Ebike prices expected to rise? 25% tariffs.

wturber said:

rumme said:

No kool aid here. The idea of S.S. was to have employees pay into it, then take it back out at retirement. I understand that initial concept has been corrupted, but I dont think it was a bad concept.

Click to expand...

You are confusing the lie(s) that the Federal government told people and what was actually written into law. I think it was in the 60s that it was finally mandated that the Social Security Administration had to stop lying to the public about the nature of the system. If you think the initial concept was good, then you are agreeing with the socialist ideas that you are claiming to be against.

Click to expand...

I only agree with the idea of offering the people a way to save money out of their weekly checks, to be used later in life in retirement. S.S. should work like that, AND, it should not be mandatory, it should be a option for people to opt in or out of it. I do not like the idea of govts forcing people to do such things. The problem is , anytime the govt gets involved, they corrupt it and screw it up.

wturber said:

One of the fundamental problems with taxation and re-distribution of wealth is that everyone has a different idea about what is fair.

Click to expand...

Eisenhower's tax scheme was fair.

C'mon, runme, tell me how much of a socialist he was.

Chalo said:

wturber said:

One of the fundamental problems with taxation and re-distribution of wealth is that everyone has a different idea about what is fair.

Click to expand...

Eisenhower's tax scheme was fair.

C'mon, runme, tell me how much of a socialist he was.

Click to expand...

I already explained the type of S.S. I think is a good idea. You give workers the option to save money out of each paycheck to be used for retirement. Having any govt, force people to be part of such a plan, is not something I agree with , just like I dont agree with you being able to mandate that people cant own a firearm or drive a SUV, because of global warming.

rumme said:

I only agree with the idea of offering the people a way to save money out of their weekly checks, to be used later in life in retirement.

Click to expand...

"Offer" implies voluntary. It was never voluntary. It was always compulsory. So basically you agree with none of it.

wturber said:

rumme said:

I only agree with the idea of offering the people a way to save money out of their weekly checks, to be used later in life in retirement.

Click to expand...

"Offer" implies voluntary. It was never voluntary. It was always compulsory. So basically you agree with none of it.

Click to expand...

Correct , and you make a good point. The fact that it was compulsory , is something I do not agree with, even if it seemed like a good plan overall. Govts have no right to demand workers do it.

wturber said:

rumme said:

I only agree with the idea of offering the people a way to save money out of their weekly checks, to be used later in life in retirement.

Click to expand...

"Offer" implies voluntary. It was never voluntary. It was always compulsory. So basically you agree with none of it.

Click to expand...

Oh ... and I forgot to add ... the money was never "saved" for the individual to use later in life.

wturber said:

rumme said:

I only agree with the idea of offering the people a way to save money out of their weekly checks, to be used later in life in retirement.

Click to expand...

"Offer" implies voluntary. It was never voluntary. It was always compulsory. So basically you agree with none of it.

Click to expand...

Correct , and you make a good point. The fact that it was compulsory , is something I do not agree with, even if it seemed like a good plan overall. Govts have no right to demand workers do it. With that said, I see nothing wrong with offering such a savings plan for retirement , as long as govt/ unions are never allowed to get their greedy hands on the money.

It will be interesting to see where S.S. ends up in another 10-20 years and how the govt tries to revamp it to keep it going. Im assuming they may raise the retirement age to 70 or reduce overall monthly benefits across the board. I wonder if it will even be around when I reach the right age to draw on it. By then, we may very well have devolved into a socialist nation.

The taxes people pay on their salary, really is a drop in the bucket , when you look at our trillion dollar deficits in the U.S. Those payroll taxes will never payoff our deficit or the interest on that deficit .Wonder if our govt would ever decide to just eliminate all payroll taxes , as a way to keep the broken systems rolling along a little while longer and raise the spirits of workers in our society for another generation or so.

rumme said:

Correct , and you make a good point. The fact that it was compulsory , is something I do not agree with, even if it seemed like a good plan overall. Govts have no right to demand workers do it. With that said, I see nothing wrong with offering such a savings plan for retirement , as long as govt/ unions are never allowed to get their greedy hands on the money.

Click to expand...

So you understand why I said that you had "Drunk the Kool-Aid"?

I'll warn you against one-sidedly characterizing unions and governments as being greedy. As a group, they are probably no more or less greedy than the rest of us. But like the rest of us, they do have a strong bias to act in their own self-interests. So even if charged to represent your interests, they aren't likely to do a very good job. And that's one of the big problems and risks with handing over control of your life and wealth to other people. That's just one of the fundamental shortcomings of human beans.

rumme said:

The taxes people pay on their salary, really is a drop in the bucket , when you look at our trillion dollar deficits in the U.S. Those payroll taxes will never payoff our deficit or the interest on that deficit .Wonder if our govt would ever decide to just eliminate all payroll taxes , as a way to keep the broken systems rolling along a little while longer and raise the spirits of workers in our society for another generation or so.

Click to expand...

As with any Ponzi/pyramid scheme, someone will eventually be left holding the bag for the myriad of frauds and schemes the government is operating. Our current National debt of $21 Trillion should give folks a strong suggestion of how nasty that might get. But on the positive side, what we do have going for us is that 85% group of hard workers who want things to turn out well and a lot of smart people helping to make us more and more productive with technological developments. The rest is a crap shoot.

Which version of socialism is best ?

`Kay. THAT's amusing...

Had to look that up... seen on the web:

so·cial·ism (noun)
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; etc ( radicalism, progressivism, social democracy; communism, Marxism, labor movement)
"my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(synonyms: leftism, welfarism; radicalism, progressivism, social democracy; communism, Marxism, labor movement)
"my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

Origin: early 19th century: from French socialisme, from social (see social) Use over time for: socialism

Click to expand...

Hehe... those crazy French...

... and:

com·mu·nism
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Click to expand...

"each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs"

Funnily enough, I'm O.K. with that... though I might question watt exactly folks "need". :wink:

wturber said:

I'll warn you against one-sidedly characterizing unions and governments as being greedy. As a group, they are probably no more or less greedy than the rest of us. But like the rest of us, they do have a strong bias to act in their own self-interests. So even if charged to represent your interests, they aren't likely to do a very good job. And that's one of the big problems and risks with handing over control of your life and wealth to other people. That's just one of the fundamental shortcomings of human beans.

Click to expand...

I'll point out that people from Scandinavia and Netherlands are generally positive about paying their taxes, because they appreciate the value of what they buy in that way.

I'll also point out how badly the majority of Americans botch the task of acting in their own interest. Between cars, children, suburban/exurban living, wage slavery, crass materialism, overconsumption, addiction, and debt-- they are their own most viciously effective enemies. I doubt an indifferent and cynical bureaucrat could do a worse job of managing their lives. The real tragedy of that is, it ruins the commons for those of us who don't suck quite as badly at life. I think it every time I (rarely) get stuck in rush hour traffic: almost all these dumb pieces of shit do this on purpose, every single day, because they simply refuse to make a better plan.

I think the vast majority of people would be better represented by a labor union or a central planning committee or a goddamn reptilian overlord than by what they are willing to do for themselves on a moment by moment basis. The good news is that we Americans don't have to worry about reptilian overlords or central planning committees. But labor unions would be a very good idea if we didn't let their natural adversaries set the operating conditions for them.

^^ Oh oh... "I think"... Doesn't worry you a bit? :wink:

If you look back at not too distant history, when America (and Canada) were in their economic heydays with a strong and growing middle class, low or no deficits, high rates of home ownership, large infrastructure projects completed, etc....

We had strong labour unions, and high taxes for rich people.

Yes there were plenty of other social inequalities at the time, but we did have plenty of economy to go around.

Money in the bank accounts and stock portfolios of super rich billionaires doesn't do shit for the greater economy.

LockH said:

^^ Oh oh... "I think"... Doesn't worry you a bit? :wink:

Click to expand...

Not when so many others are obviously not doing it.

Hehe...

"so many others are obviously not doing it."?

Click to expand...

Sorry? Watt do YOU "see"...? :wink:

From my personal opinion, most humans are very poor at running complex systems which involve power and money. Most people in society cant even handle their own personal finances well .

I consider corruption to be humans most communicable bad trait. This is why powerful organizations like FBI, CIA, unions, govts always end up corrupt, inefficient and untrustworthy. Those most likely to seek power and control are often the ones least trustworthy to be handed those powers.

I certainly am not a worshipper of Trump , and I fully recognize at the very least, he is a adulterer and a liar , but its interesting to note that the diehard leftists, refuse to give Trump any credit for the stronger economy, stronger borders, all time highs in the markets, etc....but I assure you, if and when the stock market has a huge pullback, those same leftists will run their big mouths and blame trump for that . This is the type of non objectivity that I find disgusting. Many people who play political partisanship , are unable to look at the side of politics they hate, from a objective standpoint and give credit for the good things from that side. All they do is seek out the negatives and focus on that and ignore any positives that exist. It is this type of 1 sided mindset that does a lot of damage to our nation. I despise this type of 1 sided mindset and its 1 reason why I dislike Fox News and CNN because both media outlets are very non objective and basically feedin its viewers with 1 sided agendas/ propagandas.

One other thing about Trump, that I think deserves applaud, is his continual willingness to call our media outlets fake news. He is correct on this and its something you never would have heard bush or Clintons or Obama constantly focus on. These fake news outlets do so much harm to our nation .

I still think, that a system within a nation, works best when people in society are rewarded for proper decisions and punished for improper decisions. Any people that buy new cars, and gadgets, they cant afford, and continually spend money they cant afford to spend, should face the negative aspects of their poor decisions, and NOT be bailed out by govt or get endless free monthly checks in the mail. We learn from our mistakes , and become better , because those mistakes educate us and punish us. Of course, bailing out our usury corrupt banking system sets a very poor example for this mindset, and we end up with millions of people having the attitude that they deserve a bailout since the banks got a bailout.

To many ideas within socialism ,takes that process out of the equation and creates unappreciative, undisciplined slaves to the system. The main problem with the system I think is best, is having powerful entities get in the way of it and hamper peoples abilities to benefit from making good decisions.

Just adopting a socialist system where everyone gets free money every month , doesnt sit right with me because its a system doomed to failure and results in a entitlement attitude passed down to each new generation.

Humans will always try and abuse any systems setup to benefit people. We see that with things like welfare . Ive known dozens of people abuse that system to get free food, free money, etc. If the proper checks and balances could be put in place, to make sure people can not abuse socialist type systems , then I would be more fond of those systems. But once again, corruptions creep in and the people who are paid to ensure the socialist systems should not be abused, can be bribed to allow certain people to abuse those systems. I have a perfecr example of this.


I knew a woman many years ago. She had a kid and never married the father { she was basically a whore} . She was lazy and did not want to get a job , so she was able to use her abilities to give blowjobs, to buyoff a few of the people in the welfare office and get on the welfare doles. I think she was getting around $450 per month and the reality is, she should have never been getting that money because she was fully capable of working a fulltime job and earning her own way thru life.


This woman was a real card. To avoid getting a real job, she used to go to college campuses and dig thru the dumpsters and pull out college books, and sell them on ebay.

chalo wrote almost all these dumb pieces of shit do this on purpose, every single day, because they simply refuse to make a better plan. I have no respect and utter contempt for someone who refers to his fellow man in this context. Shows his true character. Also shows his lack of compassion. I happen to believe that there is a special place in hell for this type of individual.

Those who are too far on the left, are the exact mirror replica of those too far on the right.

People with common sense are sitting in the center.

MadRhino said:

People with common sense are sitting in the center.

Click to expand...

That's what they tell themselves. But centrists are people who can look at good and evil and decide that halfway between must be correct.

It is easier than thinking things through, because you can let others decide what ground you're in the middle of.

In practice, centrism is a strategy politicians use to get elected through inoffensiveness so they can be corporate cronies. Nobody runs for office who really doesn't believe in things, as the centrist philosophy would imply. What centrist politicians believe in is more power and stuff for themselves.

MadRhino said:

Those who are too far on the left, are the exact mirror replica of those too far on the right.

People with common sense are sitting in the center.

Click to expand...

"Right" and "left" are like religions, they set out a dualistic scenario where we must either be this, or that. To be in the "center", you still have to buy into the right/left malarkey that rumme is soaked in, to some degree.

In the context of the original discussion, tariffs don't have an inherent political bias one way or the other. The intentions behind them often do, but the effects of a trade war are the same regardless of what the original intention was. And that set of effects is usually negative overall.

Getting in a trade war over other structural economic issues is adding more problems to the problems you already had, without fixing any of them.

donn said:

MadRhino said:

Those who are too far on the left, are the exact mirror replica of those too far on the right.

People with common sense are sitting in the center.

Click to expand...

"Right" and "left" are like religions, they set out a dualistic scenario where we must either be this, or that. To be in the "center", you still have to buy into the right/left malarkey that rumme is soaked in, to some degree.

Click to expand...

But there are certain ideologies largely driven by either side. So this proves there are right/leftist protocols/ agendas . Good example would be SCOTUS and the liberal republican agendas concerning things like guns rights/abortion rights . So its not all show . Reps will generally vote for gun rights, libs will generally vote for abortion rights. I think this proves its not ALL malarkey and proves your above statement is not true. Of course I do recognize that most of the left wing- right wing propagandas are just wings of the same corrupt vulture.