#DiagnoseTrump

[metis]

I don't understand all of the details, but I understand enough to know I am oppose to it. and SS is an individualized account . "We are given a number to identify our individual account

Even though we each have a SS number, your "donations" go into a general fund whereas then it is released on the basis on contributions and time of retirement and not as some sort of personal account. It was the Republicans who tried to have it personalized as personalized accounts under "W" Bush's administration, but the public wouldn't buy it. Even surveys taken of Tea Party people have found that they don't want it changed either, nor do even they want Medicare changed to individual accounts that would end up being invested on the stock market.

Just imagine for one minute what the panic would have been like if our SS and Medicare had been invested in Wall Street back in 2008-9.

 

[YmirGF]

Just imagine for one minute what the panic would have been like if our SS and Medicare had been invested in Wall Street back in 2008-9.

Then again, if that was the case, at least you wouldn't have been bailing out just a herd of nervous and highly irresponsible billionaires.

 

[Revoltingest]

No one here, but I've read plenty of Libertarian authors of influence that do. Or, as is more common, extremely minimal regulations that just won't do any good.

Many people say things which aren't real options available to us.
So when those extreme things are criticized instead of what's
actually under discussion, I call "straw man".
It would be similar to characterizing socialists as all favoring a
N Korean style economy, replete with all the repression & insanity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even though we each have a SS number, your "donations" go into a general fund whereas then it is released on the basis on contributions and time of retirement and not as some sort of personal account.

Aye, this is why it's wrong when the Social Security system is called a "trust fund".
The USSC even ruled none of us have a right to it, ie, it can be taken away by
government, eg, when someone is deported.
Referencing your favorite source....
Is There a Right to Social Security?
Weird...."engraft" is a real word.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So when those extreme things are criticized instead of what's
actually under discussion, I call "straw man".

It's not a strawman when you present a position, but when you misrepresent that position. As I indicated, some Libertarians of influence want none, and more of them want very limited regulations. That's not a strawman, that is fact. Now, of course I can also present positions of Left-winged Socialist-Libertarians, but I've noticed you tend to dismiss them as not being Libertarian.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not a strawman when you present a position, but when you misrepresent that position. As I indicated, some Libertarians of influence want none, and more of them want very limited regulations. That's not a strawman, that is fact.

No one here was proposing "unbridled" capitalism, so it's a straw man.

Now, of course I can also present positions of Left-winged Socialist-Libertarians, but I've noticed you tend to dismiss them as not being Libertarian.

That's cuz they're not "Libertarian".
(You won't find them belonging to the party.)
And per N Americastanian or British usage, they're not even the small "l" variety.
A country cannot have both liberty & an authoritarian economic system.

 

[metis]

Then again, if that was the case, at least you wouldn't have been bailing out just a herd of nervous and highly irresponsible billionaires.

And then we would now be in the economic pooper.

Yes, it stinks, and I do believe that the offending banks should have been busted up and resold like the Brits did. So, why didn't we do just that? I believe it's likely because the fed had to do somethings illegally to keep us from tanking, and this may have been the trade-off.

 

[omega2xx]

Even though we each have a SS number, your "donations" go into a general fund whereas then it is released on the basis on contributions and time of retirement and not as some sort of personal account. It was the Republicans who tried to have it personalized as personalized accounts under "W" Bush's administration, but the public wouldn't buy it. Even surveys taken of Tea Party people have found that they don't want it changed either, nor do even they want Medicare changed to individual accounts that would end up being invested on the stock market.

Just imagine for one minute what the panic would have been like if our SS and Medicare had been invested in Wall Street back in 2008-9.

something similar was suggester by the Republicans a few years back, but the Dem rejected it. They wouldn't have much money to waste if that had passed.

 

[metis]

something similar was suggester by the Republicans a few years back, but the Dem rejected it. They wouldn't have much money to waste if that had passed.

Even many Republicans rejected it, especially when they read what the public-opinion polls were indicating.

I have doubts that they'll actually try again even though they will soon control both houses and the presidency, as it probably would be political suicide.

 

[omega2xx]

Even many Republicans rejected it, especially when they read what the public-opinion polls were indicating.

I have doubts that they'll actually try again even though they will soon control both houses and the presidency, as it probably would be political suicide.

Right and I am not sure it was such a great idea, unless the Government put the money somewhere the people could not get their hands on it.