administrations for that matter.  Had Social Security been managed properly from it conception, there would be enough money in it for today.  But, Congress has raided the system in the past.  Now they just want to do it in a different way.  


George Carlin explains about it in this video: [youtube:61065dl1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1iXXKmq58g[/youtube:61065dl1]

He explains in more succinctly than I can.

[lumpymunk]

The problem is that you falsely believe that at any point in history there was an account out there somewhere maintained by the government named "Social Security."  This is false.  It never existed.  It was never raided.

If you think the measly 2 trillion dollar surplus that allegedly should exist is enough to make the program solvent... explain why unfunded liabilities in the country exceed 100 trillion?

Simple math problem.

(I have Carlin's "All My Stuff" compilation, and yes I agree with him.)

[Jack89]

Government programs like Social Security don't help poor folks.

http://mises.org/daily/3469

Raising taxes on the rich won't fix your problems.  --Laffer Curve

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... rich-ones/

So let me get this straight. the constant SSA surplus has resulted in a 2.7 trillion dollar trust fund, but all of that's be loaned out to other government agencies which have to pay back the loan with interest.  However, the taxpayer is ultimately both responsible for paying the loan off with interest, and the recipient of the trust fund.  That can't be right.

What am i missing here?  It sounds like the taxpayer is paying twice (plus interest) for the same benefit.

[lumpymunk]

The "trust fund" never existed.  No surplus has ever existed.  It wasn't loaned out, it was immediately spent.

Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system. This means that when you work, the government takes your money and gives it to Social Security recipients. In order to get workers to accept this system, the government promises to take other people's money and give it to you when you retire. Think of it as an exponentially larger version of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

http://mises.org/daily/3469

You might be paying twice because that 2.7 trillion dollars doesn't exist, so the people who paid that first 2.7 trillion (if those people are having to pay still) are the ones having to pay twice.  In reality you're paying for every currently retired generation at once... but it will probably dwarf what you take out when you start collecting.

How does the math work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller

First person to receive social security benefits lived to be 100 years old.
- Payed in:  $24.75 (3 years)
- Withdrew:  $22,888.92 (35 years)

The system was insolvent from the beginning.

It's a transfer of wealth from the young and struggling who haven't had the time to accumulate any wealth yet, to the elderly who have earned a living their entire life and probably have savings and investments after a life of productivity.  It's also a transfer of wealth from men who generally die sooner, to women who generally die later.

[josephpalazzo]

josephpalazzo believes in his Democrat Party ideology like Evangelicals believe in the bible. You can't argue with such ideologues. Facts don't matter. Theory supported by evidence don't matter. Only the true faith matters. Amen. In the meantime he doesn't realize that he is doing the bidding for the Koch brothers, and others of that ilk. Even when you point that out to him, he will deny, vociferate, and ad hominem you.

If Congress hadn't raided the Social Security taxes to pay for their boondoggles there would be no problems with the system.  But, the rich got their money from the system by getting lucrative government contracts by paying off Congress.  Now the rich want the money in the Social Security system in a much more direct manner, by getting it directly into the hands of the Wall Street moguls.  If the Republicans can't get through legislation giving the Social Security money to Wall Street, the Democrats will push it through in another session with a different name.  

Right now the idea is being floated to the masses to get them used to the idea.  So, when the Democrats actually do give Wall Street the Social Security money, they can claim it is just in response to Republican pressure and their plan is much better than the other one.  Kind of like how Romney's healthcare plan became Obama's healthcare plan.

I think Josehpalazzo is choosing the lesser of two evils though. Solitary

It's not only choosing the lesser of two evils. it's also about understanding basic economics.

(1) The US is running a $17 T debt, but $7 T is between different departments of the government. The US taxpayers pay no interest on that. It's just different amount of money transferred within the government.
(2) Of the remaining $10T, only $4T is owed to foreigners, the rest is owed to Americans who will have to declare the interest they get and pay taxes on that.
(3) Of the $4T owed to foreigns, half of that goes to China and Japan. So it is in the interest of the US to keep interest rates low as we have in the past 5 years, and to flood the market with money as we have with QE1-2-3, by doing that, we de-evaluate our currency, meaning that the money we owe foreigners is worth less, notwithstanding that flooding the market with money is the only way right now to stimulate a sluggish economy.

So, the Obama administration has pursued the right economic policies since 2008, but you won't get that from Austrian economics, a theory devised by a bunch of idiots who don't understand simple graphics, let alone high school algebra or college calculus.

[lumpymunk]

Of course the part Keynesians like Joseph ignore is that creditors don't like being repaid with dollars that are significantly devalued.  The bond purchases are viewed as investments by other nations... not charity.  

While you might think it's been "smart" fiscal policy... what happens is that U.S. credibility is eroded as our currency is no longer worthy of being a global standard and store of value.

Then the party stops.

[josephpalazzo]

A devalued currency will increase our exports and decrease our imports, which is the right policy to increase jobs at home. So people will buy less French wine and drink more California wine, etc. And you lose if you are a tourist, but if you stay at home and buy American products, you will be fine.

[lumpymunk]

A devalued currency will increase our exports and decrease our imports, which is the right policy to increase jobs at home. So people will buy less French wine and drink more California wine, etc. And you lose if you are a tourist, but if you stay at home and buy American products, you will be fine.

What exports?  You fantasizing about exporting all the goods we no longer make in factories that were already outsourced to mexico and china?  Do you have any clue about the decline in manufacturing over the last 30 years?

Decrease our imports?  Google "trade deficit" you clueless fuck.

[Jack89]

(3) Of the $4T owed to foreigns, half of that goes to China and Japan. So it is in the interest of the US to keep interest rates low as we have in the past 5 years, and to flood the market with money as we have with QE1-2-3, by doing that, we de-evaluate our currency, meaning that the money we owe foreigners is worth less, notwithstanding that flooding the market with money is the only way right now to stimulate a sluggish economy.

Wouldn't that mean that money owed to Americans is devalued as well?  Come to think of it, it would also mean that any money that I save for a rainy day or retirement is worth less.  That's pretty messed up.

[PopeyesPappy]

Lumpy you do realize that the US manufacturing is the second only to China don't you? Since 1970 US manufacturing output has has only dipped twice. Once in 2001 after 911 and again in 2007 and 2008 due to the financial crisis.