How the Oligarchs Took America

I do not have any problem paying into the social security system to take care of people who need the help. Unfortunately, it is the belief that that social security will take care of your retirement that encourages people to spend more money that they make. Social security was designed as a safety net and has become a retirement plan to the detriment of this country.

It is tough to live below your means (even for a lot of rich people), but we must do it.

 

It should not have to be that way, but it is simply reality. Everyone wants to be able to save for retirement, but for many, if not most of us, life gets in the way. That is the reason we have expanded the SS program over the years. Nobody should have to live out their last years as a beggar, and everyone should be required to fund their own retirement. SS has accomplished this last pretty well over the life of the program.

 

Certainly the first part of the sentence I bolded could apply, but I wouldn't assume the second part does, based on previous posts from Mr. MFW.

"Myself on the other hand, I don't waste my time arguing morals. I am looking after my self-interest. You are looking after your self-interest. The rich are looking after their self-interest. The poor are looking after their self-interest. Nothing wrong with any of that. But I sleep much better at the end of the day knowing I didn't get on my high horses and claim moral superiority while reaching into another man's pocket."

The above quote is all you need to know about MFW, glynch.

 

No verbal gymnastics at all. Rather, it's this thing, called economics, you may have heard of it.

Here's a graph, it deals with the ECONOMICS concept of deadweight loss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TaxWithTax.svg

Deadweight loss arise from quite a few situations: monopoly (or rather, monopolistic practises), externalities (negative specifically), price ceilings, price floors and tax. Those arising primarily from governmental policies of course, are price ceilings, price floors and tax (you're a deadweight, how d'ya like that). That little thing to the right of tax revenue? That's Harberger's Triangle.

In case you missed it, this is microeconomics 101 here. If you've no knowledge of this, you should have the good sense of not even opening your trap, lest you should sound moronic, which you do. Now when you get to microeconomics 601, graduate economics, you have a much better estimation for t (or rather, Greek letter Tau) and use a far more robust multi-variable model, the math of which is WAY beyond the knowledge of the average American, let alone the economic theories; but the model stays the same: tax => deadweight loss => Harberger's Triangle.

A related concept is Pareto efficiency, which is a very basic fundamental concept of resource allocation. Same concept. The idea is that an economy is Pareto inefficient if AT LEAST one person can be better off without making another worse off. Guess what leads to Pareto inefficiencies? Tax is one of them. As a matter of fact, tax is by definition, Pareto inefficient. The whole scheme of taxation is to allocate resources such that some are better off by making some more worse off.

The concept of Pareto efficiency has been mathematically proven. It occurs in a FREE MARKET system. Of course, the world we live in is not ideal and free emarket, nevertheless, it is at least theoretically possible.

As a matter of fact, the only case in which a Pareto efficiency does not occur in a free market system is due to information asymmetry, as proposed in the Greenwald-Stiglitz Theorem (I love Joe Stiglitz). But that is a matter altogether different than taxation.

Now non of this is new. As a matter of fact, this is called the classical/neo-classical model of the economy. Google when Vilfred Pareto was around. You mention accounting hasn't change very much, gee really? Last time I checked, accounting is defined by the AICPA (this is accounting 101 here) as:

"the art of recording, classifying, and summarizing in a significant manner and in terms of money, transactions and events which are, in part at least, of financial character, and interpreting the results thereof."

If wealth allocation, monetary transactions and resource allocation hasn't changed very much, why should the art of recording it? New technology, same old **** problems. And problem number 1 is how to slice the pie. Right now you're trying to take it from the rich.

So chuckles, yes, tell me again about my verbal gymnastics. I have a better suspicion. Which is that you are:

a) Unaware of the economic concepts
b) Do not understand the economic concepts
c) Purposefully ignoring the economic concepts (aka. lying)
d) All of the above.

Well how convenient. So let's say you worked hard and I didn't. As a result you are well off and I am not. I couldn't pay my bills as a further result. So there's this state sanctioned redistribution of wealth from you to me to pay my bills. How long should it last? A year? Two? Indefinitely?

You know, I actually googled the term moral hazard, ironically ever heaved at the rich nowadays. Moral hazard is:

"a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk."

Sounds familiar?

Will's money is it? If that's the case, why don't we simply not have payroll tax at all and have Will contribute to a 401(k) on his own? Heck, how is it in Will's best interest to pay SS for example? Will contributes (the employer portion) $3,100 a year. He gets about 2% return (your number) WAY in the future. Sounds like a really lousy investment to me. Even with stock/bond market crashes and all, he could have EASILY beat that return.

Or alternatively, if it's really Will's money, why not simply have no employer requirement but a 12.4% requirement on Will? After all, if it is fundamentally Will's money, I'm only changing a name and not any underlying economics am I?

The explanation is really quite simple. Your reasoning is not plausible.

I find it laughable that you would dare to lecture anyone else on accounting. IF (note the BIG if) these are accounting transactions, there are quite a few issues here:

1) These are NOT an arms-length transactions. This part is really kinda important.
2) ANY accountant/auditor with even the REMOTEST concept of accounting woudl tell you, if the parent (the government) is in ****, the subsidiary (the SSA) is likely in **** too, especially when they engage in non-arms-length transaction.
2) You have no idea which set of accounting standards the US government (and all its branches) follow, do you? They call it GAAP still, yes, but it is VERY VERY different from what any other organization would follow. Heck, they even call it the "modified accrual" basis, which is not even anywhere close to accrual basis but far closer to cash basis.

The fact that you can't grasp SOMEBODY ELSE paid for the beneficiaries shows how utterly idiotic you are.

As I've mentioned, it's really easy to test who paid for it. Remove the employer contribution then see if the numbers still add it. WHEN (not if) it doesn't, we'll know for sure won't we?

Except those people that work every day didn't have 12.4% of their paycheck withheld by the government. They had 6.2%. Then they had an additional 6.2% padded on, paid by somebody else.

Also, I'd love to see where I said income tax paid SS and Medicare. Really. Love to see it. That's as much a strawman if I ever saw one.

I made mention of spending in post #43, in which I responded madmonkey37 that the rich for the majority of the outlays (yes, that's ANY outlays) but derive little benefit from them.

Then you went on about defense, in which I further proved that the largest outlays ARE NOT defense, which they aren't.

Then you went on how SS and Med is paid by the employees, in which I also further proved that they are in fact, PAID IN LARGE PART BY THE RICH.

So yes, congratulations, we went full circle and proved in the end that I was right all along. Waste of time, but hey, how we know for sure.

But I presume you'll change the topic onto something else again.

Come again? I didn't hear you the first time. My my, I'm pretty sure this is free market practise here. That's interesting, considering that we live in an environment where there is a price ceiling (mostly soft) on the rich and a price floor on the poor. So essentially you're saying is that there's a non free market determined market price? Must be nice when it's in your favour isn't it?

See above on Will investing on his own. If it's his money, I think Will's being shafted. What are you waiting for man? Rise up against the government and this gross injustice.

Actually, if you're not totally r****ded, you would find that my post was totally logical. Let's remove the employer contribution requirement. If you are perfectly comfortable it's your pay, it shouldn't matter should it? I mean, after all, over time, your pay will adjust (rise, according to you) so what does it matter?

For the record, I'm predicting a roughly 6.2% drop to your "compensation."

Which pretty much is kinda the point isn't it? Paid for by the rich, benefiting the poor. Yes, glad we got that out of the system. But I can't help but notice the irony here. If it's really the employee's money, can't he just invest it himself? Surely buying treasuries isn't that hard. Last time I checked, it's still liquid.

I argued the Pareto efficieny before. You know why I called it basic/fundamental? Because it doesn't take into account social responsibilities. It is perfectly fair and it is perfectly fair precisely because it doesn't take into account social responsibilities. In other words, it is apolitical, like economics.

What I feel about social responsibility is a whole another issue. I can have different feelings towards social responsibility than I would under economics.

But if you give me some bullsh1t like "how the oligarch's took America" then it's perfectly reasonable to respond that they're paying for the whole shebang. In fact, it is perfectly fair.

So if the person in question in his golden years had been responsible, he wouldn't need this "most successful program?" Yes, that sounds about right.

Most Americans (73% as a matter of fact) never go to college, even though it is ridiculously simple to get into one (and out too). Why didn't they? Most Americans don't plan for their career. Why don't they? Most Americans don't train for or acquire new skills. Why don't they? It's pretty easy to say I'm not paid enough but much more difficult to admit why you're not being paid what you think is enough.

Do you know how they measure real wage? They take this basket of goods and measure how much it cost before and how much it does now. The problem really is with that basket of goods. For example, a computer wouldn't be in it anytime during oh, the 1800's. As a matter of fact, they weren't even part of it during the 50's and 60's. We've added quite a few items over the years to that basket of goods, and if I remember correctly, there are now some 400 items (might be wrong) nowadays. It already took into account your increased lifestyle.

I, as a matter of fact, think that you should be able to enjoy every single luxury possible; those that I haven't even dreamed of... as long as you can pay for it.

Because, let's cut the crap, at the end of the day, it's about LIFESTYLE. Your Disney vacation? You wanted a lifestyle that you can't afford. Sucks I know. I would hate being poor. I didn't have a cell phone in college (which p1ssed the hell out of my friends) because I couldn't (or am unwilling to) afford that lifestyle.

If someone were to deny you the opportunity of affording that lifestyle, I would have a huge problem with it. But that's not the case. Like I said, 40% of the rich 30 years ago are no longer there, as 60% of the poor. Why didn't you move?

Actually, if you're not totally r****ded, you would find that my post was totally logical. Let's remove the employer contribution requirement. If you are perfectly comfortable it's your pay, it shouldn't matter should it? I mean, after all, over time, your pay will adjust (rise, according to you) so what does it matter?

For the record, I'm predicting a roughly 6.2% drop to your "compensation."

Chuckles. Facts fly in your face, you just chose to ignore them. It's like an ostrich really. Quick! Cover your eyes.

Chuckles. Well Sammy, I think about one of the most idiotic things would be to post too much about oneself online. Security aside, it's a total waste of time (and nobody else's business). And yes, for the record, Facebook IS a monument to wasted time.

And how would you even know? I could find the picture of a model and claim to be a gazillionaire or I could find a fat hairy pencil-dick. It's not only stupid, it's pathetic.

I once had a guy online who said he could kick my ass and said "give me your address, I'll come and beat you up." I don't claim to be a good or bad fighter or be strong or weak, but it occurred to me that regardless of that, any random idiot can sneak up on me in my sleep and put a knife in my back, nobody how good (or bad) of a fighter I am.

Let's cut the bullsh1t Sammy. I'm sure you're a legend in your own mind suffering from delusion of grandeur. From what I've seen though, if you're a lawyer (like I was told), you're a really sh1tty one, as witness by your total lack of argument, or extremely lousy ones.

I won't bother putting a price tag on that.

Isn't that on its own, symptomatic of the problem?

I am perfectly honest and perfectly fair. Some call those morals.

 

You make a fantastic argument for doing away with subsidies (I happen to agree with this position) and tariffs (I am all for reciprocal tariff reductions) as well as sales taxes. However, the taxes I was talking about are income taxes, which don't enter into the realm of supply and demand curves since they tax income, not purchases.

Your discussion above would have been topical if we had been talking about my proposal to scrap the income tax and all related taxes (estate, dividend, capital gains, etc.) in favor of a consumption tax, but given our current discussion, you either didn't understand that your comments didn't relate at all or wanted to distract from the topic, either way, it is worth little more than a .

You boiled it down pretty well here. The big problem is how to slice the pie. The rich have been working hard at reducing their tax burden for decades now, and have been extremely successful at getting the government to borrow money in order for them to be able to pay less and less. It seems extremely logical that the people who have enjoyed the fruits of the tax breaks over the last 30 years should be the ones who shoulder the burden of additional taxes now that we are in dire fiscal straits.

As we have seen, you are not unaware of the economic concepts, though I think your understanding is a little weak since you tried to apply concepts related to direct taxation of products, industry subsidies, or import tariffs to our discussion of the income tax. I won't accuse you of lying, which leaves me with a different choice:

d) You are so hopelessly biased that you can't recognize facts, evidence, and logic.

This kind of depends on what exactly you are talking about. If you are talking about unemployment insurance, that is one of the costs a business shoulders as part of their employee compensation. In general, I don't think that unemployment should last much longer than six months, though the current situation certainly seems to call for some extension.

If you are talking about welfare, I am a proponent of making people on welfare work or go to school in order to receive benefits. Given that welfare is such a tiny percentage of the federal budget (after Clinton got welfare reform passed), if you are talking about this one you are making much ado about nothing.

Yes, it sounds just like the banks and financial institutions that figured they could take any risk they wanted with the knowledge that the US government wouldn't allow them to fail. Interestingly, those institutions are booming now thanks to the taxpayers who are now getting shafted even more by the people set to reap HUGE dividends.

Because a 401k isn't a safe enough investment vehicle for people of moderate (or lower) means. In an emergency, 401k accounts can be emptied out, those monies can be attached in lawsuits, and the risk of the stock and bond markets is just too high, as we saw in '08.

You may very well see that as a low ROI, but your perspective is skewed by your income and right-wing bias.

My reasoning is the only logical way to look at the situation. Will's employer knows exactly how much employing will is going to cost before the hiring decision is made. The employer calculates this as part of the total compensation package, you know, the package that Faux "News" is all up in arms about with regards to the WI teachers. They are going nuts about the $76,000 total compensation package, a number that includes all contributions to both pensions and SS.

These are the same types of transactions that any corporation would make with domestic divisions and/or departments. Even if you look at it the way that GE would, using funds generated from a cash cow to prop up other businesses or enter into new industries is simply SOP.

Again, you run out of any kind of logical argument and start name calling instead. Employees have a compensation package that includes a 12.4% contribution to SS. I'm sorry that you can't grasp that fundamental fact, but your inability to understand doesn't change its factual nature.

Paid on behalf of that employee into that employee's SS account. It really doesn't matter that the contribution is nominally made by the employer, the contribution was made because the employee worked and earned a paycheck. In the absence of the employee's work, the contribution wouldn't be made.

A rose by any other name...

You talked about the largest government expenditures, implying that the income tax funded SS and Medicare, which is simply inaccurate. I called you out on it and you had a hissy fit.

The rich derive more benefit than the poor from most outlays funded by income tax...

The court system
Infrastructure (highways, electricity, telecommunications)
Educated workforce
Interest on the debt generated by borrowing for tax breaks
Defense

The single largest outlay funded by income tax is defense. This is simply a fact.

No, the rich have their SS and Medicare tax contributions capped at ~$100,000, so they pay a smaller percentage of their income to these programs than the poor and middle class do, again, just a fact.

I haven't changed the topic at all, I have just illustrated how hopelessly biased you are.

Are you really trying toi claim that there is a cap on the amount of money the rich can earn? If that is your claim, you are delusional on top of hopelessly biased.

I don't see it as "shafted" as when Will retires, he will enjoy a modest income that will keep him out of the poor house, off the streets, and out of the soup kitchens. That is the fate that would have been in store for him before SS.

More insults and stupid hypotheticals. I guess this weak sauce is all you have.

The liquidity is the problem. Someone who is poor will be forced to take that money out when they have an emergency, when they get sued, or for a myriad of reasons. SS provides a protected vehicle for retirement savings that can't be withdrawn, can't be attached in a lawsuit, and can't be used for any reason other than retirement.

No, it isn't fair. The rich certainly pay taxes under our progressive income tax system, but it is the greed of the rich that has gotten us to the deficit and debt hole that we are now in. Instead of paying down the debt with the surplus that Clinton handed to Bush, the GOP instead chose to borrow heaps and scads of money to give away, mostly to rich people.

The poor and middle class pay for SS and Medicare, which are the entitlements that they enjoy the lion's share of.

It must be nice to talk about responsibility from your ivory tower. Why don't you just call on the poor to "eat cake," that is the impression you are giving everyone.

This isn't actually about me, I get paid nearly double the US average and with my educational and career path, fully expect to be in the top tax bracket in a few years. I think it is a little sad that more people don't go to college, but that has very little to do with this discussion.

Again, this isn't about me, I did move. Income mobility in the United States is lower than it has been in a long time and is decreasing as time goes on...

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2009/wp0907.pdf

For the record, the above consists of yet another insult and stupid hypothetical. Par for the course for you.

No, I have been responding point by point, addressing the facts and pointing out your bias. It isn't my fault you are completely unable to remove your right colored glasses.

 

A 401k can be a safe retirement vehicle for people of moderate and lower means. While stocks and bonds do fluctuate over short time periods(sometime badly as in 2008), as a whole they grow over the long-term. In fact, I would argue that US Treasuries are a riskier bet currently than stocks and corporate bonds because of QE2 ending and the possibility of reduced purchases and probably sales by Japan of US government bonds.

401K account money cannot be attached in a lawsuit.

I do agree that lower income individuals are probably more likely to loot their retirement funds in an emergency, but that is not a reason not to use them. It might be a reason to make it more difficult for people to make withdrawals.

Social Security just was not set up as a retirement mechanism and it cannot be easily switched to one. The money being paid into Social Security is going to current retirees and the surplus, during years when there is a surplus, is being spent on other items. While the Treasury does issue bonds to Social Security for the amount of the surplus, that is not an investment. It is just the government borrowing from itself and claiming it will be better in the future about not spending so much.

 

Originally Posted by Deckard
Certainly the first part of the sentence I bolded could apply, but I wouldn't assume the second part does, based on previous posts from Mr. MFW.

"Myself on the other hand, I don't waste my time arguing morals. I am looking after my self-interest. You are looking after your self-interest. The rich are looking after their self-interest. The poor are looking after their self-interest. Nothing wrong with any of that. But I sleep much better at the end of the day knowing I didn't get on my high horses and claim moral superiority while reaching into another man's pocket."

The above quote is all you need to know about MFW, glynch.

It is all you need to know. He has the religion of Ron Paul, and Saint Milton Friedman and thus will be largely impervious to facts, prevailing moral theories/religions of the last few thousand years, present human suffering etc.

Because he is among the house servants who tend to great wealth he considers his oversized paycheck to be a sign of his own self worth

 

US Treasuries might be a riskier bet today than they were 10 or 20 years ago, but they are still among the safest investments on the planet, which is the entire reason they pay so little in interest.

When I am wrong I admit it. I was wrong about 401k money being open to attachment in a lawsuit.

Social Security IS "a retirement mechanism" for millions upon millions of people right now today. Payroll taxes have more than paid for all past and current retirees and has generated s surplus of over $2.5 trillion. You are correct about the government "borrowing from itself," borrowing that is paid back to the SS trust fund with interest.

SS is the most successful social program in America's history, it has allowed our elderly the ability to live out their post-retirement years without being reduced to beggars, as long as the person worked throughout their life. The payroll tax has generated a massive surplus that will not be depleted until 2037 if we make no changes whatsoever before then. I see very few negatives about SS except for the fear mongering common among right wing ideologues like MFW.

 

Just to be clear, I am not saying that Treasuries are risky because of default; they are risky because of possible increases in interest rates.

I think the market for Treasuries has been manipulated in a way by QE2 and that when QE2 ends there will be less demand, which will drive up the interest rates. I also think there will be less demand from other countries for Treasuries over time, which will also increase the interest that must be paid. When interest rates go up, the value of current treasuries go down.

 

Agreed.

While technically true, the borrowing from ourselves will make it very painful to meet the obligations in the near future. Now is the time to make corrections to keep the country prosperous. Social Security does need to be modified for the relatively younger people.

 

SS needs to be modified, but only a couple of minor tweaks make it solvent out through 2075, namely means testing benefits and raising the payroll tax cap. I would also be amenable to indexing the retirement age on average lifespan so that as we live longer, we retire later without needing politicians to intervene.

The corrections we need to overcome the borrowing from ourselves include reducing spending in a responsible fashion, helping the economy to grow, and increasing income, dividend and capital gains taxes to sustainable levels.

 

You are right about the minor tweaks. If you like social security means testing is definitely out. It is the secondary wet dream of ss opponents. Means testing means welfare and the middle and especially the upper middle class support for the program will eventually erode. The enemies of ss know this.

The whole problem with the 401(k) approach to retirement is that if you have the bad luck to have your last 15 yrs of work be in one of the periodic 15 yr bad periods without growth you are screwed. You don't want your whole retirement dependant on it.

 

Except I didn't talk about tariffs, sales tax, subsidies, etc etc etc. The Pareto efficiency doesn't necessitate that I talk about tariffs, sales tax, subsdies. It makes NO disambiguities to taxation.

But maybe you've missed economics for the past 200 years. The amount taxation (any kind) is DIRECTLY related to the amount in which an individual may consume and in general, his well-bing, as measured by his shallow materialistic standards, aka, the real world.

This must be the largest joke I've heard this month. The tax cuts are not the cause for the government's neccessity to borrow ever increasing amounts of money. Spending is. No spending, no debt. Yes that's right, I've just said, gasp, there are two sides of the equation. What a concept huh? Of course, you find cuts in spending (which benefit you) disfavourable so you're asking the rich to take a hit. Like I said, self-interest. Nothing wrong with any of that, like I said, but I just love how you put on the pretense on how the rich are somehow at fault.

LMAO. Who are you kidding buddy. As I've mentioned already, Pareto makes no disambiguities between the different types of taxes precisely because he doesn't have to.

The other fact is, I know WAY MORE about accounting than you. I know WAY MORE about finance than you. I know WAY MORE about economics than you. I know WAY MORE about history than you. I suspect that you've receive ZERO training in any of those fields, let alone have any experience in them except in handout economics.

It doesn't matter. I don't have to distinguish between them.

I'm on the record for saying I've no problems (that's right, zero) with breaking up the likes of Bank of America, Citigroup, AIG et al. Heck, I'm on the record for saying that the bubble flows from one sector to another precisely because we don't pop it.

Feel free to look it up.

Right-wing bias? Lol. Actually, I always forge my opinions on a case by case basis, but whatever floats your boat.

You're dealing with the finance concept of risk-reward. Heck, it's one of the most basic financial concepts. The stock and bond markets are risky to default risk but MORE THAN reward you for the risks taken.

Nor are Treasuries all that safe. You're shielded from default risk, except you suffer from inflation risk (especially nowadays) and reinvestment risk (which is kinda important, isn't it). And even if you are still so inclined to invest only in Treasuries (which is idiotic), there's nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING preventing you from constructing a portfolio on your own. Heck, that way you wouldn't even need to deal with an additional layer of expenses from the SSA other than the usual ones.

Lastly, 401(k)'s are NOT attachable to lawsuits. That's a blatant lie. A bold faced lie. A lie among many you told here. And even if it were, it would require only a simple change in policy, because that's precisly what it is. Policy.

You seem to have only one idiotic argument, in which you repeat over and over and over again, even within posts, so I'll amalgamate them here.

As I've mentioned already, chuckles, you are arguing over a market determined fair market price in which a free market doesn't exist. Chuckles. Even saying it out loud makes me laugh. We severely curtail the market, and then say the market determined the price. Well, what if we curtail the market to $765 a month, per head (made up number, just for example). We don't even allow a band around $765. What's the "market price?" $765 of course. There you have it. The market determined I should pay you $765 a month.

Also as I've mentioned, in which you dodged repeatedly, if it's Will's "compensation," he should have no problem waiving the legal requirement for employer contribution and have a 12.4% contribution right? I mean, after all, if it's Will's "compensation," they I'm not really changing the underlying economics am I?

So why waste time with a legal technicality, hmmm? A rose by any other name indeed...

Except the US government DOESN'T follow the same accounting principals as GE. I thought it was hilarious that you suggest that you would recommend me an accounting 101 teacher from a community college.

Here's an ADVANCED ACCOUNTING book:
http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Financial-Accounting-Ronald-Huefner/dp/0759364265

I think chapters 6 through 9 deals with SALT's and Chapters 22+ deals with the Federal government. Accounting 101 at a community college, chuckles. If you're trying to keep record of the Fed, I definitely wouldn't recommend accouting 101, especially not at a community college.

No moron. I said the LARGEST GOVERNMENT OUTLAYS is not defense. I didn't bring in either defense NOR income tax. You did, after you realized that your argument was **** and had to change the subject.

That makes you not only stupid, but a liar, and a bad one at that. If you were a good liar, you wouldn't do so in an environment where this is a log of all the discussions transcribed for all to see.

The court system ... Largely paid for by the rich
Infrastructure (highways, electricity, telecommunications) ... Largely paid for, heck, even built by the rich
Educated workforce ... Largely paid for by the rich
Interest on the debt generated by borrowing for tax breaks ... Arisen due to ever-increasing government spending, largely funded and paid for by the rich
Defense ... Largely paid for by the rich

And it also occurred to me that if they could drop the "deadweight loss", they could have all that good **** and more.

You certainly been addressing the "facts," after you glossed over basically EVERY economic argument. At the end of the day, it comes down to me and my ivory tower, apparently. I'd call that not much of an argument, but hey, that's just my "right coloured glasses" right?

Oh boy, the irony. I'm laughing so hard it brings tears to my eyes. I actually don't know any of Ron Paul's policies because I judged him to be (fairly or not) a nutcase and didn't take him too seriously.

However, I thought it was epicly comical, monumentally hilarious, so sheer idiot that it's funny, how Milton Friedman got mentioned in the same sentence with Ron Paul to discredit him (Friedman that is, hope that I didn't have to clarify).

I mean, we're only talking about one of the most respected and most influential economists of the 20th century; Nobel prize winner; Chicago School of Economics, Columbia; the guy who proposed the monetarist theory. But is he Ron Paul enough? LMAO.

I think it pretty much sums up the fact that you've no idea what his theories were and how they're applied. Heck, I'll even bet that you never even looked at any of them.

Aside from Friedman, I'm also rather fond of Arnold Harberger and Joe Stigliz, even though he's a "liberal." I don't take Thomas Sowell too seriously even though he's a "conservative." Like I said, I read their theories and, on a case by case basis, formed my own opinions. But hey, I must be Ron Paul like.

And you know what a further proof that you have actually ZERO idea on any of those economics theories? You know why "Saint Milton Friedman" was opposed to SS? Well, "Saint Milton Friedman" was opposed because he thought it shifted wealth from THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS TO THE RICH, not the other way around.

His theory was that because the rich enjoy better health care (and better life in general), they enjoy measurably longer life expectancy. Hence, they draw on SS longer than the poor/middle classes.

Obviously I don't agree with him on that subject matter and he has in fact, been "proven" to be wrong in that regard. Like I said about me, case by case basis. Nevertheless, wrong on this one area or not, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the man and his thoughts.

And then the personal part, that's even funnier. I'm a house servant who tend to great wealth? Chuckles. Seems to suggest that you are living some fantastic life that I can only observe you awe.

Actually no, I don't use my "oversized paycheck" to be a sign of my self-worse. I use my '"oversized paycheck" to enjoy (hopefully) an ever increasing standard of living. I also use my "oversized paycheck" because I enjoy the financial security it offers. Lastly but actually most importantly, I plan to use my "oversized paycheck" towards my childrens' inheritance that hopefully they enjoy an even better lifestyle, and not have such a harsh lifestyle in times of financial insecurity. If may old man can pull himself by the bootstrap to buy houses for his great-grandkids, I should do at least as much.

But hey, it must be my otherwise "lack of self-worth" right? Hilarious.