>> ^VoodooV:

Sorry, but reality disagrees with you.
Demand for health care is not unlimited, it is finite. Sure it is a large demand, but it is quite finite. You're making a strawman argument because no one is advocating the absurd prolonging of life you're accusing others of.
News flash, we don't exist in a vacuum. We don't live in a universe where our decisions only affect us alone so your Ayn Rand fantasy utopia of everyone taking care of themselves and fuck the other guy doesn't exist..it never will.
It benefits everyone to give quality healthcare to all. We are more productive and contribute more when we don't have to bankrupt ourselves paying medical costs. We pay large amounts of money already because people don't have proper health care and don't do anything about it until they show up at the emergency room at death's door. Taxpayers foot that bill when they can't pay. So the question is simple: Do you want to pay for it now while it's cheap and easy to treat, or do you want to pay more later when it's a LOT worse and a hell of a lot more expensive.
Besides, you don't seem to mind spending other people's money and taking their lives when it comes to defense spending and invading other countries. And as the video already pointed out. We don't see Republicans sticking to their conservative "principles" and refusing Medicare/Medicaid when they need it....only when other people need it. So stop being such a hypocrite.


Most of the costs are borne by people who are retired, so I fail to see how borrowing trillions we don't have on life prolongation does anything but doom the future to crushing taxes and inflation for something the present desired but weren't productive enough to pay for. You can't do that, it's not fair, and many young people are waking up to the fact that this essentially a generational ponzi scheme with nothing in it for them. The first SS recipient contributed well below what she received and the final one will have paid in far more than they will receive in benefits. SS and Medicare, by their end, will have impoverished more people than any government programs in the history of mankind. Every naive socialist program is a sentimental black hole that accomplishes the opposite of what it intends. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, made it easier to get a loan, but in doing so increased the price of homes and thus the size of the loan. Because suddenly you've got this "magic bottomless guarantee" to print up a loan, and now you've got damn near everyone seemingly capable of bidding up the prices. Of course, now we realize it wasn't bottomless after all, it just seemed that way for a while.

You've successfully convinced me that you really, really want health care at some future untold person's expense. The populace as a whole is resisting taxes. Their money has been devalued so thoroughly that they can't budget in broad tax increases today, so what makes you think the future can? It's also true that employers are not poor people. We've had nothing but more and more government involvement in this sector and, just like education, the costs have risen with how much the government is able to tax and borrow. I used to work for an online college called Kaplan. Kaplan's price IS what the government takes and loans. Why would they price below that? You just don't seem to understand how markets work. Look at something like LASIK and PRK aren't covered by private or public insurers. It's had nothing but price declines and quality improvements. Look at computers, constant price declines and quality improvements. When people are forced to spend their own money, the fear and greed offset works. When they're spending a pool of forcibly appropriated funds, they lose sight of its true cost to them and the future and become reckless.

Oh, and I'm not a Republican in favor of military adventures. I sympathize less with that nonsense than I do with you. I understand that public roads are of lower quality than toll roads, but I'd rather we bear that cost for the simplicity of not having to dick with toll booths. Everything governmental has that dynamic, but I say the government should be completely disallowed from borrowing in excess of revenue. If you want something now, pay for it now, the end. If you can't raise the revenue, don't cry about it and don't steal from the future.

And yes, demands are infinite. Austrian economics 101. You offer someone everything on earth for $100, they'll probably take it. Problem is, supply ISNT infinite, so the price will never be that low. If you found some way of making planets full of shit cheap and abundant, you'd see that demand is indeed infinite.

Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society's Moral Character
By Dennis Prager
7/19/2011

While liberals are certain about the moral superiority of liberal policies, the truth is that those policies actually diminish a society's moral character. Many individual liberals are fine people, but the policies they advocate tend to make a people worse. Here are 10 reasons:

1. The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another. If the state will take care of me and my neighbors, why should I? This is why Western Europeans, people who have lived in welfare states far longer than Americans have, give less to charity and volunteer less time to others than do Americans of the same socioeconomic status.

The greatest description of American civilization was written in the early 19th century by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. One of the differences distinguishing Americans from Europeans that he most marveled at was how much Americans -- through myriad associations -- took care of one another. Until President Franklin Roosevelt began the seemingly inexorable movement of America toward the European welfare state -- vastly expanded later by other Democratic presidents -- Americans took responsibility for one another and for themselves far more than they do today. Churches, Rotary Clubs, free-loan societies and other voluntary associations were ubiquitous. As the state grew, however, all these associations declined. In Western Europe, they have virtually all disappeared.

2. The welfare state, though often well intended, is nevertheless a Ponzi scheme. Conservatives have known this for generations. But now, any honest person must acknowledge it. The welfare state is predicated on collecting money from today's workers in order to pay for those who paid in before them. But today's workers don't have enough money to sustain the scheme, and there are too few of them to do so. As a result, virtually every welfare state in Europe, and many American states, like California, are going broke.

3. Citizens of liberal welfare states become increasingly narcissistic. The great preoccupations of vast numbers of Brits, Frenchmen, Germans and other Western Europeans are how much vacation time they will have and how early they can retire and be supported by the state.

4. The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work. Americans work considerably harder than Western Europeans, and contrary to liberal thought since Karl Marx, work builds character.

5. Nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing. In the liberal welfare state, one develops an entitlement mentality -- another expression of narcissism. And the rhetoric of liberalism -- labeling each new entitlement a "right" -- reinforces this sense of entitlement.

6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption. As the famous truism goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course, big businesses are also often corrupt. But they are eventually caught or go out of business. The government cannot go out of business. And unlike corrupt governments, corrupt businesses cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation's currency, and they cannot arrest you.

7. The welfare state corrupts family life. Even many Democrats have acknowledged the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. It has rendered vast numbers of males unnecessary to females, who have looked to the state to support them and their children (and the more children, the more state support) rather than to husbands. In effect, these women took the state as their husband.

8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults. As regards men specifically, I was raised, as were all generations of American men before me, to aspire to work hard in order to marry and support a wife and children. No more. One of the reasons many single women lament the prevalence of boy-men -- men who have not grown up -- is that the liberal state has told men they don't have to support anybody. They are free to remain boys for as long as they want.

And here is an example regarding both sexes. The loudest and most sustained applause I ever heard was that of college students responding to a speech by President Barack Obama informing them that they would now be covered by their parents' health insurance policies until age 26.

9. As a result of the left's sympathetic views of pacifism and because almost no welfare state can afford a strong military, European countries rely on America to fight the world's evils and even to defend them.

10. The leftist (SET ITAL) weltanschauung (END ITAL) sees society's and the world's great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.

None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms "social justice" and "compassion," and by labeling their opponents "selfish" and worse.

If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful.

This guy spends the whole video telling us what the symptoms are but ignores what got us here and how to fix it. No surprise the anti-free market (anti-freedom) people are oblivious to it.

Government and bankers have been running a ponzi scheme for most of the last century: Economic central planning and fractional reserve banking. Bankers have been stealing more and more from us every year through money manipulation and taxes.

Inflation is not some magical or natural occurrence. It is baked into the system. It is direct theft. A gallon of milk has pretty much the same value as it did 50 years ago, yet the price has changed, why? And for those that say, well prices have gone up but so have wages so it evens out. Not true. In the arbitrage between the two, you're always going to be on the losing side. And that ignores the theft of savings, and ignores how bankers exploit that arbitrage. That is why we have booms and busts. Bubbles are purposely induced through collusion and fraud to financially rape the people.

Without the fraud and collusion, there wouldn't be trillions of debt. And tax rates would probably be at the highest 10%. Income tax needs to eventually be abolished. In a free world, you trade your labor for wages. The government has no claim to your labor, so why does it have a claim to the wages you traded it for? Taxing consumption above the poverty level makes the most sense. But that can never be implemented without first eliminating the tax on income. You tax things you want less of, you bailout things you more of. The government taxes productivity (income), and rewards fraud (bank bailouts).

How do we fix this:
1. Eliminate the cancer: The Federal Reserve. Eliminate the whole concept of a central bank deciding monetary policy in general. Allow free choice and freedom of currency. Force banks to disclose their reserve ratio to issue loans. The free market will probably force banks to hold close to 100% of reserves. And banking would also become more of a co-op system like credit unions.
2. Cram down all the toxic loans on the Fed's balance sheet to the fair market value of the home and renegotiate the terms for the home owner.
3. Close down the Military Industrial Complex. End all wars. Close down all foreign military bases. Focus Department of Defense on actually defending threats instead of creating them. Abolish the CIA.
4. Break the global oil cartel.
5. Probably have to break up the big banks and pass regulations similar to Glass-Steagall to keep them from getting "too big to fail". Separate banks from investment firms, insurance firms etc. Enforce real regulations that protect consumers, not the parasitic speculators. If a hedge fund makes bad bets and loses, then they lose. No bailouts.
6. Eliminate the false free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT. Stop incentivising global companies to outsource production oversees.
7. Eliminate tax on production. (Income tax)
8. Ban health insurance. (The middle man) We would probably have to fully nationalize health care. (It is anyway really) And then work towards a system of free choice and volunteerism.

Probably more solutions, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. And yes, I'm a free market idealist.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Psychologic & boise_lib
You're missing the point. Bureaucracies are ponzi schemes of power.
You know ponzi schemes don't work, so why invest your power in one.
At least in a free market, there's an ebb and flow of power
So while, yes, the strong can push around the weak; the weak can also gang up on the strong. Two strongs can flank the weaks. One weak can poison the well of the strongs. You get the point, yes?
In bureaucracies, power only moves one way. Up.. away from you.
What if you don't see a return from the scheme and want out?
You truly don't have any recourse then Boise_Lib
~~~
I'll put it this way.
"Free market violence" - for lack of a better term - is random and fair. You can always gain lose or remain neutral in your power.
State sanctioned violence is worse because the power you forfeit for a false sense of security is inevitably be used against you to control your life.
The deck is constantly stacked against you.


People form groups either way.

The world is libertarian by nature, but people tend to form societies because it's stronger than an individual. If that society can't protect itself (from within or without) then it will be replaced by a stronger one. Get rid of government and new ones will emerge (or "annex").

I certainly have my complaints about the various types of governments around the world, but those are critiques of the implementations rather than the idea of government. I'd much rather live under a flawed representative government than whoever happens to amass the most individual power from the vacuum.

I can't help that assholes can get hired as police officers, but I still value law enforcement. I feel that abuses can be addressed without throwing the entire system out. I've known plenty of bad cops, but I've known far more cops that hate people like that and see cameras as a protection rather than a threat.

@Psychologic & boise_lib

You're missing the point. Bureaucracies are ponzi schemes of power.

You know ponzi schemes don't work, so why invest your power in one.
At least in a free market, there's an ebb and flow of power

So while, yes, the strong can push around the weak; the weak can also gang up on the strong. Two strongs can flank the weaks. One weak can poison the well of the strongs. You get the point, yes?

In bureaucracies, power only moves one way. Up.. away from you.

What if you don't see a return from the scheme and want out?
You truly don't have any recourse then @Boise_Lib
~~~
I'll put it this way.

"Free market violence" - for lack of a better term - is random and fair. You can always gain lose or remain neutral in your power.

State sanctioned violence is worse because the power you forfeit for a false sense of security is inevitably be used against you to control your life.
The deck is constantly stacked against you.

I like Dr. Paul, but that doesn't excuse him from having his ideas vehemently challenged

For those of you who are more annoyed by Paul than my GF Ann Coulter, she properly excoriates him in this column.

Paul can't even scratch Social Security and Medicare off that list by taking the libertarian position that there should be no Social Security or Medicare, because he also said during the debate: "We don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government." (And of course, those programs do exist, whether we like it or not.)

So Rep. Paul is a swashbuckling individualist when it comes to civilization's most crucial building block for raising children (marriage) but willing to be a run-of-the-mill government statist when it comes to the Ponzi-scheme entitlements bankrupting the country. He's like a vegetarian who says, "I'm not a fanatic -- I still eat meat."

That sounds like you are saying all arbitrary valuation is a Ponzi scheme, which I don't think is exactly right. If people stop buying stocks, it doesn't cause the companies to crash, if people stop investing into bonds, the money doesn't crash either. Investing real money into money causes the money to increase in valuation without a need for continued investors. Any investing can lead to bubbles when fueled by speculation...Bubble != Ponzi. Bubbles to be had here for sure, just like any IPO for a stock. I think you are wise to be cautious, though, this is a pretty crazy new idea. In that, though, no risk, no reward. It would be akin to investing in gold before a major nation switched to the gold standard...chaching. Same here...if everyone starts using that currency, it will be in high demand making it more desirable.

I plan to read about how it creates additional units without causing inflation or not creating enough which causes deflation. I am interested how it maintains all that. It is all very very intriguing.


*edit grammar and spelling

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Stormsinger:
Sheeesh, talk about your Ponzi schemes...

I am confuzzled by this statement. Is China investing hundreds of billions in US bons any different than this? Buying money is a strange concept for me, but this doesn't look like a ponzi setup at all...as it is used as a tender not an investment that needs more investment. Akin to calling paypal a Ponzi scheme...unless I don't understand you completely.

A Ponzi scheme is one in which investors get returns not from any profit but only by being paid with the buy-ins of the later investors...which means that sooner or later, when there are no new investors, the last wave or six -cannot- be paid, because there is no profit. A scheme such as what Hybrid is discussing has no profit...it's nothing but pure speculation, and thus, has no profits to pay to investors. IOW, it's -all- bubble...and the last "investors" are going to be left holding empty balloons.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Stormsinger:
Sheeesh, talk about your Ponzi schemes...

I am confuzzled by this statement. Is China investing hundreds of billions in US bons any different than this? Buying money is a strange concept for me, but this doesn't look like a ponzi setup at all...as it is used as a tender not an investment that needs more investment. Akin to calling paypal a Ponzi scheme...unless I don't understand you completely.


A Ponzi scheme is one in which investors get returns not from any profit but only by being paid with the buy-ins of the later investors...which means that sooner or later, when there are no new investors, the last wave or six -cannot- be paid, because there is no profit. A scheme such as what Hybrid is discussing has no profit...it's nothing but pure speculation, and thus, has no profits to pay to investors. IOW, it's -all- bubble...and the last "investors" are going to be left holding empty balloons.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Sheeesh, talk about your Ponzi schemes...


I am confuzzled by this statement. Is China investing hundreds of billions in US bons any different than this? Buying money is a strange concept for me, but this doesn't look like a ponzi setup at all...as it is used as a tender not an investment that needs more investment. Akin to calling paypal a Ponzi scheme...unless I don't understand you completely.

Sheeesh, talk about your Ponzi schemes...

"In other news - human beings need to respirate oxygen to survive.

I don't think there's anyone particularly amazed at the concept that the unions would continue to squeal like stuck pigs and use thuggery, force, violence, and threats to make sour grape juice. Unions are swaggering around Wisconsin in droves threatening businesses and consumers alike with 'consequences' unless they do what they want. It's hard to say what will happen in the long run, but I really hope all these bought & paid for mafioso sleazebags get what they deserve - a swift kick in the pants."

Did you get this upset when Wall Street threatened the world with a 'global financial meltdown' if the taxpayers don't cough up ~700 billion to cover their failed ponzi scheme built on CDOs?

Didn't think so.

I'd educate you on how slimy this latest push by the Republicans is to strip the last dregs of leverage from average working Americans but you already know so instead I'll just say fuck you.

Good day.

You are one of the most ill-informed disingenuous windbags ever.

~~~
Oh okay. Let's see what you brought for lunch.

#1
The only time the Constitution mentions national defense is in the preamble.
Today those militias are known as the National Guard.

Your point being? That the militia is the only "authorized" defense? Is there no oath to “preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?"

You can argue the size and scope of the military, but not the mandate of its existence.

#2
All Transportation Security Administration [TSA] spending falls under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. The Department of Defense budget is a completely different budget.

Not sure what your point is here. I mentioned nothing about the monies of the TSA, only that if you love government sloth and ineptitude, you can expect more of the same from theoretical "Health Security" workers just like TSAers.

Small portion my ass (referring to military budget).

The necessary FIFTH of the economy is dwarfed by the entitlements that are bankrupting the future.

#3
Every year, Social Security and Medicare taxes are stolen out of our wages with a guarantee that we'll be repaid.

You said it, not me. I merely pointed out that there is no Constitutional basis for such programs, both of which are rife with fraud and waste. You can argue the merits of these programs (there are many) but not their Unconstitutional origins. Oh, BTW, Social Security is a tax. And the government doesn't have to pay you a dime of it.

Are you suggesting the government should renege on its 2 Trillion dollar obligation to tax-payers?! *GASP!*

There is no one solution for the Ponzi scheme of SS, but if it's going to be realistically tackled, none of the solutions will be pleasant.

#4
Being harassed at the airport isn't a necessity nor a fundamental right.


Right now, it's their bullsh!t rules. If public opinion turns against the TSA, it's gone. Has it? Not yet.

Healthcare [Well-being] is.

Hope you are able to recognize the difference between opinion and fact. "Health care is a human right" is an opinion, but why do you stop there? Do you believe housing, food, jobs, transportation, etc. are also "human rights" that the State is required to provide?

Put government in charge of health care and you give some people who might have had no care some mediocre care while condemning others to rationing and life-threatening bureaucracy.

And if you think health care is made cheaper and more efficient by government, well, good luck with alllll that.

~~~
I know I've completely wasted my time and breath in yet another vain attempt to point out your fallacies.

You've wasted your time to the extent there's nothing new here. I observe the results of socialism, the trade-offs disguised as solutions, and remain unimpressed. I'm not buying into this BS which isn't worth my money or my freedom, and as Nov 2nd proved, neither is the rest of the USA (except in the usual dummy areas). I'm less of a threat to you than the bureaucrats you're fighting to have take over your life and mine.

for some reason I read the title as Ultimate Ponzie Scheme, expected a very differnt video...

>> ^blankfist:

I also accept your definition of a Ponzi scheme minus the 'impossibly high return'. That's an arbitrary statement so let's stick to the facts.

Okay, glad to know you're never going to call SS a ponzi scheme again, then.

>> ^blankfist:
The SS doesn't promise a return on your investment, so you're not actually investing in your future or retirement. I wish it wasn't politically positioned to people that way. It is different from a Ponzi scheme in this way and this way only from what I understand.

Bzzt, factual error, and it conflicts with the prior statement.

Here, read this. I'm happy to answer any criticism or questions you have in response to it.

@NetRunner, you have a unique talent for not being able to correctly identify factual errors or logical fallacies.

SS checks keep coming because of exactly what I wrote above. It's a tax levied against the working. We get it. No miscommunication so far. I also accept your definition of a Ponzi scheme minus the 'impossibly high return'. That's an arbitrary statement so let's stick to the facts.

The SS doesn't promise a return on your investment, so you're not actually investing in your future or retirement. I wish it wasn't politically positioned to people that way. It is different from a Ponzi scheme in this way and this way only from what I understand.

I'm not particularly fond of 401Ks or IRAs, but at least they're not funded by coercion and theft like SS. That makes them infinitely better and moral.