Why Liberalism is a mental disease

[Potus]

Look at your original quote:

By the way, life expectancy was lower than social security collection age when it was passed in 1935. It was designed to pay out 0 basically.As life expectancy increased, it became a ponzi scheme by default. To accomplish social security's original intent, you would have to raise retirement age to 75+

Where as the SSA says:

If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.

So clearly you're wrong because children were dying at early ages, they never were on the SS roles, they never paid dues, hence it wasn't a Ponzi scheme.

As to your claim it goes insolvent when people live longer, that SS was never designed to pay out anything... ERRR wrong again, your crappy Ron Paul talk radio bullshit has failed you again:

Also, it should be noted that there were already 7.8 million Americans age 65 or older in 1935 (cf. Table 2), so there was a large and growing population of people who could receive Social Security. Indeed, the actuarial estimates used by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) in designing the Social Security program projected that there would be 8.3 million Americans age 65 or older by 1940 (when monthly benefits started). So Social Security was not designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits.

As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.

What a shock, a worthless antisemite who reads unabomber manifestos is wrong.

[Potus]

God damn I own, who else wants to get fucked.

[Loke]

Err, your only claim so far in this thread is that Americanism finds its roots in a quasi-socialist ideology, which is just silly. Claiming that liberalism in its traditional sense some how correlates to socialism is just ridiculous - dictionary.com is all you really need to solve that argument.

The really sad thing about this thread is from the way you're talking it sounds like you actually have been educated, albeit poorly, in American history. I'm not saying your professors or school were wrong, just that in the process of taking objective, factual information; some where along the lines the message got garbled into this ridiculous notion you have of how our nation came to be as it is today.

You've really argued nothing beyond your belief that what it meant to be liberal in 1775 is the same it is today, and that liberalism and socialism some how are the same thing - both of which are misguided and you have yet to support beyond stating something irrelevant about taxes funding public projects and your apparent "troll" claiming the founding fathers were socialist.

Aside from our differing opinions of liberalism (see: you not knowing the definition of liberalism), you have yet to actually disagree with anything I've said.

[Loke]

Originally Posted by Potus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hah ok it's quite clear you had no idea what you were talking about when you first entered the thread, claiming that modern liberalism and the original liberalism weren't related at all.

Originally Posted by Loke

What it meant to be liberal in the 1700s is drastically different than the modern day usage of the term.

Now, lets go spend 3 minutes on the internet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism <-- CLASSIC LIBERALISM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism <--- MODERN LIBERALISM**

**Note the bold words at the bottom of the introduction that read:

The term "social liberalism" is often used interchangeably with "modern liberalism"

Hence, I return to my claim that modern and classical liberalism are two "drastically different" things.

[wehrmacht]

Originally Posted by Potus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So clearly you're wrong because children were dying at early ages, they never were on the SS roles, they never paid dues, hence it wasn't a Ponzi scheme

Wrong. You failed at basic logic because you based all of your information off a .gov site instead of doing the math yourself.

US Population
---------------
1930 122 million
2000 281 million

Number of people over age 65
----------------------------------
1930 - 6.7 million
2000 - 34.9 million

Population increased 230%, people over age 65 increased by 520%. Your excuse about childhood mortality rate doesn't compensate for that. I stand by my original statement that increase in life expectancy causes it to be a ponzi scam by default.

[Toehammer]

Loke & wehrmacht: you can't teach stupid. Just leave poor Potus alone. After I was done with him he was like the black knight from Monty Python... now he is just trolling for trolling's sake.

[Hoggen]

Originally Posted by wehrmacht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wrong. I stand by my original statement that increase in life expectancy causes it to be a ponzi scam by default.

Regardless of whether or not it's a Ponzi scheme ( which I believe is readily evident if you actually look at its execution), SS does not allow the person that pays into it the ability to leave anything to his heirs should he die prematurely. A surviving spouse has her benefits increased temporarily, but if there is no spouse, then anything paid into the system goes to the government imbalance sheets and nowhere else. This is extremely unfair to minorities, who tend to die much earlier, and often haven't even a spouse to affect, but it's just plain unfair and wrong anyway you look at it. You're an ignorant troll POTUS.

[wehrmacht]

Originally Posted by Hoggen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is extremely unfair to minorities, who tend to die much earlier.

The problem with this statement is that you assume everyone is identical then reality demonstrates the exact opposite. Ask any Anthropologist, black children learn how to walk sooner than white children on average, while asian children are slowest on average in development.

This is probably one of the main reasons they're dying before everyone else. Faster development, 15-20% higher blood testosterone levels, more fast twitch muscle fibers, etc. They evolved to breed and die faster and have these other characteristics probably due to being surrounded by more apex predators like lions and hyenas or animals like elephants, while Eurasians were mostly worrying about wolves?

The eurasians also domesticated the wolf probably over 100,000 years ago while the africans never domesticated the lion or any of these other animals eating them. In order to survive, they would have to develop, breed, then die faster than others. If I had to take a wild guess, this is probably one of the main reasons people left Africa in the first place to travel to colder climates. To avoid being eaten by giant animals. It's probably not fun trying to run a plow and having a giant lion run up and attack you.

So yea, please people, give up the communism, one size fits all stuff, because everyone is different.

[Potus]

Originally Posted by Loke [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Err, your only claim so far in this thread is that Americanism finds its roots in a quasi-socialist ideology, which is just silly. Claiming that liberalism in its traditional sense some how correlates to socialism is just ridiculous - dictionary.com is all you really need to solve that argument.

First off, welcome back! I thought you were done with this thread? OH what a surprise, wrong person can't stand being wrong.

Second, never said that; never argued that. If you read the thread, which you didn't, you'd see that people like Wehrmacht claimed that founding fathers had nothing resembling modern day liberals and were instead libertarians.

That's when I pulled up shit that Founding Fathers supported that today's tea party morons call socialism: Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine and John Adams creating a healthcare plan for sailors.

So seriously, you're arguing with yourself because you're strawmanning really bad, try reading a thread next time shithead.

[Potus]

Originally Posted by wehrmacht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wrong. You failed at basic logic because you based all of your information off a .gov site instead of doing the math yourself.

US Population
---------------
1930 122 million
2000 281 million

Number of people over age 65
----------------------------------
1930 - 6.7 million
2000 - 34.9 million

Population increased 230%, people over age 65 increased by 520%. Your excuse about childhood mortality rate doesn't compensate for that. I stand by my original statement that increase in life expectancy causes it to be a ponzi scam by default.

Haha you're now arguing that what, the SSA doesn't have accurate information on THE PROGRAM THEY RUN?

Population increases are good for SS, it means more people pay into it. You have no idea how anything works and should probably stop trying to talk about complicated issues.