John

January 24, 2010

Social Security Sucks

Filed under: Life in Corporal — Tags: — John @ 2:26 am

They want it both ways.


The progressive liberals who want to pass heath care want to hold up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as examples of successful government run programs [1]. They say that Social Security has never missed a payment yet [2] (but ignore the fact that it’s trust-fund does not actually exist, the program is soon-to-be insolvent [3], and payments will have to be made from the general fund by 2016).


Social Security, as a retirement system and method to keep people out of poverty, is a failure. The system is a ponzi scheme with new entrants into the system compelled by the threat of force to pay for the benefits of the people who are leaving the system. The extra money that was paid in over the last few generations? Spent on wars, irresponsible social policies, and bridges to nowhere. Read this defense of Social Security [4]. Business Week author Michael Mandel argues that SS isn’t a ponzi scheme because our technology and ability to grow our GDP will always improve enough to cover all future costs.


Sounds like this guy wasn’t paying attention to the last two asset bubbles the Federal Reserve inflated to boost that “always increasing” economy.


What Social Security has done, it has done well. It has destroyed the family unit by destroying the need for it. No longer do husband and wife need to remain together for financial support, they can get a divorce just because their current situation is no longer convenient. No longer do the children feel any need to support their parents, that’s now become the government’s job. And the government has done an excellent job of teaching them this new way of thinking. With the family destroyed and mocked as an archaic institution the government has virtually guaranteed that those people, who historically would support their parents in their old age and in turn be supported by their children when they became old, would now become dependent upon the largess of the government.


It used to be considered shameful to accept charity from your neighbors or welfare from the state. Now it has become a bragging right. The state has gone out of its way to make sure the dependent class it has created feels no shame attached to that dependency. By teaching these people that it is their right to receive these benefits by virtue of having “paid” for them, they removed that stigma. If you are on Social Security or receive Medicare or Medicaid benefits, you did not pay for them. You paid (if at all) for someone else’s benefits. Your benefits are being paid by the generation now working.


The state cannot make money for these programs, it can only move money from one person to another, taking a little bit out on the way for the trouble. As the capital is transferred from productive to non-productive uses the ability of the country as a whole to succeed and prosper is lessened.

[1] http://www.examiner.com/x-4380-Healthcare-Reform-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Republicans-admit-Medicare-is-good-governmentrun-healthcare

[2] http://www.scfl.org/?ulnid=1562

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051200252.html

[4] http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/12/is_social_secur.html

un responsive staff

Filed under: Uncategorized — John @ 1:50 am

I’m a full-time student at Angelo State University.

Recently, I was trying to park in front of the University Center so I could get my books for my classes this semester. Big problem, ASU has gutted available parking for commuting students.

all of the red area along Dena and Rosemont illustrates areas where once anyone was allowed to park. This was very convenient as even the parking shown on this map was insufficient, and if a guest wanted to talk to someone in Cavness (building 7 on the map) they had a decent chance of finding an available spot within on mile of the building.

Now, all of the red area along those roads has been marked “no parking”, and the circled “B” parking lots, once designated for commuting students, some who come from over 100 miles away, are no longer available to commuting students.

Compounding this problem is the move from a hanging decal to an adhesive sticker on the back window. Used to be, if my car broke down, I could borrow a friend or roommates, hang my tag in their car and park where I paid to park. Now I can only park where I paid to park in one single car. If my car breaks down, I guess I have to take a taxi.

I went recently to the school to protest this change and was directed to Sharon Meyer

who couldn’t even be bothered to speak with me. She said to her assistant, as I stood right outside her door, “just give him a card and tell him to email me”

such callous disregard towards the students and the very real issues that they face (I had to drive around that section of campus for 30 minutes to find a spot a could legally park (and it was very inconvenient) is demonstrated over and over by the faculty of Angelo State University.

I would not suggest this school.

January 23, 2010

reddit thread(s)

Filed under: Uncategorized — John @ 11:55 am

Why do Libertarians hate poor people?

responses to this self.Libertarian post:

  • I tell people that I am not against helping the poor I am however against robbing some one else to do it.
  • If it’s ok to take someone’s money to build a road. Is it also ok to force someone to do the labor required to build it? Why is it always assumed that it’s ok to take money but not labor? Why do the people who build the roads need to be paid? Why don’t the poor people, who are getting all the benefits of socialism, but aren’t contributing, do their “fair share” by working in press gangs to build roads and parks? The answer is easy. The answer is “slavery is wrong”. But for some reason we don’t consider it slavery if we steal someone’s past labor. Only if we steal their current labor.
  • Yes, clarity, reason and equality are what push Libertarians to ‘fringe ideology’… though this ‘fringe’ is the 3rd largest group of registered voters in the USA. that’s quite a fringe.
  • I would answer that with “why do statists invent outrageous lies to justify violence”?
  • Libertarians don’t hate poor people. They just don’t like Marxist-sounding class rhetoric, and considering poor people as particularly special is a step down the path of discussions on class and class warfare.

    They also feel they’re helping the poor more than Statists. The idea that gets planted in others’ heads, however, stems from the fact that helping the poor is not the number one goal of Libertarians. Human liberty is.

  • I think (mainly) Democrats see poor people as these completely helpless idiots that are unable to do anything to help themselves and will die if the rich and intelligent don’t help them. At times, I really see some of these social programs as complete elitist bullshit and guilt.

  • Not believing in state welfare does not automatically mean that the libertarian hates those who would benefit from it. It’s the same fallacy as believing atheists have no morals.

  • Here are a couple reasons:

    “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” – James Madison

    “I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” – Benjamin Franklin

Long Reply:

Poor people do choose poverty. For the record, there is a distinction between being poor and being broke. Broke is a temporary financial position. Poor is a permanent mindset. No matter how much you make, if you live on less than you earn and work hard, you can escape “poverty”. Yes, this is simplistic. Read “The Richest Man in Babylon” for a more fleshed-out version.

If you are not willing to take responsibility for your own life instead of blaming your parents, society, your circumstances, your skin color, the economy, whatever, you will forever be poor. Yes, you might have to work harder than most, longer than most, and be willing to do jobs and live in conditions that most wouldn’t want, but that will be temporary.

I grew up in a 3rd-world country. My family was not destitute, but I never had a new toy or set of clothes for myself until I came to the US and entered Middle School. At 14, I was at work by 4 a.m., school by 8:00 and back to work by 4:00 p.m. I was “shoveling shit” (literally) and picking rocks when I couldn’t find work picking fruit. Most of the money I earned went to my family, but I got to keep some for my self. I hated it. I hated it enough to vow that I wasn’t going to live like this the rest of my life. I studied hard, learned to speak and read well, and I worked harder than anyone else on my jobs. I was able to move up, save more and afford more. I used my money to buy things that would help be get better jobs (like books, nicer clothes, and a reliable car). Most jobs led to a better one and by always living on less than I earned I was able to have an emergency buffer against “bad times”. I once worked for a company for almost a month for free to prove that I could be an asset to them – they eventually hired me. I went without many things. I still do not have TV although I can easily afford it now.

You say “Being poor sucks more than you will ever be able to comprehend and no one chooses it.” I say bullshit! People aren’t wiling to do what it takes. They are weak and spoiled. People aren’t willing to get off their asses and work 3 jobs to make things change. They whine about it being unfair and then put their hand in my pocket demanding I give them what I’ve earned by working 60+ hours a week for more than 30 years for when they refuse to work at all because they can’t find the “right” job or a job that “earns them a living wage”. If you can’t get work at a McDonalds, you’d better take a long look at the man in the mirror. I know you don’t want to work at McDonalds, I know it doesn’t pay enough, but leaving your shift at MDs in time to make it to your shift at Burger King will take you surprisingly far in life if you avoid blowing it on booze, a flat-screen TV, XBox, computers, internet access, cable, phone, and all the other bullshit people think they “need” and “deserve”. You don’t deserve it until you can afford it!

You are NOT ENTITLED! Go live in Haiti for a while and see what kinds of things you really CAN live without! If you’re broke you need very little sleep. You don’t need any booze. You don’t need any junk-food. You don’t need to “hang out with your friends”. You don’t need to “watch TV” or “play video games”. If you think you do, you are POOR and are going to stay that way and I have no sympathy for you.

Am I being to hard on you? Whaaaa! Suck it up! BTDT – won’t be going back.

Another

If the person asking this question owns any luxury items whatsoever (tv, mobile phone, game console…) then I’d ask them why THEY hate poor people. There are people starving and dying in 3rd world countries who could be saved with just the small amount of money that the questioner has spent on “selfish” items for themselves.

It’s all relative. If it’s moral to take from middle class Americans to help lower class Americans then it’s also moral to take from lower class Americans to help starving people in Ethiopia.

You either beleive that no one should be allowed to own personal property beyond what they need for survival, or you believe that people should be allowed to keep what they earn regardless of the needs of others. Anything in between is just drawing an imaginary line (usually in just the right place to benefit the person drawing it) and is intellectually dishonest.

Completely disconnected from reality

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — John @ 10:22 am

from Biden (via Delaware Online):

Biden laments that 60 votes now seem necessary for “every single decision” the Senate makes.

“No democracy has survived needing a supermajority,” he said during a Sunday fundraiser in Florida.

someone hand this guy a history book. People who knew more about politics than he does realized long ago that if a simple “majority rules” was made official policy, that the country would quickly be overtaken by mobs. That’s why in America we don’t have democracy. We don’t even have representative democracy. We have a Republic.

As for the “No democracy has survived needing a supermajority”, no democracy has survived being a democracy. We go around the world in the name of “democracy”, spreading “democracy”, and telling everyone how wonderful “democracy” is.

Democracy is horrible, an absolute failure in every case it has been tried. It reverts quickly to mob rule which means the rule of one or two powerful demagogues able to stir up public sentiment.

A republic based on laws that are designed to limit the powers of government and protect the rights of the individual is what this country was originally set up to be. A lot of those restrictions on government and protections of rights have been eroded, but we are still not a democracy.

Democracy is a disease worse than cancer. I think the country would be much better off if it took at least 2/3rds of any legislative body to pass any motion. I also think that there should be no numerary restriction on the number of members of the House of Representatives. If the only (numerical) restriction on represtatives was that “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand” (US Constitution) then, per the 2000 census (Table 1), we would have about 9,380 representatives.

This would be great!

  • more representatives means that the views of more people would be represented – currently only the views of large bodies of people or people who have a lot of money are represented in the congress
  • more representatives means more parties – the one thing I love about Europe’s political system is the number of parties and candidates available for the public to choose. Here in America, ironically the land of opportunity, you only get 2 choices. Frequently neither good
  • more representatives means less legislation – think getting 50%+1 of 438 is hard? try getting 50%+1 of 9,380! America doesn’t need all the laws being passed. In fact, many of them are plain hurtful to the people. But what do you expect when you have over half a million people living in a city whose sole purpose is generating new laws?

If the system is corrupt, stop trying to change who is in charge…. change the system

January 19, 2010

Brown wins!

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — John @ 9:16 pm

from Boston Globe

Republican Scott Brown tonight pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Massachusetts political history, defeating Democrat Martha Coakley to become the state’s next United States senator and potentially derailing President Obama’s hopes for a health care overhaul.

The victory caps a dramatic surge in recent days as Brown, a state lawmaker from Wrentham once thought to have little chance of beating a popular attorney general, roared ahead of Coakley to become the first Republican senator elected from Massachusetts since 1972.

With 73 percent of precincts reporting, Brown had 53 percent and Coakley had 46 percent.

In a race that became the center of national attention, Brown’s win is widely seen as a vote against the president’s agenda from one of the most reliably Democratic states. And in a particularly ironic twist, Brown, in succeeding Edward M. Kennedy — the late liberal lion who deemed health care “the cause of my life” — may well be the 41st vote to prevent the Democratic-led plan from moving forward.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress