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

John G. Heim jheim at math.wisc.edu
Mon Apr 26 13:03:40 UTC 2010 

No.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled


> Person C puts money in to the system so that person B gets a return on his 
> investment, because his investment was used to pay person A.
>
> Didn't Bernie Madoff go to prison for that?
>
> Joseph
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 08:34:39AM -0700, Mike Freeman wrote:
>>Actually, although in theory, this is certainly true, in reality, this 
>>assertion is based upon asumption which, while used to sell the original 
>>program and gain public support, has never been true, to wit, that Social 
>>Security is a social insurance program. In fact, beginning on Day One of 
>>the program and continuing to the present, Social Security was then, is 
>>now and (unless Congress says otherwise) a pay-as-you-go program; current 
>>taxpayers pay for current retirees although it looks to those contributing 
>>to Social Security as if they're contributing to a trust fund. Lest we 
>>doubt this, remember that SS benefits were issued almost from the 
>>program's inception and this could not have been done were the program a 
>>true "trust fund". But FDR could have never sold a true trust fund. to 
>>Congress or to the people.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: <ckrugman at sbcglobal.net>
>>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:59 PM
>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get 
>>labeled
>>
>>
>>>And we must not forget that
>>>Social Security would not be in the unfunded position that it is in had 
>>>the trust fund not been raided to cover other government expenditures as 
>>>it has been raided many times over the past years.
>>>Chuck
>>>----- 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 12:50 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
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>

More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list