I see the numbers and I am just offering one perspective. People probably wouldnt BE dependent and exempt from taxes if they had ENOUGH INCOME to begin with. so low income has alot to do with the issues of dependency and taxes

Ah,

"Our federal government was designed to serve as protector, not provider. Most of our problems can be traced to ignorance (or blatant disregard) of this simple concept. And it’s important to understand that the increasing dependence of our citizens on the government is directly tied to the ever expanding size and scope of that same government.

Think about this for a moment – as the private sector contracts, the government continues to grow. This is incredibly ominous when you consider that the government does not make money, nor does it produce anything, without first confiscating an increasing amount of the hard-earned money of the producing class. (Connect the dots, and you’ll see that this system will eventually collapse as the entitlement/welfare class outnumbers and overburdens the producing class.)"

I agree. So the government should PROTECT the citizens from the greed and exploitation that has left so many underemployed or unemployed. I am all for implementing policies to REWARD the employer base for creating CAREERS which work towards the goal of employees being independent and stop rewarding those who only create JOBS to fatten their own wallet.

It comes back to a simple concept for me. If people can feel their WORK is valued as individuals and also that their CONTRIBUTIONS are necessary to the community,,,things would go much better. But instead corporate greed runs wild and the little guys keep getting smaller and smaller, and less and less independent.

You see that with social security. As the numbers of older people on SSI increases the number of people paying into the system decreases. Eventually you have a program that is totally unsustainable. Add in the fact that the government has borrowed every single cent of the SSI trust fund and you are facing obligations you can't possibly meet.

That is the whole crux of the financial house of cards we are living in. As you expand entitlements or other spending programs and your pool of money dries up how in the hell are you going to pay for it?

You can't keep borrowing money..

raise taxes,, increase productivity and exports, increase the quality of education and improve the community conscience,,,

I agree we cant keep borrowing, I just dont think that leaving people who have worked hard to sink during bad times is the answer.

WHY is the FIRST answer ALWAYS 'raise taxes' ... ? That's NOT the way to achieve the other steps you mention - ' increase productivity and exports, increase the quality of education' ... that last one about 'improving the community conscience' is just too off-the-wall to be real ... BUT: Higher TAXES are the LAST thing that's gonna bring about the other changes you listed - it's the FIRST thing that's guaranteed to kill any chance there may have ever been for them to be achieved.

The smarter people who get this help VOTE .. The smarter party well see that 33.3% is enought to win an election . Most elections are won with less than 21% of the vote . So what do you think is going to happen ?
As far as the life of the country goes your right . Its dieing from it . History books tells you there have been a lot of really good countrys that failed because of stupid people who do not care about the country because it allowed people who didn't care what happens to stay .
There is a old saying that applys here . Every body rises to there highest level of incompetency..
Then you throw in greed and thats like greeseing the track . So buy gold like all the smart people do .
As far as SS goes it is going broke because of the people who are not retired but collecting it and of course the main reason is congress . They stole it . They loaned it to there selfs at almost free interest rate . They used it for there spicial contracts .
Bush was half right in his suggestion about investing it . But they need to lock it away from congress and hire a investor who can insure it against losses . It would never be bankrupt again . Being smart is easy but geting past the crooks is really hard .

mathematically speaking,,,,if it takes , lets say, 150 mill to sustain quality of life for, lets say 150 people(one mill per person) and 100 of those are able to pay 1.5 million each while the remaining 50 cannot...the quality of life is still maintained

however,, if you suddenly find that there are 175 people and only 75 people can pay in,, to maintain,, it would be necessary for the difference to be made up. ONE possibility is that those 75 would then have to pay in 2.3 mill.

It may not be PREFERABLE but , numerically speaking, it is definitely one of many options to not ending up 'borrowing' money.

I see the numbers and I am just offering one perspective. People probably wouldnt BE dependent and exempt from taxes if they had ENOUGH INCOME to begin with. so low income has alot to do with the issues of dependency and taxes

Your right but another true is great countrys are made off the backs of low paid or slaves . there loss of a decent wage makes life good for the rest . And once there gone the country well wither .

Where are you going to raise the taxes?

This is the critical part of your statement.. Who pays?

Ah, but you fail to understand that the cycles of boom and bust that you so abhor are CREATED by state intervention in the market. This has been known and documented by dozens of Austrian school economists for nearly 100 years now. Pick up "Human Action" by Ludwig Von Mises at your local library and learn a thing or two.

I will never agree with that concept because it cannot and will not work. When the number of people dependent on the system increases and the number of people paying the tab decreases the system collapses onto itself.

It's a giant Ponzi scheme..

I take your money so I can pay someone else.

When there are no new investors where does the money come from?

And it all ends horribly...

'

thanx for the additional information but I dont think it actually refutes what my opinion was. AS much as some types of intervention have poor end results, so does some decisions to do nothing.

For the record, I dont ABHOR anything(what an intense emotion to use about economies)

Please inform the Communist Chinese who OWN the bulk of our DEBT ... they'll be so happy to know that we're not 'borrowing' any money from them to fund an unsustainable debt load because we've MONETIZED the debt using worthless FIAT CURRENCY ... that argument doesn't hold water because it's not grounded in economic reality.

great point,,,When the number of people dependent on the system increases and the number of people paying the tab decreases the system collapses onto itself.


so we must start decreasing the number of dependents by promoting and creating more INDEPENDENCE via sustainable incomes which are keeping up with the cost of living.

perhaps closing the borders until the economy is more stable for those already here?

perhaps developing an educational system that actually helps create CAREER ready individuals as opposed to just fattening up someone elses pocket with interest on loans ?


perhaps encouraging an atmosphere where employers are willing to assist others in gaining experience as opposed to going strictly by paperwork, certificates and degrees?

You mentioned before the manufacturing industry and trades, which I think are excellent resources for maintaining careers and contributing to the economy,, but I think corporate greed has diminished alot of the benefits those industries created

Your ethics are backwards. "Society" is simply a collective name for a group of individuals who live in a geographic area. When each individual works for his rational self interest, he increases the quality of life for the others around him. As a quick example, Henry Ford invented the assembly line (and industrialization in general) primarily to benefit himself and his workers and shareholders, but all members of society came to enjoy a higher standard of living because of his efforts. Government does nothing to improve living standards-quite the opposite.

Ah, my girl Msharmony is still trying to hold back the flood. There's no use. They're just here to hear themselves talk.

No body takes losing elections well. Especially rich white men.

"Love it or leave it", as my grandpa used to say.

Oh, I see, you must be right -- that's the real reason:


However, I doubt the 1st qualification of the following quote refers to any patron of this site:

really,, seemed like pretty basic MATHEMATIC reality to me. I said nothing about us not borrowing from others. I gave a basic mathematical explanation of balancing numbers.

I still do not see where my post was ethically backwards, unless you wish to IGNORE the value of working for a common good and ONLY value self progress,,,I happen to believe they BOTH hold significant value in a UNITED STATES where so many people live and rely on each other.

'When each individual works for his rational self interest, he increases the quality of life for the others around him'

...when this type of thinking starts,, it can end here

'If I knew the serial killer was living next door to me?" Cam'ron asks. "No, I wouldn't call and tell anybody on him. But I'd probably move… But I'm not gonna call and be like, you know, 'The serial killer's in 4E.'" from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/60minutes/main2704565_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody


this person is working for his OWN self interest,,,I dont consider it a rational self interest and I wonder who is gonna determine what rational self interest IS for other people?

life is about more than just SELF interest for those who truly want their communities, societies, and even countries to progress and succeed.