[nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled

[qubit]

good one -- where did you get the figures?
Income is not all a sum of static assets, though. I don't pretend to be an 
economist, but when people are working and contributing to the general 
commerce, isn't there an increase in the value of the country's assets? It's 
both the static assets and the movement of money.
Now if I am remembering high school economy wrongly, please correct me.
The problem with pure socialism is that the productivity of individuals is 
less -- this is a historical fact -- look at the soviet union -- when people 
have little or no incentive to work, they will naturally be inclined to work 
less.
Now I know someone is going to flame about that one.  So have at it.
Happy flaming.
--le

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled


According to the US Debt Clock (privately run and woefully
inaccessible), the current total US liability per person is in the
neighborhood of $350,634.  If you spread the wealth evenly, the total
US national assets (public and private), per person, are only
$234,237.  That means if you follow the current doctrine of soak the
rich and make sure nobody has any more than everyone else gets, every
single man, woman, and child in these United States would still owe a
total of $116,377.

I've got no idea how much of that is owed to other countries like
China and how much of that is owed to Grandma (the largest unfunded
liability of the government is Social Security), but there you have
it.  If everything we own, all of our land and possessions are taken
as payment of the national debt, we all still owe something in the
neighborhood of the value of my family's house, pre-housing debacle.

The government has no money to pay squat.  One of these days, Social
Security is going to not get paid because our debtors are going to
start demanding a return on their investment.  That's basic Economics
101.  WHEN that happens, not if, people looking for the government to
pay their bills are going to be screwed.

Ask the teachers in California how well they can spend IOUs.  In
time, that'll be readers' SSI and SSDI checks.  The alternatives are
a complete and immediate collapse of the dollar or Zimbabwe-style
inflation.  Scary stuff.

You cannot spend money indefinitely without the ability or desire to
pay.  If you and I do that, we will at least destroy our credit
rating or at worse go to jail for fraud.  The Weasel Caucus (which
seems to be the only thing bi-partisan in DC anymore) is doing the
same and has been apparently since before I was born.  They probably
won't face any real consequences for it.

We will, sooner or later.  And it's gonna hit certain populations
(like blind people collecting SSI and SSDI for example) a whole lot
harder than it's going to hit political fat cats who quibble over
which model of Gulf Stream Jet they are forced to fly in.

If the media wants to see real anger in the streets, wait till people
figure out just how screwed we really are, courtesy of a whole bunch
of fat elephants and complete donkeys, who will have moved their not
inconsiderable assets to safety long before it happens.

Ready to vote them all out,

Joseph


On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:43:03PM -0500, David Andrews wrote:
>Well, the government probably has more money, and can provide things
>in a more even-handed regular way.  Yes, there are problems with
>administering government programs -- but private ones too.  Who
>hasn't had billing problems with an insurance company, a phone
>company, a a bank or a credit card company.  Any large system that
>tries to make everybody, and everything the same is going to have
>these kinds of problems.  If you think the government has a monopoly
>on the bad stuff, or that the private sector could administer a large
>program without mistakes, fraud and the rest of it is just thinking
>selectively to make a point.
>
>Dave
>
>At 11:43 PM 4/22/2010, you wrote:
>>Chuck, I don't know you of course, but based on your comments, I'm
>>tempted to think that you don't receive social security or Medicare
>>benefits. I and many of my friends can relate horror story after
>>horror story involving the bureaucracy and ineptness of various
>>government programs. I've asked many liberals in amicable debates
>>why they believe that the government is better able to provide
>>assistance than the private sector. I ask on a historical,
>>efficiency and motivational basis. At the end of the arguments,
>>though many platitudes come across, I've never received a solid
>>answer.
>>
>>
>>RyanO
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org

_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org