When you say "we got by just fine without" Social Security, who's the "we"

We is the general citizenry of the United States. Back in 'the day' when the nuclear family was stronger, working families would take care of thier elderly. Often they would live under the same roof until they died. Also before Social Security, people would save for thier own retirement and generally (not always, but generally) would have enough saved up for a good living when they stopped working. There were a few cases of widows, or other hard luck cases who were in genuine need, but this vision you are creating where every elderly person was living in a box and eating dog food is bunk.

You see - SS was originally designed to be ONLY for those rare 1 in 100,000 elderly persons who was in GENUINE need. It was supposed to be a very very very small program, only to be tapped in the most exigent of circumstances. It was not ever supposed to be a program that took more from a person's paycheck than INCOME TAX (it is today). It was not supposed to be the de-facto 'retirement program' for every man, woman, and child in the nation (it is today). It was not supposed to be the biggest item in the national budget (it is today). But that's what happens you you take a simple problem (take care of the 0.01% of the needy) and hand it to the Federal Government.

The number of people who qualify for SS should be infinitesimally small. The amount taken from taxpayers for the program should also be virtually nothing. All of the needy eldery can be cared for with state programs which can receive RARE and OCCASIONAL assistance from the tiny Federal program. The order of operations is "Family" first, then "Extended family", then "Community", then "State", and the very very very very very LAST place you ever go is Federal.

the idea that fiscal conservatives are the ones looking out for the long-term fiscal health of the nation is laughable

They are - but you (like many) are confusing "Republican" with "fiscal conservative". The GOP is not filled with fiscal conservatives. In fact, the GOP routinely and regularly opposes fiscal conservatives. The Tea Party is filled with Republicans, Democrats, and Independants that are all united under a banner of "fiscal conservatism". The GOP doesn't like them. Not one bit. Fiscal Conservatives are not in a position to "look after the long-term fiscal health of the nation" because they are not in a position to do so. The GOP and the Democrats are both dominated by big-spend, Big Tax, Big Government leftists. The GOP panders to both social and fiscal conservatives with a bunch of lip service, but (as you noted) they don't walk the walk.

My cousin went to Escuela Caribe and got involved with the film. I remember how when she was sent there, we (her extended family far away) just didn't hear much about it. All we really heard was that she was off in a camp for wayward youth getting better, or some such bs. It wasn't until she made it back that I heard the truth.

I've swam through a few of her books,the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged,and I think her philosophy of Capitalism is Holy could work except for one basic problem:human nature. And her supporters in the GOP really don't get where she was coming from either. The protagonists of these books are people who run large companies struggling to provide their excellent products and services in spite of heavy regulations at the hands of the small minded government. They are personally involved with their companies,willing to go the extra mile and get their hands dirty in the persuit of delivering the goods and providing livings for their extended families of employees they feel responsible for. Yet the government in pettiness and jelousy scheme to thwart them in this:making the Creative Movers of Industry gasp under the strain of mad laws written by parasites to sap the energy of the Doers to feed the gluttony of the lazy masses. More or less this. Unfortunatelythis fairy story is a bit backwards nowadays...
Instead of clever creators marketing their dreams,we have souless corporations dissecting the labours of the many to feed the obscenely rich the lions share of profits,and existing only to figure out new ways of paying themselves incentive bonuses while the companies they run heave and expire beneathe them from the sheer weight of their greed. Emploees are not families to these executives,all cooporating with the mutual goal of seeing the company succeed,but disposable pawns easily replaced and forgotten,not worth providing benefits for and certainly not worth considering when cheap if not competant labour is available elsewhere.And regulations ? Taxes? Blasphemies!

Some of Rand's opinions I find valid:armies of the unambitious would swollow every dime you earn with demands for welfare and other government mandated largesses. For every brave sould with a creative spark there are a dozen happy to make them fall for the perverse pleasure of simply watching a great idea fail. These exist:but a socialism is not on the genda in this future of ours...it seems to be evolving into a new sort of feudalism where the Rich rule and the serfs provide the neccessaries. And I suppose there are entrepreneurs out there fighting the good fight,and fighting it with style and dignity for themselves and their employees.

They just don't make the headlines.

>> ^longde:

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).
What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.
The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.
I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife) ; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.

(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")
edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:
>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.



Yes, we all benefit from the suffering of animals, that's true, but there's not an equivalence between that and inflicting it oneself.

There's a vast difference between animals suffering as a consequence of an action that has utility and inflicting suffering for its own sake.

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).

What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.

The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.

I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife)*; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.


(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")

*edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.

Just to revisit this guy's naïveté (you know, "poor me...it takes $200,000 to feed my family") , I have fed a family of five more than they need for $5,000/year, consistently. Then again, I don't have a private chef, eat out, or have dozens of mooching extended family members who don't work because I'm rich...

@lucky760 "Why does it matter that they’re married? Well, because in some jurisdictions, when the question of gay marriage comes up, those who object to it say that gay marriage is associated with low moral character and a general erosion of public ethics. It’s a belief you’d have to be mad or terrified to embrace, but perhaps some of those scared or crazy people will have their hearts softened by this incredible example." From the article.

I have extended family members who honestly believe gays and lesbians are hell-bound deviants. As someone who is bisexual---no, not barsexual, ugh. There's a lot of hatred for bisexuals from both sides <_<--, I'd like to see more stories like this..

...so many white 20somethings with brown hair ... is this an extended family or something?

>> ^gwiz665:

I find it interesting that pro-choice is bad here and good in abortions. Seems like an inversion of morals.


Having an abortion affects JUST the mother (and father, friends, emotionally etc.), not getting vaccinated affects the population as a whole. So it's the whole 'do whatever ever you like to yourself as long as you're not hurting others' argument. Not getting vaccinated IS hurting others.

Oh, and Jenny McCarthy is a fool.

A fool who I've seen directly influence members of my extended family who questioned whether they should get the MMR shot for their kid because they were scared it would make them Autistic.

And don't get me started on fricken homoeopathic 'vaccines'... ARGH!

I just had an interesting conversation with my Oklahoman, ex-military, gun-loving 87-year-old father. Conservative to the core. Big NRA supporter.

I asked him how he felt about possibly making semi-automatic Glocks with 30 bullet magazines illegal. That the only purpose for them was to kill and kill quickly.

He got mad. Big surprise. "There are no handguns that have 30 bullet magazines. You read that in the New York Times, didn't you?"

When I found on Glock's website that the magazine actually held 33 bullets, he got real quiet. And he agreed that banning such a gun made sense.

There is hope, my friend, there is hope. And it is facts that will lead the way.

That is becoming my mantra. I love facts.

Hope you and your extended family and friends are safe down there, with all the water worries.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
While America's gun laws remain, so shall the massacres continue.

It's so nice to see siftbot's extended family getting exposure on the web finally!

Living here now. In general, Japan is a great place to live... for a foreigner. Extremely low crime rates. Okay medical insurance (National Health Insurance here, which has both pros and cons).

It would suck hard to be native Japanese though. Everyone here is working crazy hours--my friend who manages a restaurant literally works 7 days a week, from opening at 2PM until well after midnight. Lots of people doing mandatory unpaid overtime because the economy has been tanked for over a decade now.

The government here is a frickin' mess. The corruption that goes on here is just mind-boggling. They're thinking of electing as Prime Minister a guy who just a couple a months ago was facing prosecution for millions of (US) dollars worth of tax evasion. His secretary took the fall for for it and he claimed he didn't know anything about it--uh huh.

Women's issues are behind Western standards, but it's changing for the better rapidly. My wife will get 6-months paid maternity leave when she gets pregnant and we'll get boat-loads of cash from the government to offset the cost of the OBGYN visits and hospitalization costs. The government has been offering coupons for free health exams for women for common issues like breast and uterine cancer. Women almost always get solitary custody of kids in a divorce and have the right to deny the father access to the kids.

Still, there's a way to go obviously as this video shows. We have a friend who's an 18-year old single mother. Pretty tough, but she's got extended family that help her through it. A lot of my university students come from single-mom families and they tell me about how hard their moms work to pay for their education (most of them are working part-time jobs to help pay for school too).

In Japan, it's all about your connections. Japanese society places a huge emphasis on your personal connections--friends, family, and extended family. I imagine that part of the problem of why very little is being done for these people (single mothers or otherwise) is that there is something of a stigma against people who don't have those connections... Maybe from the Japanese perspective they feel there must be something wrong with a person who can't rely on family to help them when the chips are down.

1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. The Constitution isn't being overridden, there's nothing in it about marriage either way. No one political party has the patent on hypocrisy. The legitimate State exists to preserve rights and protect private property, and since marriage is a legal contract it IS the State's business, and still would be even under the flawed 'marriage privatization' libertarian model.

2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Is one of the two major political movements more concerned with actual consequences than the other? Yes. The Right defends traditional values, for better or for worse. Why? To be mean? Or is it because 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail?

Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.

The left has no real idea what the ultimate effects of legalizing gay marriage will be. We're talking 30 years of sketchy, activist-driven data versus 5000 years of history, during which no lasting society or moral thinker--religious or otherwise--condoned gay "marriage". It could be harmless, or it could turn the legal system and society on its ear. What personally ticks me off is if gay 'marriage' proves harmful to society, the left will deny it and try to hide the evidence.

3. Marriage is not about children. A rather large part of it is. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? No, but if the left cannot admit that two loving parents are better than one, then once again we are mired in intellectual dishonesty and the disavowal of common sense.

Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

Society has a right to define what relationships it values the most. If society decides one man/one woman legally bound works the best, then it has the the right to place that union on a pedestal. Gays like to make this all about them and how they're being persecuted over a "right" that IS new, but there is a line out the door and circling the block twice of relationship configurations society will also not place on "the pedestal".

Like a great number of Americans--though obviously not a majority--I couldn't care less about what gays do in their personal lives, but nor will I pretend there are no consequences for legitimizing 3% of the populations' will over the other 97%.

Freeing slaves, giving women the right to vote, legalizing drugs or prostitution...these aren't even blips on the radar compared to the fundamental societal changes that legalizing gay 'marriage' might bring.

I don't expect agreement here, just acknowledgment that there are other points of view, thoughtful and well-intentioned.














>> ^MaxWilder:

QM,
1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. I love how Conservatives want to keep the government out of everything. Except the bedroom. And a woman's womb. And the science lab. And where certain buildings are placed. And... well the list of hypocrisy goes on and on. The simple fact is the government should not be in the business of deciding who can marry whom. It is between the individuals involved, and no one else.
2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.
3. Marriage is not about children. You can have children without getting married. You can get married without ever having children. You can raise a child alone, or with a vast extended family in the house. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

QM,

1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. I love how Conservatives want to keep the government out of everything. Except the bedroom. And a woman's womb. And the science lab. And where certain buildings are placed. And... well the list of hypocrisy goes on and on. The simple fact is the government should not be in the business of deciding who can marry whom. It is between the individuals involved, and no one else.

2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.

3. Marriage is not about children. You can have children without getting married. You can get married without ever having children. You can raise a child alone, or with a vast extended family in the house. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

The Christian Fred Phelps is one of the most hateful people in America.

His "Church" consists of his extended family and a few hangers-on.

He lives up to the conservative tradition of picking on the weak and bowing to the strong.

When I think of George Carlin, that Felps fuck will be far from my mind.