Ferrari Mailing List: Re: "Economics"

[Ric Rainbolt (ricrainbolt]

   Wow. Nice. That's really classy. Just because I support the notion of
   a centralized government being a multi-trillion dollar "chartiy"
   machine, that makes me a genocidal maniac. Real nice. You claim to be
   centrist, but you entire post doesn't seem to directly address one
   single item from any of my previous 4 or 5 posts. Making a shrill,
   baseless response about my desire to kill your ancestors (or at least
   see them die) sounds like something I'd expect from Al Sharpton.
   My mother's grandmother lived to be 92. She died in 1942. How on earth
   did she live to that age without Social Security checks? My God,
   mother must be lying... OR Perhaps her kids, relatives and/or
   neighbors took care of her, rather than systematically shifting the
   burden to the masses.
   You say "Blame them for your higher taxes, if you must - their only
   crime is they haven't died yet."
   I blame them for nothing, other than perhaps allowing a federal
   program to come about in 1935 that slowly and incrementally evolved
   into a system that forces almost everyone (except the majority of
   government employees) into an immoral, illegal and corrupt "retirement
   program".
   Could you imagine if Fidelity took your investment money, spent it
   immediately, promised to pay you 20 or 30 years hence out of
   then-current receipts, kept your money from your family when you died
   and paid you less than 2% return in the long haul? Oh, and if you
   managed to save enough in another account somewhere else, they keep
   your money and tell you that you don't get an annuity? Not only would
   practically NOBODY invest in such an absurd fund, but the FedGov Corp
   would shut it down for numerous SEC violations. So how is it that the
   exact same thing with a government label on it supposed to be good (or
   moral)?
   What "shrinking middle class"? That's a myth that's been perpetuated
   by the left for years. It's almost totally unfounded. I quote the
   Washington Post:
   "...fewer people today live in households with incomes between $30,000
   and $100,000 (a reasonable definition of "middle class") than in 1979.
   But the number of people in households that bring in more than
   $100,000 also rose from 12 percent to 24 percent. There was no
   increase in the percentage of people in households making less than
   $30,000. So the entire "decline" of the middle class came from people
   moving up the income ladder. For married couples, median incomes have
   grown in inflation-adjusted dollars by 25 percent since 1979. "
   What? The number of households making more than $100,000 per year have
   doubled!? DAMN, we need to sock a shitty tax on them... Quick! Before
   they get the mistaken impression that they're entitled to keep what
   they earned. But hey, don't let that all that number-heavy data stand
   in the way of yet another more-emotion-than-fact argument.
   All of your ranting still doesn't address the position that I strongly
   defend that "No man has a MORAL right to livelihood or comfort at the
   expense of another without his permission." Morally worse yet is a
   third person demanding to obligate someone else for something they
   don't even equally support.
   You say "'...social welfare programs' all he wants to, he's dancing
   around what its really called: Social Security"
   I'm not dancing around anything. I use the term social insurance to
   group all the immoral programs into one. Social Security is actually
   one of many. Medicare, Medicare, WICs, etc, are not .part of Social
   Security, at least according to the CBO.
   You say "That social program that Ric is going ballistic over isn't a
   'class' issue -".
   I beg to disagree... when one class is forced at the threat of
   deprivation to pay the VAST MAJORITY of the expenses of such a
   program, then it damn well is a class issue. Just because you aren't
   the target of the rather sizeable tax increases that are coming,
   doesn't make it right or just. Your prior posts make it quite clear
   that you approve (and seemingly revel in) the fact that there are
   taxes designed just to stick it to those who make more than you. I
   submit that such an attitude is the moral equivalent of watching and
   then approving a carjacking simply because you thought the car's legal
   owner was probably too well off.
   Again, restating the major points of what I've already said a number
   of times, just to be clear:
   1) Why does the solution ALWAYS end up having to be a large
   centralized government program? Everyone now seems to look to FedGov
   Corp to solve all their life's miseries. The Federal Government was
   never intended to be a multi-trillion dollar cash machine for anyone
   that feels or has a need. It's hugely inefficient at doing this and
   rife with corruption.
   2) If your whole basis in supporting such programs is "giving back" or
   any form of feel-good do-good, I maintain that there simply isn't any
   charity or compassion conveyed from one person to another when that
   "giver" is deprived of their assets against their will. How is robbing
   (looting) from a nameless third person to give to someone in "need"
   supposed to improve you, other than the sole purpose of not having to
   pay for it yourself?
   RR
   At 07:28 PM 11/13/2008, you wrote:

     Hey, Hey!  I'm a centrist at worst - I've seen both sides of this
     political fence, and trust me there are way too many purple-haired
     liberals up here in MA to shove the likes of me within arm's length
     of Limbaugh himself.  I'm just not 'buying' into the sky-is-falling
     on the high-wage-earner crowd.

     The sky is falling on EVERYONE regardless of social class.  If a
     rising tide floats all boats, a lowering tide will sink all of
     them, too.  This isn't a time for our weathiest Americans to think
     they're being 'picked-on'....to me, that's just plain silly.  Who
     amongst us is weeping for the disappearing middle class?  Or am I
     to believe that they are unaffected by all this?  Anyone on FList
     lose their house lately?  Or do they not matter in Ric's economic
     model, since he may not be one of them?  I'm very sorry if the
     salaried-employees of the world (myself included) are not fit to
     sit at his table.  Last time I checked, I've paid into the system
     FAR more than I've ever gotten out of it, if anything.  Ric wants
     to rant and rave about 'social welfare programs' all he wants to,
     he's dancing around what its really called:  Social Security.  That
     ticking time bomb created because all americans are living longer
     than the benefit was anticipated to
      cover.  That is not a Marxist conspiracy.  Thanks to the advances
     of healthcare, proper diet, exercise, and all that, people are
     living well into their 90s, and continuing to draw that social
     benefit - which is only going to get larger and larger and larger
     (he's right about all that).  He's also right that its one of the
     Govt.'s largest financial expenditures.  But he's wrong to point a
     finger at ME about it.  I'm not a Baby Boomer, remember?  I don't
     draw a Social Security check.  Never have, and probably never
     will.  My grandmother does, though....she's 86.  My
     great-grandmother does, she's 103 - yes, One Hundred Three.  Blame
     them for your higher taxes, if you must - their only crime is they
     haven't died yet.  I'll let them all know Ric is cheering for their
     early demise.

     That social program that Ric is going ballistic over isn't a
     'class' issue - wanna cut Social Security?  Medicare/Medicade?  Go
     NUTS!  Be my guest, I'm pretty sure it won't be around when I'm old
     enough to use it anyway.  Feel free to eliminate Social Security.
     Seriously.  I guarantee you that will eliminate a serious financial
     crisis our nation faces.  Consequences be damned.  Lets figure-out
     how to get rid of all these 'old people' first, though.  Make sure
     everyone 'expires' on the morning of their 68th birthday - past
     that, and they're dipping into the SS money-trough deeper than what
     they originally put into the SS system.

     I don't think its unreasonable to understand that our Govt. has
     been spending a ton of money on things that it can no longer
     afford.  I'm fairly pragmatic about this.  I am employed by a
     Defense Contractor, I know where my bread is buttered, but we as a
     company have lost money so Uncle Sam could divert more and more
     funds to support the war effort.  I'm up here in MA building
     Warships for the US Navy, but we're running a skeleton crew and
     barely able to keep the lights on.  How much extra have all of you
     kicked-in to pay for the war you all supported so much?  Yea, I
     thought so...lets all pack our bags and move to Guatemala.  I don't
     understand this philosophy.  For the past seven years, the USA has
     undertaken a great campaign against Global Terrorism, and wrung-up
     a huge tab to provide for our nation's security.  The Govt., as a
     result, has gotten larger in-response to this threat.  This was
     seen, seven years ago, as a necessity to
      chase and defend against Bin Ladin and his ilk.  We-the-People
     were all on-board with this plan then...The bill for all of this
     will be paid......when???

     Love to all,

     Michael