Originally posted by KharmaDog
But your government doesn't supply the food. Corporations and business people do. It's about money, not saving a population from starving.
Actually it should be easier to support a larger population than another country because your resources are more diverse.That being said, there are many citizens in the united states starving and can't get food because they have no money.
I don't recall bringing up the government regarding this comment, but it doesn't change the fact that providing for 300 million is significantly more difficult than providing for 60 million. And that doesn't just mean food...it means everything...education, transportation, health coverage, clean water, power etc.
That being said, I would think that the unemployment rate in the United States would directly coincide with that starving citizens...neh...people (immigrants aren't citizens)
Providing adequate jobs is also difficult when one takes into account the growth rate of the population, and the rate of illegal immigration. There aren't countless jobs for underskilled workers or lazy people. America is the "land of opportunity" because of it's competitive environment....it's not the "Land of Free Handouts"
Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course being more skilled makes you more valueable anfd tgherefore you deserve money. It s a great system, you should have a minimum of social security though. Why don't you like capitalism.
Social Security was doomed to fail after time anyways.
It's basically the idea that a lot of people paying a small amount of money each month will be able to provide one person with adequate money to survive for the remaining years of their life without having to work.
It's a great idea...in theory.
But what happens when the "baby boom" generation all becomes SS collecting senior citizens?
Now you have a similar number of people paying a similar amount of money each month in the hopes that it will be able to continue to provide for an ever increasing number of people who no longer work due to their age.
There's not enough money going in to provide for all the elderly who are coming out. (of the work force)
I think Bush proposed the notion of personal security funds.
It had something to do with being able to put away like 4% of your personal income every year in order to give that to your children. Alan Greenspan thinks that's the best move at this point in time and he's the US's big wig economist.
Of course, that would lead to some people getting more than others...but atleast it's a personal account that the government doesn't get to use for distribution of funds.
Originally posted by Linkalicious
I think Bush proposed the notion of personal security funds.It had something to do with being able to put away like 4% of your personal income every year in order to give that to your children. Alan Greenspan thinks that's the best move at this point in time and he's the US's big wig economist.
Of course, that would lead to some people getting more than others...but atleast it's a personal account that the government doesn't get to use for distribution of funds.
....Or so they say.... 😖hifty: 😆
Originally posted by manjaro
america has the biggest c-ock and we're not afriad to rape your economy with it(pointing to other coutries from left to right)......and ours for that matter
Originally posted by FeceMan
This is a trolling post. Its only purpose is to inflame a, well, flamewar. Bardock, please ignore speiderman. He is an idiot.
This ^ is pure genius! Admonishing someone for a flame, while at the same time directing a flame of his own at some else! What's the word I'm looking for...Hmmm...Apple? No, that's not it...Hmmm...Barbeque? Nope, wrong again...There's definitely is a word for this kind of behaviour though...Hmmm...
Anyway, can you please explain the last post that you directed at me? I posted this earlier, but you seem to have missed it. Here it is again, with some extra bells on:
Originally posted by FeceMan
First things first, you used the term 'lame duck' incorrectly
Please explain to me HOW I used the term incorrectly. Here, for your benefit, I show I used it originally:
Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
He was a lame duck president elected by a minority!
The implication of what I stated is that he was elected by a public minority which gave him little - if any - political capital prior to the 9/11 attacks. He did not do anything of note during his first 6 months in office.
I look forward to your response.
Bells, bells, bells.
^ Those are the bells I was talking about.
According to dictionary.com...
lame duck
n.
1.
a. An elected officeholder or group continuing in office during the period between failure to win an election and the inauguration of a successor.
b. An officeholder who has chosen not to run for reelection or is ineligible for reelection.
2. An ineffective person; a weakling
Originally posted by Linkalicious
Social Security was doomed to fail after time anyways.It's basically the idea that a lot of people paying a small amount of money each month will be able to provide one person with adequate money to survive for the remaining years of their life without having to work.
It's a great idea...in theory.
But what happens when the "baby boom" generation all becomes SS collecting senior citizens?
Now you have a similar number of people paying a similar amount of money each month in the hopes that it will be able to continue to provide for an ever increasing number of people who no longer work due to their age.
There's not enough money going in to provide for all the elderly who are coming out. (of the work force)
Yes there is, The threat of Social Secureity is not real its hyped. All of the baby Boomers all had kids! When they retire, the Boomer's Kids will pick up the slack. Thats how it works. I'm not saying Social Security is perfect, its not, but not the radical change that Bush is promoting. That is really bad.
They make it seem like your incharge of your own money, but your really not. You pay your money into a governemnt account, and They give it back in small incriments. adn If you die early, well sucks to be you. and if you didn't invest enough. Sucks to be you. Its a really shoddy idea.
Originally posted by Silver Stardust
According to dictionary.com...lame duck
n.1.
a. An elected officeholder or group continuing in office during the period between failure to win an election and the inauguration of a successor.
b. An officeholder who has chosen not to run for reelection or is ineligible for reelection.
2. An ineffective person; a weakling
Definition number 2 is winking at me...