United States Heading towards a Depression?

Actually this country DID become great through socialism! Look into the history of this nation and you'll see that.

Without a reasonable amount of economic regulation and a social safety net things fall apart. I recommend looking into The Great Depression.

Paul was & is right on civil liberties. But he also was & is wrong on economics. Just because someone is right on in one area doesn't make everything he believes infallible. I like Ron Paul personally as I think he stands up for what he believes. But I also think his ideas on the gold standard and free markets are deeply flawed and would lead to a situation where the very rich control everything (even more so than they already do) and where the middle class is stamped out.

We tried that approach already.. for thousands of years. Kings and peasants. We don't need to go there again.

 

I recommend you get a bit of age and experience under your belt first.

 

so did you guy find ways to profit from the situation?

 

Oh the kings and peasants tried free-market capitalism? They tried individual liberty? Kings and peasants? I'm not surprised such a sloppy remark would be made after having boasted your knowledge of history.

By the way, to your remark on how socialism made America great.. how is Social Security working out?

 

Age and experience?

Logical thinking and knowledge are far more essential.

Quite well. Social Security has wiped out poverty among elderly people. That's the problem with pure free market capitalists, since they only see the "bottom line" they don't think about how things actually effect real people's lives.

 

So tell me history buff, just how bright is the future of Social Security?

 

Okay Zibblu, no problem. You keep your socialism, I will keep my
capitalism and free market.


You will have to be one of the "ruling elite" to have true
liberty to do as you wish and not have your life and
your family controlled by others.


But if you manage to get into the "ruling elite" status,
you will probably be a person who is very unhappy.


Its much better and "socially" acceptable to be
rewarded from the fruits of your own labors rather
than to live off the money and work of others.


The first way gives a much better conscience and
a good conscience is a good pillow at night. Peaceful.


To keep this thread on track; the current economic
policy of "going into more debt to get out of debt"
is unsustainable. LINK


Other nations including the Europeans are laughing at us.
The French are rioting over it. The USA is just... apathetic.
This is half the problem; lazy, apathetic citizens are half
the problem.

 

The problem with taking care of the elderly is not an economic problem,
it is a character problem. It became an economic problem precisely
because kids no longer wanted to take care of their aging parents
as was the tradition for hundreds of years.


"Social security" is a new thing. True "security" for the elderly should come
from the children they raised, not from the govt.


Social security is "bust" anyway. That was quick... what will
the next "elderly" do now ?

 

The history of the future has yet to be written, that's how the future works my friend. Certainly I am not saying there will not need to be adjustments. But there are a lot of ways we could continue to fund social security into the future. We could cap payouts for those who don't need them. We could let the rich pay more into it than they do. We could do both.

Meanwhile I am assuming that you don't want there to be social security. You'd rather elderly folks just starve to death if they don't have any money. I see. I think our society as a whole would be a much poorer place if we were to let that happen.

It's not bust. People are still receiving their social security checks. Until I hear about people not getting their social security, the program is finding a way to work (one way or another.)

Your comments are very concerning to me because you seem to be saying that only those with wealthy children should be allowed to have "security" when they are elderly. I disagree with this opinion strongly. What about people without children? Perhaps they never had children. Perhaps their children got lung cancer and died. In your world those people are "out of luck."

I really don't think most people want to live in this kind of world when it comes down to it. I think people are willing to live in a society where there's perhaps a little bit less economic growth if there's a lot more of a social network/security/fairness.

---

Furthermore I want to point out that the argument against social programs like this is usually a strawman argument where you are actually arguing against communism and not what I'm actually for. I'm not for communism. I'm for a mixture of a free market with social programs (such as public schooling, public health care, and social security) which help to give everyone a fair shot and which enrich society as a whole. I do not believe you have to choose just one or the other.

I very much believe in the power of the free market, but also believe in the power of the government to do good things for people. We don't have to choose just one. We can have the best of both worlds and in fact that's been the prevailing view point of western society for a long time, the only question is how far do we go each way. I think we need to push things a bit more left. That doesn't mean I think we should be a communist country or we should get rid of the free market. Not at all. Arguing with me as if that's what I believe is silly.

 

I'm assuming your emotional appeal tactics (not to mention straw man) are getting old. Really, do you have anything other than emotionally charged beliefs?

 

Emotionally charged beliefs? What in the heck are you talking about? This is reality. This is real people's lives we are talking about. That's what I don't think you understand. Before social security there were a lot of elderly people who lived in poverty and who starved to death because they didn't have any money. This isn't an "emotional appeal" it's the reality of how these things effect real people's lives. Unless you have some sort of empathy for other folks, I suppose you cannot understand that.

 

They starved to death because their families refused to take
care of them.... Its a moral problem, not an economic problem.


To address your "its not bust" statement :

LINK

a quote from the article :



"Current US policy on education, energy, the environment, immigration and Iraq also was on an “unsustainable path”.

 

Blue-Star: You completely ignored my point. Not everyone has a family that can take care of them. Some people don't have any children.

Here's a scenario: Imagine a 65 year old woman has a 40 year old son who she is hoping will be able to help take care of her when she's older. Unfortunately the 30 year old son is killed in a car accident. In your world "tough luck." Not only does she lose her son, she also has no way of paying for her housing or her food.

The whole idea of it being a "moral" problem or that you can count on people to make the right decision is ludicrous. It reminds me a lot of Herbert Hoover's arguments in the late '20s and early '30s. He thought people just voluntarily "do the right thing." Nope. It just doesn't work like that.

---

As far as the comment that US policy is on an "unsustainable path" - I'm not going to argue that point. What I will argue is that just because we are on an unsustainable path, that doesn't mean we must remain on one. We can (and will) fix it. The answer is not to give up. The answer is to improve our approach to handling these issues.

 

Hmmm... strange .... I addressed it directly, even stated
that it is a moral problem, and you say I "ignored" it

No... you did not want to see it.


The overwhelmingly greater part of society does not fit your
argument of children not taking care of their elderly parents.

 

Saying it's a "moral problem" doesn't make any sense. If someone doesn't have children, then how is it a moral problem that their (nonexistent) children can't take care of them?

Furthermore, not all children have the financial means to take care of their parents. Some people can barely afford to pay for their own bills.

 

Very, very laughable. Try telling my mother that Social Security wiped out poverty. She's trying to figure out how she's going to live off of $1200/month right now as we speak. That's $14,400/year! That's a little over the poverty level. My mom worked her entire life to live in poverty. And to top it off, she recently got diagnosed with one of the most PAINFUL, rare immune disorders one could have. How is she going to afford treatment? Medicare doesn't pay for everything....

You really need to start educating yourself on the REAL world and stop reading/watching media that only enforces what you believe. There is a world going on outside of that mind of yours. Step out and try to look at the other point of view for once. You will find that the other side isn't wrong all the time....

EDIT: I HATE to say this, but I do have to agree with Zibblu a little on his arguments against Blue Star.

I can't afford to have children right now. How am I supposed to take care of my mother? Am I supposed to give up my hope of ever having children so I can take care of my mother for the rest of her life? Don't get me wrong, I'll do my best to make sure she has what she needs, but do you know how much it costs to put someone in a full-care facility these days? My friend's aunt is severly disabled and he can't take care of her by himself. It costs $6,000 a MONTH to put her in a home where she gets the care she needs. I make half that. Would my mother REALLY want me to work 3 jobs, give up children, and my own life just to take care of her? No, she wouldn't....

 

He's a sheep. A follower and a dolt. He's repeating what he's told. What bothers him is the fact that there are people unlike himself who's mind and and spirit are free, and as such capable of coming to their own conclusions.

Let's face it. Some people just like to be led.

What it really comes down to, which is blatantly evident in his nonsensical posts is he lacks experience. Only time will heal that. No amount of education truthful, factual or pure bunk can replace seeing reality with ones own eyes over time.

Not all of us were spoon fed this doom and gloom diatribe. Not all of us have grown up complacent to have government provide everything for us.
Not all of us have grown up a prisoner of misinformation. In a way I feel sorry for this kid.

Oh well, time will tell.

 

I think he is just pulling our leg. If not he should be shot for stupidity.

 

I understand this complaint.

I'm not saying it (social security) is perfect. But it's certainly better than nothing. I'm assuming from what you wrote that she's getting that $1200/month from social security - where would she be without that?

 

A better question and steering this thread back on track is :


Q: Where will we all be if we do not get our economy back
from the central bankers who now control it ?


A: We will be right back at 1929 begging the góvt to
give us jobs like last time. As that happens, liberty vanishes
as the feds will practically own us like slaves.

Hey Zibblu, what do you think you will make per hour...


I know it is very cliché, but those who will not learn
from history are doomed to repeat it. ☼