WTF? Now you’re just being completely assinine.
It’s the government’s fault because they didn’t regulate and oversee the banks enough?!
How does this support your argument for a free economy?
No, I’m not prepared to accept that as true in this discussion.
Certainly it’s a tenet of Christian thinking, but I assume the vast majority of thinkers here reject Christianity as a valid source of public policy.
Maybe I missed the point of that discussion, but I don’t think anyone here would reject public policy merely because it’s consistent with a Christian tenet.
No, but that wasn’t quite what I said.
It’s the duty of everybody to help everybody, to some extent. True?
I’m saying, in effect, “Cite?”
And then I am forestalling one possible cite, by pointing out that you cannot prove this proposition (here, anyway) by appealing to the Christian abjuration to help “the least of My brethern.”
I see. I don’t know why you’d bother, though. It’s pretty much a universal belief (at least for values of “universe” that don’t include Ayn Rand).
Objection your honour- assumes facts not in evidence.
I’m not sure I’m prepared to endorse that. It could be argued that the underlying idea with Social Security is that it is in the overall best interests of all concerned for the top 10% to assist the bottom 90%.
It could also be argued that the “moral duty” selling point was considered to be more appealing to a majority-Christian population than the “eat your broccoli, it’s good for you” approach would have been.
Yes, both of those things could be argued.
Whoa – you’re saying that it is “almost certain” that I will not suffer significant financial losses due to illness, earthquakes, fires, storms, floods, or negligence? That’s a remarkable statement, and I’d love to see the actuarial models you use to come up with your conclusion.
It seems quite obvious to me that if a group of people eliminated all their insurance policies and instead attempted to save or invest all the premiums, that some unknown (but almost certainly significant) number will experience financial ruin, compared to a group which maintains insurance. My view is that it is not a reliable conclusion that people would retire with more money if they did not participate in the Social Security income insurance program, because insurance protects people from financial risk in a way that mere savings cannot.
In fact, I think you’ve phrased the original question in the most deceptive way possible: you asked if senior citizens would have done better with private investments. This is like asking if good drivers would do better with less expensive car insurance: you’ve already stacked the deck by asking about a particular group. In your question, you’ve already excluded disabled individuals or their dependents who clearly would not fare better with privatized accounts.
Since their suffering is directly associated with their needlessly extended life span, that last point is arguable.
A real conservative would say you don’t need an employer, what’s wrong with selling those furs and meat on the streets to earn money? Why, that’s how WalMart got started! Only lazy bums refuse to do that
Yes, they could; thank you for conceding as much.
And, absent testimony from someone who participated in the creation of the various Depression-era initiatives, including Social Security, I find myself thinking that those arguments are more persuasive than the assertion you made, and which I quoted at the top of this post.
My claim was that all the govt programs made the depression long, not just SS. Hoover passed Smoot-Hawley which was devastating. FDR was even worse.
Well then state which government programs and what effect they had. I’ve already explained quite thoroughly why government interaction or not, the great depression was a completely different beast from the depression of 1921, but if you want to make the claim that government intervention made it worse (as opposed to the claim that government intervention is the reason the great depression was worse to begin with, which I have shown to be demonstrably false).
Err, correction: but if you want to make the claim that government intervention made it worse (as opposed to the claim that government intervention is the reason the great depression was worse to begin with, which I have shown to be demonstrably false), go right ahead. But actually fucking argue it. Don’t just assert it.
What the hell do you think “war production” is, you moron? It’s government intervention! You’re saying that the government spent a shit ton of money and created a shit ton of jobs, and that pulled us out of the depression!
You’re arguing against yourself here. You are in way over your head. You need to work on your critical thinking skills, seriously.
In conservia land, govt spending isn’t bad and therefore is no longer govt spending once it goes towards the noble cause of killing furriners instead of giving handouts to Cadillac driving welfare queens.
I’m serious.