Good info on gov. regulation and the free market

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Noxnoctum, Nov 26, 2011.


  1. Sorry, social security has a 2 trillion dollar surplus (with a projected surplus of $22 trillion over the next 10 years), and is factored separate from the U.S. budget. Our politicians need to stop borrowing from it.

    This has very little to do with commerce and trade law, no matter how badly you guys want to stretch it (although it's a nice way of distracting from the actual topic at hand)
     

  2. give us a source
     
  3. with 10,000 a day becoming eligible for SS starting in ...march i believe, the imaginary surplus that has been created by IOU's to the feds (which they will never be able to pay back without devaluing our money to negative infinity) will vanish very quickly. how will your vaunted safety net cope with a dollar that is worth 1/10 of the dollar from the tax that was originally levied against it?? every dollar collected from baby boomers would have been better invested in a CD....instead it was invested in a corrupt, overbearing, malicious, murderous criminal organization backed by bankers and an inflationary monetary policy. hell the boomers should have saved their money in a jar and thrown it into the fire when they hit retirement....at least then their dollar would have given them a little warmth before they starve to death.
     

  4. There are plenty of sources.... Look them up yourself. You are clearly capable of googling.

    But again... what does this all have to do with trade and commerce laws??? I've wasted enough of my vacation on this exercise in futility, I have no desire to take it in a completely different direction.
     
  5. I have the money that the Trust Fund is claiming it has are actually IOUs written by Congress. Congress already spent that money and they have no way to pay it back. You haven't answered several posts dealing with trade and commerce laws. If you want to get back on topic respond to those.
     

  6. I've addressed all of the main points being discussed- are there any particular points you feel that I haven't covered thoroughly enough?

    I'm not going to keep repeating myself to address every single post that just keeps parroting the same talking points.
     

  7. So when they stop borrowing from social security, where does that cost end up? It ends up being spent from a different pool? Whether or not its budgeted separate from the rest of our taxes, does not stop it from being drawn from the same pool every other separate department draws from, taxes.

    Their surplus in social security does not mean shit when their spending in other areas more than make up for it.
     
  8. Speak for yourself there, Spikoli, that would just be you.

    I try to keep my stupid mistakes to zero.
    But then I am old and wise and you....
     
  9. "the difference is in our minds" sure Spike!
    No! The difference is that the food that gets to the average food vendor here in the US has gone through a LOT more regulated stages before YOU eat it, than the one on the street in Costa Rica, that as far as you know, could have have donkey poo on it, so you check it.

    Ever look for donkey poo on your food that you buy in the US??

    Wonder why, Oh, regulations maybe?
    Na, got to be free market that makes you so confident.
     
  10. God you guys are naive.

    Companies don't want to add labels because they add a fraction of a cent to the cost (not to mention they don't want you to know how many grams of fat are in the twinky). They fought it fiercely.

    (The Libertarian chant is heard from above)

    Not to Fear! "Free Market is Here" Everyone will act responsibly or ELSE.
    WE won't buy your stuff anymore (if we're still alive).

    Oh and we can't afford the expensive healthy food with labels, because you Libertarians have dropped the minimum wage, so we are FORCED by the "free market" to buy what we can afford even if it's tainted.
     
  11. This make absolutely NO sense and I am a Liberal, so I am guessing I should understand it since you are saying it's our argument
    (for what I am also not sure).

    Especially the "so as to not incur mostly upon myself." part.

    perhaps a link to where you found it, because you obviously have copied it from something.

    But lets see if we can interpret your little saying.

    "I want to be protected"
    yup, want laws so dumb ass mother Fers can't just do, what ever THEY want (cause they will, always have, always will)

    "so that I can be free to not worry about the decisions i am making"
    Now this is kind of Stepford wife, like.

    Sorry NO, Liberals like to be in control of the situation.
    We worry about every like decision, trust me.

    "This should be provided at the expense of everyone else"
    This is one of those "talking point" phrases that conservatives like to throw out,
    implying that only THEY pay taxes and "liberals" don't.

    Are you really that naive?
    Plenty of liberals pay plenty of taxes.
    Just like plenty of conservatives/libertarians are tax evading, welfare cheating bums.

    Both kinds exist on both sides. If you are not aware of that, well.............
     


  12. Do you argue that people should have positive rights to protection, at the expense of the whole country, including those that don't want or need it?

    It all makes no sense to you because you have not taken the time to sit down and consider what your beliefs actually imply at their basic level.
     
  13. I think its hilarious how dalars just sneaks into the thread while everyones asleep and posts a bunch of bullshit. And I mean bullshit its not even worth reading.
     

Share This Page