(US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

Ian Flint · 2005-01-10 15:47:54

Breed more or die faster.

Or, work longer.

Take my parents for example. They are both in their late 50s. They both work full time at the store they own. They have always worked full time at the store they own. They would get bored silly if they didn't keep working full time at the store they own. They will probably still be working full time well into their 70s. Heck, my grandpa worked into his 90s.

With longer, healthier life spans people will generally want to keep working past the current retirement age. I'm no expert but I assume that a person still pays SS if he's working and over 65.

Things will balance out, I'm sure. Now let us all relax, flip off the President, and smoke some medical ( :;): ) marijuana.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-10 16:10:38

Well we have all seen mother natures natural way of curbing the population.

If this Privatization of Social Security is put through by George Bush we will get a chance to see how man curbs the human population. As humans we do it bigger and better than nature does it.

Larry,

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-10 16:11:10

Or, work longer.

So in essence readjust so once again the vast majority are expected to die before they become eligible for benefits. Again it runs a steady surplus ripe for pillaging for other government expenses because most of the poor saps paying in will be wormfeast before they're able to collect.

Somehow I see that as a tough sell. Doesn't mean it won't happen, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being part of Bush's "fix", but it's a stop-gap measure, a holding action at best.

And it has the danger of leaving the flawed status quo in place, a steady dtream of tax dollars claimed to be "held in trust" but used to pay for other programs. It doesn't solve the problem, merely defers it for a generation until the retirement age must be adjusted upward yet again with the same consequences as before. If we're going to stir up the mess that will ensue, doesn't it make sense to actually try and solve the problem rather than delaying it?

Martian Republic · 2005-01-10 17:17:37

Or, work longer.
So in essence readjust so once again the vast majority are expected to die before they become eligible for benefits. Again it runs a steady surplus ripe for pillaging for other government expenses because most of the poor saps paying in will be wormfeast before they're able to collect.
Somehow I see that as a tough sell. Doesn't mean it won't happen, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being part of Bush's "fix", but it's a stop-gap measure, a holding action at best.
And it has the danger of leaving the flawed status quo in place, a steady dtream of tax dollars claimed to be "held in trust" but used to pay for other programs. It doesn't solve the problem, merely defers it for a generation until the retirement age must be adjusted upward yet again with the same consequences as before. If we're going to stir up the mess that will ensue, doesn't it make sense to actually try and solve the problem rather than delaying it?

What planet are you on anyway?

After four years, it should be obvious that Bush doesn't fix anything. If anything, he causes more problem than the one's that he supposedly is fixing. George Bush is a complete idiot.

For example:

George Bush say's that he will get those terrorist that attack us on 9/11.

So George Bush invades two countries that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack.

George Bush on the air craft carrier Abraham Lincoln say's the wars over.

A year we are losing more service men and women than we did on our invasion of Iraq. We now have lost over thousand men after George Bush said the war was over. Not only that, but we are actually losing the war in Iraq also.

George Bush also say's that Iraq need's free election too. Let see, the Republicans did everything in there so scare people away from the election place. Deliberately gave misinformation so people couldn't vote. Deliberately scrub hundreds of thousand of black voters so they couldn't vote, because most of them would probably be Democrats. They also made sure that they had insufficient voting machines in the primarily Democratic percents. They use old registered voting list so anybody that moved from the last time they voted in the old percent would not be where they need to be so they will have to fill out a provisional ballot which will either get lost or not be counted for one reason or another. And the list goes on. And George Bush said there needs to be free election in Iraq. Right, we believe that don't we?

The same George Bush that says that he support the troops, is the same George Bush that is taking away those benifits to hopitalization after they get shotup in Iraq and even have to pay for there own food in the hospital. It part of that privatization crap.

But, if this did not make me uneasy and concerned about George Bush fixing Social Security, this will. While George Bush is down in Chile, he say's to Pinochet that we should use Chilean module and our module in the United States. The Chilean Social Security went bankrupt. Not only that, the Chilean was the brain child of George Shultz. George Shultz was one of the backers of Kenneth Lay with the deregulation of the Gas Company and the Electric Companies in California where thirty billion dollars was stolen from the citizen of California by over charging and fraud which almost cause California to bankrupt. It this same George Shultz that is currently behind Arnold Schwarzenegger and got him in as California. It is still this same George Shultz that is direction the policies of Arnold and which is causing all kinds of misery in California and also causing financial problem's for California too. It is this same George Shultz that is pushing this Privatization that George Bush say's that he supports which was patterned after the Chile model that went bankrupt.

I have already gone over there game plan and why they want to privatize the Social Security or should I say "PIRATIZE IT"!

Like George Bush has a track record of doing the wrong thing and causing all kind of heartack misery death and destruction not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also here in American too with people like George Shultz, Kenneth Lay leading the pack. George Bush practically spit in your face and you say well he has a plan. But, we know what that plan is and what will happen when it is installed and what consequences that will result too and it will be bad news for the American people while there getting screwed.

Like what does George Bush have to do to convince you that he not interested in your best interest?

What does he have to send two men with taisar guns and night stick during the night to beat you up and haul you off for no good reason and put you in one of his prisoners of war camp or some other detention camp some place?

Larry,

Grypd · 2005-01-10 19:05:19

What planet are you on anyway?
George Bush say's that he will get those terrorist that attack us on 9/11.
So George Bush invades two countries that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack.

Afghanistan was the central place for training of Islamic terrorists it was the hotbed of everything antiwestern for many years. Attacking and destroying the Taliban who actively trained, supported Al Qaeda was a right decision. I do though reserve judgement on Iraq. But Afghanistan was a reasonable and effective strike against the Alqaeda and its ilk, not to mention a chance for that country to be rebuilt.

George Bush on the air craft carrier Abraham Lincoln say's the wars over.

Not that good a saying true but the Saddam regime had just been effectively toppled. Its the civilian war which followed that is so bad.

A year we are losing more service men and women than we did on our invasion of Iraq. We now have lost over thousand men after George Bush said the war was over. Not only that, but we are actually losing the war in Iraq also.

The situation in Iraq is a mess, this was never like the war in Europe where in 1945 the Americans where treated like liberators. This is a police action where an armoured division designed to simply shunt aside anything the Eastern Block could have sent against us is well truly unequiped. It has to be understood that a significant minority really hate the west. We think of a crusade as a righteous war and the people of the middle east call the war a crusade. But what they mean is a war they get stamped on their religion which unlike most western secular states is of singular importance, gets stamped on. And they feel weak and inefectual and well stamped on.

We went into this war with a really brilliant plan to destroy Saddam. It worked. But im not so sure that the plan to deal with Iraq afterwards really was that good. We really had two choices smash Saddam and his party then just leave. Or if we are to stay for a longer hall we should have really tried to get the hearts and minds and known that helicopter patrols above are rather useless when we could not tell friend from neutral from enemy. If we shot a neutral it was going to end up on the news in big letters, if we shot a whole wedding party then we where really S*****d. Our best resource then was a soldier, a basic soldier, acting and patroling showing the people a human face. And also not wearing sunglasses and looking like an imperial stormtrooper. We would have still taken casualties and heavy ones but as more and more people came to our way and our intelligence come police got better then we would have a stable country. Im not sure if we have that now but it is also not a complete loss yet.

Of course this is just my opinion.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-10 19:32:33

What are you talking about? I make one mention of George Bush's Social Security "fix" (in quotes, note) and you go off on a rant as though I claimed he was the Second coming and demanded you convert to the One True Faith of George W. Christ, savior of FDR's social boondoggle.

Reading too much into things again. :;):

As for your specific points, nearly all of them have been refuted ad nauseum on this board or shown to be gross exagerrations and I simply haven't the time nor the inclination to attend to them this evening. George Bush isn't a great President, he may not even be a good man, but he isn't out to destroy the poor American schlubs out of malice. At best he's doing what he thinks is best for the country, at worst he just doesn't care.

As for Social Security, focusing on a "fix for Social Security" isn't the right approach anyway, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Take Ian's "work longer" suggestion for example, seems simple enough on the surface until one realizes that unless we also drastically reform the way healthcare is handled only the rich will get SocSoc benefits because no one else will be able to afford the means to keep them alive long enough. Then the knee-jerk response is to nationalize healthcare, making the whole mess even worse. That's the problem, too many people see a collection of issues rather than a broken system.

I blame the Federal Reserve board.

Ian Flint · 2005-01-10 20:56:47

I was listening to NPR the other day (I'm sure this is Cobra's favorite station, by the way) and Jim Hightower said that Soc Sec was solvent for at least another 40 years as is. That's all I know. I just wanted to throw this bone out there and see who pounced on it first.

By the way my 'work longer' comment was meant like this. Don't push the retirement age back at all. Just let seniors who want to continue working collect their benefit as if they had retired, but make them continue contributing to Soc Sec (or deduct the contribution from their SS check or whatever).

I mean, by the time I'm 65 I expect there to be some good drugs out there to keep me energetic and healthy feeling. Who knows? We might just figure out how to live another hundred years or so. I won't need Social Security then.

Whoa!!! Somebody slap me. I think I just got slipped an optimistic pill or something.

Euler · 2005-01-10 23:22:07

Raising the retirement age seems like the most logical solution to keeping social security solvent. Americans are now living longer healthier lives than ever before. They spend more time getting educated, wait longer before getting married, wait longer before having children, and live longer before dieing. I see no reason why they should not be expected to work longer before they retire. You would not have to raise the retirement age so high that most Americans would not live that long either; if the age was increased to about 70, benefits could be substantially increased while still saving money, and the vast majority of Americans would live long enough to see their benefits.

Then the knee-jerk response is to nationalize healthcare, making the whole mess even worse

Hopefully that will happen. The current US healthcare system is incredibly inefficient, to the point where even a government program should be able to do better. With government funded health care it would be necessary to raise taxes, but it should still result in a net savings for most people.

Commodore · 2005-01-11 00:48:51

The current US healthcare system is incredibly inefficient, to the point where even a government program should be able to do better. With government funded health care it would be necessary to raise taxes, but it should still result in a net savings for most people.

Should being the key word. After all the horror stories of Canadians aiting 3 weeks for a simple X-ray, I think most Americans are willing to pay more for health care that they'll get while their still alive.

That said, we probably have a much better infrastrudture built up. And if you take out the whole doctor/insurance company/supplier exec scam, costs will plummit.

But that leaves the research which is funded all that. New drugs don't just grow on trees (well, they might, but we don't know how to use it), so there would have to be so goverment contract to develope those things, with and extensive trial period were the companies sell it to recoup there losses, then it hits the public for free.

I think that an itemized deduction form everyones paycheck would make everyone happy. Then we could have weekly reminder of were our money goes.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-11 06:32:49

Whoa!!! Somebody slap me. I think I just got slipped an optimistic pill or something.

No, it was that "medical" marijuana.

was listening to NPR the other day (I'm sure this is Cobra's favorite station, by the way) and Jim Hightower said that Soc Sec was solvent for at least another 40 years as is. That's all I know. I just wanted to throw this bone out there and see who pounced on it first.

According to current numbers SocSec will be solvent on paper until 2040 or so, or around 2060 if you use the really optimistic numbers. What they don't tell you is that they have to tap their treasury bonds to pay benefits. All the surplus money they've pulled was "loaned" to the government. All that's left are treasury department IOU's in essence. Everything's cool on paper, but when they have to start turning in those bonds (with interest) to pay benefits, the money has to come from somewhere.

Hopefully that will happen. The current US healthcare system is incredibly inefficient, to the point where even a government program should be able to do better.

A government program will have the same problem as the present system, only magnified. Like SocSec, more people need to pay in than take out. With healthcare this shouldn't be a problem, only everyone thinks their insurance should cover every medical expense. If we made health insurance work more like insurance many of the problems would disappear.

Say you get your insurance policy, whether it be from a private company or a tax-funded GovCo policy. If you get cancer, crack your skull falling off a ladder, get shot, etc. the policy covers it. If you get a cold, need a physical or just don't feel good, you pay. Let insurance cover the catastrophic events and each individual handles their own health maintenance expenses.

What we have now is like car insurance paying for new wiper blades, it's senseless.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-11 09:25:03

I was listening to NPR the other day (I'm sure this is Cobra's favorite station, by the way) and Jim Hightower said that Soc Sec was solvent for at least another 40 years as is. That's all I know. I just wanted to throw this bone out there and see who pounced on it first.
By the way my 'work longer' comment was meant like this. Don't push the retirement age back at all. Just let seniors who want to continue working collect their benefit as if they had retired, but make them continue contributing to Soc Sec (or deduct the contribution from their SS check or whatever).
I mean, by the time I'm 65 I expect there to be some good drugs out there to keep me energetic and healthy feeling. Who knows? We might just figure out how to live another hundred years or so. I won't need Social Security then.
Whoa!!! Somebody slap me. I think I just got slipped an optimistic pill or something.

As you have noted that if nothing is done to Social Security, it will be solvent until about 2050 at 100% benifits. I would like to make a few observation and a few statements. First the Social Security is more solvent than any other major retirement program for more people for a longer time. Even that 2050 solvent time frame of pessimistic about Social Security, we should ask what will Wall Street be doing along this time too. Well, Wall Street would have to be going through another stock market crash like in 1929, because that they only way contribution to the Social Security could be that flat, the money just not out there for Social Security. So why would we want to put Social Security in a collapsing economic system and see it disintegrate into nothingness in some Wall Street Gambling bet. Which is basically what we would be doing. But, if Wall Street is going in the other direction then Social Security in it present form would be solvent maybe until 2070 or later, because there would be more money going into that system.

However there are things that we can do to salvage Social Security in more or less in it present form and they are.

1. Have the Government to stop raiding the Social Security fund and putting I.O.U.'s in instead. There is still about two to three trillion dollars of real money in Social Security.
2. Have the Government reimburse those I.O.U.'s with real money. There are a few trillion dollars of I.O.U.'s.
3. We raise the bare on what we pay into Social Security. Like Currently once you make 80,000 dollars, you pay your percentage of that 80,000 dollars. So we raise the bar from the first 80,000 to the first 200,000 you make and that would close that gap by 40% to 50% of that projected short fall in fifty years or so, but that means we would have to retract George Bush's tax cut those Wealthy people.
4. People don't have to retire at 65 if they don't want to and can continue to work and there could be even government incentive to do that. Beside, some people like work and they find it full filling, but if people have medical problem and can't work, then Social Security it there for them.
5. If the U.S. Government go back to investing in infrastructure like FDR did, then we would have a job shortage and people may be more inclined to have children, because they have a future.

Using one or more of these option, Social Security can be salvaged, that not the problem. The problem is, they don't want to save Social Security, that the problem. So there are answers to how we can save Social Security without Privatizing it and it would be preferable too. Keep Social Security as a Government insurance policy for the American People. That the way to go.

Larry,

Ian Flint · 2005-01-11 09:53:09

Say you get your insurance policy, whether it be from a private company or a tax-funded GovCo policy. If you get cancer, crack your skull falling off a ladder, get shot, etc. the policy covers it. If you get a cold, need a physical or just don't feel good, you pay. Let insurance cover the catastrophic events and each individual handles their own health maintenance expenses.
What we have now is like car insurance paying for new wiper blades, it's senseless.

This idea has many good points, but there are some bad analogies in there. For example, car insurance isn't necessary. A person chooses to buy a car and must therefore be responsible for the maintenance thereof. There are alternatives to cars in most places. A person doesn't choose to buy a body.

A Canadian once told me that he felt really bad for all the Americans he worked with while living in the U.S. for a while. Their number one job concern was health insurance. According to him the waiting a week or two or three for an X-ray isn't a big deal. They do handle emergencies in a timely fashion. Where the system really benefits people is in the fact that they catch things early. You just go to you general practitioner for any little thing (which may cost the govt a lot), but they spot things like cancer before they become life threatening (and expensive). Overall he figures the costs balance out and the population is generally healthier.

Even insurance companies in the U.S. understand that regular checkups save them a lot of money in the long run. That is why they have started encouraging (and paying for) them.

Maybe car insurance companies would save more money if they bought people snow tires every November -- and wiper blades, too.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-11 10:17:25

This idea has many good points, but there are some bad analogies in there.

It certainly isn't my intention to use auto insurance as a model for reform, it's yet another mess in need of drastic reform itself. As with any analogy, it only applies to a point.

There is no simple answer, healthcare is one of those problems that creates issues no matter how you approach it. If done privately you have competing interests, saving lives versus making money. If government run you lose any advantages of competition and most of the incentive for innovation while you also have a huge drain on the economy from many fronts while encouraging everyone to meddle in everyone else's choice of lifestyle. We're paying for it, after all...

And once again it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The Canadian system cannot be cited as a model for reforming the US system because it is in part dependent on the US system, particularly regarding prescription drugs. Total Reform is needed to truly solve the myriad problems we've created for ourselves and any reform we initiate will create new problems of its own. It's all compromise, what is an acceptable balance between progress and cost, health of citizens or health of the nation?

In short, I'm of the opinion that anyone who claims the problem can be fixed with a few more laws and more funding is either a fool or a fanatic.

And a fanatic is usually just a fool with conviction. :;):

Palomar · 2005-01-11 10:47:34

I mean, by the time I'm 65 I expect there to be some good drugs out there to keep me energetic and healthy feeling.

:laugh: Yeah, let's just forget all about the side effects (often *plural*) which accompany each prescription drug and the possibilities of contraindications on top of that.

Eating right, exercising regularly, keeping regular checks on blood pressure, annual physical exams, etc., are the best bet and likely always will be.

Who knows? We might just figure out how to live another hundred years or so. I won't need Social Security then.

Oh goodie...then Average Joe and Jane can work an *extra* 75 years on average. ::sigh::

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-01-11 11:01:20

http://www.gsinstitute.org/resources/ex … storically, military forces have evolved to protect national interests and investments -- both military and economic. During the rise of sea commerce,
nations built navies to protect and enhance
their commercial interests. During the westward
expansion of the continental United States, military
outposts and the cavalry emerged to protect
our wagon trains, settlements, and railroads.

*Aren't you forgetting a few things?

Back then everyone pulled their own weight, and responsibility was a virtue.

Contrast that to today's American society of whiners; "I deserve it" proclamations ("deserving it" for no apparent reason other than having the mere luck of having been conceived and born); immature dolts who can't stay married past 5 years on average; lazy; irresponsible; etc.

The work ethic was valued: You want it, you work for it. Nowadays there are many Americans who are "too good" to do for themselves what their forefathers/mothers themselves did for themselves, namely: Lifting oneself up by one's own bootstraps, not imagining some Magical Sugar Daddy/Mommy merely handing it over.

Today's U.S.A. leading humanity into space? I find the concept unlikely at best, laughable at worst.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-11 11:56:02

Yeah, let's just forget all about the side effects (often *plural*) which accompany each prescription drug and the possibilities of contraindications on top of that.

Another example of treating individual problems rather than entire systems.

Oh goodie...then Average Joe and Jane can work an *extra* 75 years on average. ::sigh::

Yeah, the prospect of working for another century or more fills me with a desire to look seriously into the profit potential of villainy.

But just going out on a whim here (while we're dicussing things that won't happen) there's another way. We could save SocSec, maybe enact a national heathcare system and not destroy the economic health of the nation if we had essentially free labor.

Slavery being distasteful, we're left with extreme automation. Robots. <looks around for Josh> Every manufacturing company wants the robots, surely. No OT, no health insurance, no pension plans. And while they're salivating, tax them at a rate that still makes it profitable for them. Say, 40% of total market rates for wages and benefits. Take maybe a third of that for general expenses, the rest goes into a "Citizen Stipend" fund.

It doesn't even have to be only for retirees, it could be every adult citizen. Turn 18, get a check from the Fed sufficient to cover your monthly expenses on a modest lifestyle. No one starves, everyone has what they need. Want more, go work for it, there's plenty of jobs that can't be automated.

Of course there would have to be all sorts of fine print in an arrangement of this sort, which for the sake of brevity I won't go into, but depending on how the variables work out it could be viable. Maybe.

Today's U.S.A. leading humanity into space? I find the concept unlikely at best, laughable at worst.

Americans collectively, probably not. But a select segment of Americans, that's another story.

It depends on how much we want it. Convince enough people, hook them on the vision, and we'll overcome all the things we don't want to do.

Colonizing Mars is like getting a Black Belt, but first you have to stop whining about your ankles hurting from sitting in seiza. If you're dedicated you overcome the little discomforts along the way.

So the question is, as a nation, how bad do we want it? Are we willing to have sore feet and get slammed on the mat a few times on the way, or would we rather sit at home and watch someone else do it?

And what will it take to move people out of the latter camp?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-01-10 15:47:54

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#27 2005-01-10 16:10:38

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#28 2005-01-10 16:11:10

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#29 2005-01-10 17:17:37

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#30 2005-01-10 19:05:19

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#31 2005-01-10 19:32:33

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#32 2005-01-10 20:56:47

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#33 2005-01-10 23:22:07

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#34 2005-01-11 00:48:51

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#35 2005-01-11 06:32:49

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#36 2005-01-11 09:25:03

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#37 2005-01-11 09:53:09

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#38 2005-01-11 10:17:25

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#39 2005-01-11 10:47:34

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#40 2005-01-11 11:01:20

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

#41 2005-01-11 11:56:02

Re: (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ?

Board footer