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

Brian Miller brian-r-miller at uiowa.edu
Sun Apr 25 10:16:40 UTC 2010


It is raided every year -- to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to
off-set deficit expendetures.  

 

-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of ckrugman at sbcglobal.net
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:59 AM
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
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





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list