Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

The T wrote: Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: And, tell me that SS does not fit this description (from wiki) A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. But Social Security isn't fraudulent, so it can't be a Ponzi scheme! See my first post on the subject.  Also, I consider the SS "trust fund" to be almost fraudulent, it's certainly a complete joke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm Ah, thank you.  I had never actually heard of this term "sarcasm" before today.  You really taught me something new! The wonders of private self-education?

Padraic wrote: The T wrote: Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: And, tell me that SS does not fit this description (from wiki) A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. But Social Security isn't fraudulent, so it can't be a Ponzi scheme! See my first post on the subject.  Also, I consider the SS "trust fund" to be almost fraudulent, it's certainly a complete joke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm Ah, thank you.  I had never actually heard of this term "sarcasm" before today.  You really taught me something new! The wonders of private self-education?  I think you missed the joke.  But it wasn't a very good one to start.

Let's go back to being very serious Teo.  

Yeah. The system will just become more and more burdensome and less and less of a benefit. Medicare is a much scarier problem. 

Here's a chart for everyone to enjoy:

Does that shows that for a few years in 2000's the US had a surplus? And that the smallest size government has had in the recent years was in the same year? 

If there's ever a Rep who wanted my support....there's a certain governor of NJ and NJ has the highest property taxes in the country.
Still not heard a mention of it.

Just saying, if someone wanted to cut some taxes and actually relieve the middle class like people claim.....
*whistles*

Brian, I made a great discovery (among many others) in the last few weeks: 

The T wrote: Does that shows that for a few years in 2000's the US had a surplus? And that the smallest size government has had in the recent years was in the same year?  How the hell do you get out of a situation like the one predicted for 2020 and up? Printing more money? (worse) Raising taxes to 90%? Wouldn't it be quite the more reasonable just cutting spending?

We once ran budget surpluses even though it seems so foreign now.

Honestly, you probably don't. As Pat said below, revenues can't be indefinitely increased just by taxation. A corresponding growth in the economy would also have to occur. Even so, our economy is not growing even remotely close to the rate at which our debt is growing, as illustrated by the chart. You can print the money, but then you destroy your currency.

This is why spending has to be cut. You can't tax your way out of a deficit, it doesn't work. Spending must be cut.

EDIT: The last time we had a true surplus was in the 50s I think. Even Clinton's 'surplus' was not a true surplus. It's more of a manipulation of borrowing from non-budgetary sources so that it appears to be a surplus.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - February 07 2011 at 14:18

Well there you go.


Also anyone else think Nixon was actually the closest we had to socialism?
I believe for a few years he was given wage and price controls.
Not to mention he was a big social spender and created the EPA. To go along with his liberal foreign policy.
THAT COMMIE!