Blast From Paul Krugman's Past: "Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme And Will Soon Be Over"
It is one thing (what thing that is we are not sure, but we have heard others say it, so like all good lemmings we will say it too) for Rick Perry to call Social Security a ponzi scheme. After all he is some crazy, foaming in the mouth conservative, as uber-Keynesian liberal Paul Krugman may call him. And that's fine. What confuses us, however, is why Social Security would be called a ponzi by the same liberal noted previously: none other than Paul Krugman himself.
Exhibit A, from a distant 1997, which perhaps one would have expected to remain buried (source):
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).
This coming from the same person who a year ago said the following much anticipated truism, and has in the interim become a caricature of himself:
So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.
It would be easy to dismiss this bait-and-switch as obvious nonsense, except for one thing: many influential people — including Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the president’s deficit commission — are peddling this nonsense.
And having invented a crisis, what do Social Security’s attackers want to do? They don’t propose cutting benefits to current retirees; invariably the plan is, instead, to cut benefits many years in the future. So think about it this way: In order to avoid the possibility of future benefit cuts, we must cut future benefits. O.K.
What’s really going on here? Conservatives hate Social Security for ideological reasons: its success undermines their claim that government is always the problem, never the solution. But they receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.
And neither wing of the anti-Social-Security coalition seems to know or care about the hardship its favorite proposals would cause.
The only question we have for the Nobelist: is some form of affective disorder a necessary and sufficient condition to espouse the virtues of government dumping endless capital in what said Nobelist himself calls a Ponzi scheme, and just how would the overlord, John M. Keynes, fell about this?
h/t John Poehling
(31 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- 30836 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Krugman is not worth the pixels
notwithstanding
he did come out supporting death panels back on Nov 14 2010:
Death Panels will be implicit, not explicit. The reimbursement to doctors will become so low they will refuse to treat you. The number of doctors who accept Medicare/Medicaid is less then 15% in many cities.
Hey, we all gotta go sometime, right?
apologies for bringing up health care I should have stopped typing at pixels
notwithstanding
this is theater of the absurd
circa April 2009 Cramer (whom Doug Kass affectionately refers to as El Capitan ) compares Krugman and Roubini to characters from somehting called Gilligans Island
bit.ly/nXWaSk
Paul Krugman, if you're reading your incompatible statements that ZH'er John Poehling has highlighted for you, whether you ambled in over here on your own, or were sent a link by one of your lackeys, all I have to say to you is:
Yes, and DIAF after, slowly.
Combine this with his completely classless 9/11 anniversary editorial and it tells you all you need to know about this piece of shit. He's a hydra of hypocrisy and lies.
Unfortunately, he was right. Seriously, did you read his article? He was complaining about the turning Sept. 11 into a fascist wet dream. Are you so crazy to want more regulation and government supervison? That was what he was complaining about. Talk about blinders dude.
He didn't back up his talk and accusations, so before you start all the haliburton bs, krugman should man up and give facts or shut the fuck up and maintain being a nobel ponzi prize whiner.
Go suck Krugman's weiner, you sorry ass sockpuppet
A nice article identifying past & present "liberals" who have called Social Security a ponzi...
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276859/perry-and-ponzis-stanley-kurtz
Oh my...
well put Redpill
when the boots are out in the streets guys like him will go into hiding
Watch out for the KDI, they'll get yer for sure. Krugeman Defense Industries, they're everywhere.
Does KDI make orbital lazer platforms for zapping incoming alien invaders with?
lol...yes.
And they also make cute little shovels stamped with the word "Ready" on them to dig and refill trenches, day after day, for no apparent reason.
The number of baby boomers collecting medoacre is going to be so large that Doctor's will have no choice but to accept medicare
The other choice, you ass, is to quit practicing medicine in public.
"Hey, we all gotta go sometime, right?"
Yes we do. I just hope my time to go isn't while I'm sitting in a restaurant with my family when a terminally-ill patient with a Czech SKS who's been screwed over by "the healthcare industry" decides to take out his frustrations with our corrupt, innane and inept healthcare system on the patrons of the restaurant.
One thing about our future of which I am quite certain is much less courtesy, decency, and humanity, all of which is brought to you by our owners. Meanwhile, the other thing you can be certain of is many of the slaves and serfs will defend their owners before, during and after this has happened.
Huh?
Well, you might be correct if you hold a viewpoint like mine. I see the baby boomers as the one's in control of this disasterous way of life. They hoard jobs and assets. They want the can kicked down the road because it suits their best interests of allowing my generation to deal with the shit-storm. No one from my generation has made these irrational, unConsitutional, retarded policies or laws. As far as I'm concerned, my master boomers can do what they will do best the next 20 years. And, they want to cry inept and unfair as they collect a pension and the remaining SS amounting to double what I make at 50 hours of work a week for just hanging around doing NO good! -PS, to the obvious boomer argument.....I did not ask for this way of life. I would rather work less and enjoy nature more living with a lesser ICRAP standard. Thank you for ruining the planet.....now please choke on those dentures.
If I were not 95% convinced that the global ponzi would collapse within the next 15 months, I would say 'lots of luck changing it when it gets dumped in your generation's lap' numbnutz. Guess you have never tried to talk sense to an incumbent representative?
Oooo head fake bitchez!!!
Beware the bearded financial hacks.
*NEWS ALERT*
MERKEL CALLS FOR 'CONTROLLED' GREEK DEFAULT
She said that it was not in the best interests of the market to let the Greeks go into an uncontrolled default, as it would roil the markets that are already jittery about the debt situation.
So let me get this straight. The broader markets are reliant upon a known bankrupt nation with negative income, (in hock to the rest of them), to not defaulting on its obligations to pay back their loans. The creditors, in trying to stop the inevitable, offers the bankrupted Greeks more money in order to stop the default.
This ain't about solvent or insolvent sovereigns, this is more profound. This is most assuredly about the fundamental promise of payment, inherent in all good faith redemptionless paper promises to pay, being broken. Once one debtor fails to pay, in this overleversaged Ponzi that risks all saved capital, the faith once broken, and the wound open for all to see, will transform this psychology to one of panic.
I panicked first (long ago) and managed to get the fuck outta this intact, ahead of the herd.
Get ze silver, get ze gold, get ze beer.
First SheepDogOne loses his faith, then Krugman pulls his head clean out of his ass.......I need a drink, too much for a Tuesday (?), I'm just a man.
Next thing you know TPTB will be telling everyone to start buying gold. That would be when you know we are in deep shit.
No, that is when we STOP buying gold and start selling.
I not selling my pre65 dimes, i dont give a DAMN what anybody says....
Social Security? How bout the whole US economy? How bout the entire debt-structure of the Western World?
Yup.
KREEEEEEWG MAN! he was high and was compulsively honest - it was 1997
I think it's the beard, that's why they listen to him. Point taken, I'm growing a goat. Knew I was on the right track when the wife started "hating" on it! P.S. Who's the last actual, factual Nobel winner with worth who gave some value to the world, in any catagory? MLK, maybe?
MLK would be about right for "social sciences"...and all else vis a vis "the humanities." Or is it just humanity period? Anywho physical sciences--well, just look at your i-phone, or your e-trade account. No stopping the revolution of Quantum mechanics.
Obama?
Seems you have to be a transnational progressive lapdog to get one these days.
Wonder why?
As opposed to a transgender gobbling fascist fuckwad?
I always treasure your well reasoned and articulate responses.
And I'll always treasure your mom enjoying the kibbles on the floor. She's so funny!
I always tresure your krout dissembling.
Let's go again, Krout. This time with nukes.
It would help you seem less moronic if you spelled kraut correctly.
LOL
Wow, it would be great if there was a point to you your existance other than sucking Nazi cock.
"bigDuke"
I see what you're up to. Trying to cash in that 500 dollar per nuke jew fine.
http://artoftrolling.memebase.com/2011/09/12/law-troll-in-that-case-arm-...
It would help you seem less moronic if you had a point other than bile.
Also, It would help if you realized that languages are translated phonetically: either is correct in English, you perfectly stupid Nazi moron.
Look it up.
Um....no.
But nice try on the blustering lie.
Gotta give you a point for chutzpah.
The last Nobel prize winner who has violent kinetic value to unarmed women and children: B. Hussein Obama, peace is as peace does Ear Leader, his biological father, Frank Marshall Davis would have been proud.
Hayek.
Liberal Theology 101: Pay no attention to what I said yesterday, as that was intended for rubes who need my elite take on things.
Conservative Theology 101: oh, never mind. Krugman is an asshole and so is Perry and so is every current candidate competing with Perry. Paul is great for his desire to end the Fed and dismantle the MIC, but he would let children starve in the street in the name of freedom (no, churches won't step up, get over it). I wish more than 5% of the population could overcome the left/right paradigm.
LetThemEat Rand Theology: Whatever you say, I'm against it.
Exactly. Blow a couple of trillion on pointless wars and tax cuts for the rich and you've got a giant hard on.
[Paul is great for his desire to end the Fed and dismantle the MIC, but he would let children starve in the street in the name of freedom (no, churches won't step up, get over it).]---LetThemEatRand
Rand, no one wants to see children starving. Constitutional conservatives like me just believe it's NOT the FEDERAL government's job to feed our kids.
Feeding kids is the responsibility of parents. Beyond that grandparents. Beyond that siblings, step-parents, in-laws, uncles, aunts, cousins, 2nd cousins, grand aunt and uncles.
Beyond that, friends, neighbors, churches, and volunteer community organizations.
Beyond that, local community, townships, city, county, state.
Sounds like you need to join a different church.
(This statement is not an endorsement or denouncement of any political party or candidate. I am Tea Party. I endorse our Founding Fathers, documents, and principles.)
I understand that you have justified your narcissim by calling it a political ideology. Enjoy the Randaid. I do not believe this country was founded on self-centered prickness. But it is certainly moving in that direction.
[I do not believe this country was founded on self-centered prickness.]---LetThemEatRand
Indeed, no, this country was NOT founded on self-centered prickness.
It was founded on God-centeredness. (Not any one religion's God. There were at least half a dozen competing sects in 1776. Instead, the God shared by most sects and expressed universally in the Bible.)
From God-centeredness comes our belief, acceptance, and responsibility for our God-given individual rights, i.e. "unalienable rights."
If you understand the concept of unalienable rights, then the all the remaining documents, principles, and the actions of our Founders will make sense to you.
So you are making the point that Jesus [or other fill in the blank omnipotent beings that were worshiped by early Americans] hate poor people and would rather the poor die than be helped by those who have more than they need? Really?
The same government that wastes trillions of dollars killing poor people all over the world actually loves poor people and is their only hope?
That's just crazy, dude.
"Non Sequiter", look it up.
Dear stupid, ignorant, strawman arguing douchebag LetThemEatRand,
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
You should read these two short paragraphs until they are burned into the back side of your eyeballs and you see them wherever you look.
Speaking of Alinsky strawman arguments...I've finally settled on my favorite for you pricks.
I like football. But I don't like the football made out of skins of little puppies. Do you?
.
It was founded on God-centeredness.
Wrong.
It was founded on the principle of individual rights which government must recognize and protect. That is stated explicitly in the Declaration of Independence and the preamble of the Consititution for the United States of America.
While the Founders apparently believed said rights come from God, nowhere in the bible does it say that. Nowhere from Genesis to Revelation does it say anything about individual rights.
In fact the bible says quite the opposite. One's freedom to exist and work and prosper comes from God's protection and blessing, not from rights.
Of course it also says God's protection and blessing are contingent on knowing and doing what God says ...which very few Americans do, hence very few Americans have God's protection and blessing.
And yes Christ said the very same things, over and over again, along with the Apostles, all the way thru the new testament.
So no, America wasn't founded on "God-centeredness".
According to the Randers, America and its founders fucking hate poor people.
According to me, you're a douchebag troll.
Me, me, me, me.
Fuck you.
Do you believe that people own themselves? If they do then your government safety net which depends on forced participation is a crime against humanity. If people don't own themselves, what's the point of working? Slaves only work hard enough to prevent being beaten and their lives generally suck. Nobody wins in the "people don't own themselves" game.
You're the hater although you don't seem to know it.
a faustian bargain indeed.
-
[While the Founders apparently believed said rights come from God, nowhere in the bible does it say that.]---cranky-old-geezer
Hi cranky.
Sorry you went to the trouble of refuting a position I never stated. Indeed, I know of no where in the Bible enumerating our unalienable rights. They are rights our Founders believed were given us by God.
Now, if you take the position our Founding Fathers, our founding documents, and principles were NOT God-centered, we can have an enlightening discussion on that.
I believe the Founders were dedicated to following some of the principles taught in the Bible.
But to be frank about it, the Founders made a huge mistake trying to fit those principles into an "individual rights" framework, which was their creation, not biblically supported, and therefore not sanctioned nor blessed by God.
Scripture clearly states if one teaches something contrary to "God's way", it is not sanctioned nor blessed by God. If anything it is cursed.
While well-intentioned I'm sure, the Founders unwittingly adopted and taught a concept that runs contrary to biblical teaching, which explains why it began to fail almost before the ink was dry on the DOI and the Constitution. God simply wasn't supporting it nor blessing it.
God's blessing of America in the early days was from it's leaders knowing and practicing Godly principles, exactly what the bible says. It wasn't from their "individual rights" concept, which God never blessed because it was contrary to God's way, and sure enough began failing right out of the gate.
Instead of promoting their "individual rights" idea, the Founders should have stated in the DOI and preamble of the Constitution that America's leaders were duty-bound to know and practice Godly principles, which is fully consistent with the bible, fully consistent with God's way, and would have been fully sanctioned and blessed by God.
But they didn't say that. Instead they adopted this "individual rights" concept, which is actually an attempt to secure God's blessings without God if you stop and think about it.
Part of their motivation for adopting their "individual rights" concept was the Magna Carta where the "individual rights" idea originated. I could explain why and how that concept developed, but it's outside the scope of this comment. What's relevant here is that concept isn't biblically supported, and therefore not blessed.
So yes, the Founders, however well-intentioned, actually made a big Oooops. They screwed up. They unwittingly planted the seeds of America's eventual downfall. And we see that happening right now. We're living in it. We're watching the downfall of America.
Why is it happening now? It's very simple. America's leaders have rejected Godly principles. And we're seeing the results of it. The nation is no longer blessed, and is actually cursed, which is exactly what the bible says from Genesis all the way thru Revelation, from cover to cover.
Hi cranky. Sorry I haven't got back to you sooner. Full day today. Even now I should be headed toward bed. Nevertheless, I'd like to let you know I read your Reply.
Yours was an excellent post. Enlarging the discussion.
I believe this is at the heart of your position:
While well-intentioned I'm sure, the Founders unwittingly adopted and taught a concept that runs contrary to biblical teaching, which explains why it began to fail almost before the ink was dry on the DOI and the Constitution. God simply wasn't supporting it nor blessing it.
The ideas of Natural Law and Unalienable rights span the ages, yet coalesced in our Founders. See Marcus Cicero, William Blackstone, and John Locke. In their writings you will find they argue pursuasively "any analysis of essential elements of God's code of divine law reveals that it is designed to promote, preserve, and protect man's unalienable rights." (W. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap p.132)
Our Founders of course did not "teach" unalienable rights. Those rights are self evident. For example, I know as a child of God, I have the right to worship Him as I choose, or not worship Him, or deny His very existence. And as I choose to worship, my practice in doing so must not deprive you of your right to worship. Self evident, as in common sense based on God's code of divine law. After all, reason and common sense is God given.
Was our nation's founding a failure from the start? Our nation's founding, cranky, is not perfect. Our Founding Fathers would be the first to admit that. This whole deal is an experiment. No one ever tried it before. Our Founders had serious doubts. Everyone had doubts. Our Founders were trying to strike a balance in governance: At the center between socialism on the far left and anarchy on the far right. Governance is a man-made construct, and is as flawed and vulnerable as man himself.
The founding of our nation, the direction of our Founding Fathers, and the legacy of our founding documents are inspired by God.
God's fingerprints are all over this deal if only you look.
Sorry FK, but you're just flat wrong about this "unalienable rights from God" stuff.
There is ZERO scriptural support for the concept. NONE.
These alledged "unalienable rights" are NOT self-evident. If they were they would be recognized by government, by other people, etc, not only here in America but around the world since everybody allegedly has them.
If people had an "unalienable right of life", God would not have wiped out thousands of people at various times througout human history.
If people had an "unalienable right of liberty" God and Christ and the Apostles would have opposed slavery. But they didn't. Under the law of Israel, which God allegedly spelled out, someone deep in debt could be sold into slavery to the creditor until the debt was paid off or until the next debt jubilee, whichever occurred first. What did God say about it? Just treat them right. Don't abuse them. That's it. That's all he had to say about it. And Christ said the very same thing.
If people had an "unalienable right of property" God would make sure every human being was able to function and work and prosper and have property. But that's obviously not the case. Some people are born with crippling conditions and deformities rendering them unable to function and work and prosper and have property.
Moreover, God would be duty-bound to prevent other people and government from infringing on those alleged "unalienable rights". But that's obviously not the case either.
No, God's "fingerprints" are NOT all over America's founding. If they were, the Founders would not have had to fight a revolutionary war with the British crown costing thousands of lives and untold property damage to secure America's independence. It would have been more like Israel's founding, sending a Moses type messenger to King George saying "let these people go or God will destroy your fucking nation". The colonists wouldn't have had to lift a finger. Just sit back and watch God wipe out Great Britain.
And no, there was no mention of individual rights in the law God spelled out when Israel was founded. No mention at all. In fact the very opposite was clearly stated, "obey me or I'll wipre your asses out like I did those fucking Egyptians" And he DID wipe their asses out eventually becaue they DIDN'T obey him. The original nation called Israel more or less ceased to exist.
So no, there is NO scriptural credibility to this concept of "unalenable rights". It is purely a man-made concept which God completely ignores.
The ONLY thing in the founding documents that could be ascribed to God is admonitions to practice Godly principles. But that's what the bible says, all the way through.
The Founders were God-fearing men for the most part. THAT'S why America got off to a relatively good start and did well for a while ...until successive leaders of America were NOT Godly men and REJECTED those principles and America started faltering.
...just like Israel did incidentally. You could study the history of Israel and see exactly the same pattern we see in America.
Another excellent post, cranky.
I'm afraid I have to leave it as agreeing to disagree.
And really, you're quite a bit more knowledgable than you let on in your regular posts. I hope to see more of it.
Thank you for challenging me to take my game up a notch.
God Bless.
This "unalienable rights" stuff is man's attempt to impose some sort of duty on God to guarantee peope's life and prosperity.
That's exactly what it is. People trying to impose some sort of obligation on God to protect them from government tyranny, give them a life free from government tyranny, and guarantee their prosperty ...REGARDLESS of whether they obey God or not.
That RIGHT THERE is the CORE of this "unalienable rights" stuff. People wanting God to protect and prosper them WITHOUT obeying God, while COMPLETELY IGNORING what God tells them to do.
And Americans are THE WORST at wanting God's protection and blessings while COMPELTELY IGNORING what he says.
Of course it DOESN'T WORK. It never works. It never has worked and it never will work.
God is not fooled. God is not mocked. God's atttitude is "You can take your "unalienable rights" bullshit and shove it up your ass. You obey me, do what I say, or I'll wipe your sorry rebellious ass out."
And yes, that's exactly what he did all down through human history, time after time, and yes he feels the very same way today about Americans and everybody else on this planet ...as the bible CLEARLY states, over and over again. It's the MAJOR THEME of the entire bible, Genesis through Revelation, Christ confirmed it, the Apostles confirmed, everybody else in the bible confirmed it via words or their own example or both.
No, God does NOT recognize any sort of "unalienable rights" nonsnese.
His attitude is YOU HAVE NO FUCKING "RIGHTS". YOUR ONLY HOPE IS OBEY ME SO I'LL PROTECT YOU AND PROSPER YOU. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT IDEA, THEN YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN BUCKO, DON'T COUNT ON ANY HELP FROM ME, AND NO I WON'T LIFT A FINGER TO STOP THAT GOVERNMENT YOU LIVE UNDER FROM TYRANNIZING YOU ANY FUCKING WAY THEY WANT TO.
I've read and listened to the Bible. There's no vs. promoting anything like "rights" except your right to suffer in hell for eternity.
Also, there's no exception to the NT commands against any kind of violence for any reason. There's no "right" to murder the king because he set taxes too high, or taxed without representation.
These ridiculous blasphemies agasint Christ are all from the pit of hell.
Persons who understand that the Kingdom is within us, not made with hands, our "Jerusalem" is a holy city not of this earth, are clear that we have no need for a physical salvation. Our salvation is purely in the spiritual realm. "Worship" (proskuneo) is not in the time/space domain either (see John 4). There is no such thing as a "worship service". There is no clergy/laity split as taught in every God-forsaken hell hole AKA "church" (all believers are "priests", see Hebrews). There is no word correctly translated "church". Jesus was indeed not a "jew" (word did not exist till 1775, sorry, see the Oxford English Dictionary). Jesus was not King of the Jews, but rather "leader of the Judeans" (in the 1st C "Judean" had only a georgraphic signficance, not religious).
Jesus is also not coming in the future, one of the worst blasphemies taught in churchianty. THIS entertaining 1 hour video is a great introduction to this view.
As long as you're listing biblical facts, you might as well add there is no coming "rapture" where so-callled "christians" or "believers" are wafted off to "heaven".
The bible does speak of a few obedient people being "removed to a place of safety" to escape end-time cataclysmic events. It doesn't say where that "place of safety" is, and there is no indication said "place of safety" is anywhere beyond this planet.
And a big "ata boy" to anyone who knows how long said people will be in said "place of safety", which is clearly stated in Revelation.
And if none of them step up to the plate and feed those kids, let the buggers die? Would you have the taxpayer pick up the remains and dispose of it? Or will your church take care of that?
[And if none of them step up to the plate and feed those kids, let the buggers die?]---FeralSerf
Hi FeralSerf.
Then it's up to you and I, Feral. Personal responsibility. But, you don't sound up to that yet.
Was Ron Paul asked if he would let children starve in the street in the name of freedom or are you making this shit up?
As I recall, he was asked if a young healthy man who declined getting health insurance got hurt or sick what would happen under his plan. He gave some story about Churches helping those in need which I agree with you that it ain't gonna happen.
Regardless, the guy who declined health insurance who later gets injured or sick is on his own in my book. That would teach others to pay for health insurance. Otherwise, by taking care of them regardless, they are incentivized to decline insurance because of the safety net. You change bad behavior by providing consequences to bad decisions. By having no negative consequences, there is no reason to take the insurance.
Ron Paul is correct about this but Liberals can't get their heads around this logic.
"That would teach others to pay for health insurance...."
In your world, health insurance actually pays for treatment when needed. And everyone who wants it and who works hard can afford it. Must be a nice, clean, happy unicorn world. This website often [correctly] makes fun of "unicorn to market." Do you perhaps see a connection with your unrealistic point of view?
You know what's unrealistic? Believing that the federal government can provide a safety net for every single illness, misfortune, and unforeseen even for every single person in this country. That's the ONLY way you can guarantee that everyone will have equal coverage, and that system will collapse before it can even be put to good use.
Holy crap! Social Security has kept your dumbass crackwhore granny off the street and your bummed out? Get that skank back to work!
Stay with the question. You are veering off course. The question related to someone who could afford insurance but declined because they didn't feel they needed it.
With respect to those who cannot afford health insurance, excluding those that would rather spend their money on flat screen TVs, XBoxes, and trips to Disney World, being poor is a bitch. Who, other than some liberal minded nutjob, ever said that everyone has a right to health insurance? If you believe that everyone has a right to health insurance, there's no need to discuss this point any further although do you know what people did before health insurance ever existed?
Everyone WANTS freedom, but apparently few want the consequences. Ergo dumb-ass statements about children starving, voluntarily uninsured getting hurt, etc. Look, IF YOU DON'T WANT FREEDOM, THEN FUCKING SAY SO!!! Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Exactly! Shut up fuckwad!
"Ron Paul is correct about this but Liberals can't get their heads around this logic."
Creating a moral hazard is beyond their comprehension as well. That is why the libtard followers love these great ideas. They don't see how it is better to let Tyrone worry about his own healthcare ( or education, school lunch, unemployment, feeding himself, retirement, etc.) so that tyrone can learn and be productive.
Instead we should hold all taxpayers financially responsible for tyrone at the point of a gun, and just give to Tyrone that which is needed.
The thing that Tyrone really needs are the skills and incentive to get responsible about his own life. But how many government jobs does that create in education, school administration, food stamp office, unemployment claims rep, social security employees, etc. etc.?
You see, when we want to let people depend on themselves, there is no need for all of these government "jobs". That is not good for those who wish to enable government for their own profit.
I think that the libtards deep down want the government to help Tyrone because they never will. They are ticks on the same dog. They never think about where the taxes come from.
Why is it ok to steal from one American in order to feed another American? Because it creates jobs in the government.
Just my opinion... Bitchez!
"Libtards"? don't you see that you're just obeying?
Don't you have a mind of your own? Jesus Christ dude, you embarrass us.
To concern yourself with surface political conflicts is to make the mistake of the bull in the ring, you are charging the cloth. That is what politics is for, to teach you the cloth. Just as the bullfighter teaches the bull, teaches him to follow, obey the cloth.
Wiliam S. Burroughs
Yes, I obey. I pay ss. But I am dumb enough to know to never depend on it.
If you could run social security with no employees, no paperwork, no buildings, no expenses from anywhere but paying out bennies, I would agree that it is a good system if voluntary.
Tell me where the money comes from to pay these other liabilities.
If there were no ss today, would you propose the system we have now?
I am a freedom lover who is not fooled by the left vs right republicrat/demoblican bs.
I call the libtards the people who are usually on the left that want to pay for shit from government money as if the government doesn't have to steal a dollar from one taxpayer, waste 81¢ on paying government employees and expenses, before giving 16¢ to what we are actually paying for. ( we lost 3¢ somewhere. We started 4 committees to look into that)
Don't take it personally. You have been brainwashed is all.
You are corect, but you don't understand liberals. We want freedom. We want to work together with our fellow man. Liberals were defending freedom since before the Revolution. The Founders were all liberals. Your MSM brain can't handle that. Fuck, I know. You are a slave to propaganda. And yes, I support Ron Paul. I am not stupid, and I act in my own intereestes. Paul/Sanders. my dream ticket.
bettah watch out, jew bear!
you're heging mighty close to the Truth. you're gonna accrue some malingering sissies around you; first they gonna test ya, then ya gonna bash the shit outta them; then they gonna try to nip yer heel, then you're gonna kick their teeth in; finally, they'll just start huntin your posts and flaggin ya with that faggoty red arrow down (again, stout homos, janus apologizes -- i'm insulting the bitches among your ranks)
oh, yer gonna get you some haters with talk like that.
i let you loose on 'compassionate' fascist the other day -- and, brutha, that was some mutha-fuckin what-for you gave him...but i haven't seen him today. when i see that bold faced print, the dark shadow starts to creep over him, and he can sense his DOOM!
jew bear, seein how you're a thinker and all, janus has a request: think this whole democracy thing through, and then tell me what you think of its long term prospects.
i'd like to hear your take on the matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVeAbHCZDa8
ps if that video offended you in any way; you won't get anymore like it (but, you know janus, he's gotta try).
you got my respect, jew bear.
You shall put these words of mine on your heart and on your soul; and you shall tie them for a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes, janusJewbear,
i didn't even see your proposed ticket: paul/sanders!
now, i did vow to never again vote; so i'll say that i'd be willing to fight fascists in the streets until their blood overwhelms the sewers (where they belong) to support that ticket. but, i'm afraid i never go back on an oath.
but i like yer style even more now.
janus
If you were starving I would let you die for sure. I'd personally help the kids I could though. But again, you? No way. Starve all trolls.