NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

Larry Dighera wrote:

Social Security is not a charity; it is insurance. There is an
inescapable loss of human dignity that occurs to those who receive
charity. Social Security recipients can be proud of having worked
hard during their lives, and owe no debt of gratitude to anyone other
than the FDR administration.

It is not insurance. It is not even solvent. It would not pass muster
if it had to comply with SEC regulations that actual insurance companies
are required to comply with.

If you were a rational person I would try discuss this further but
you aren't so I won't bother.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:29:29 -0400, Jose
wrote in :

I am thankful that our nation is not littered with impoverished
seniors who failed to provide for their years of unemployability.

Yes, but I do resent being the one to support them.

We are all on this planet together. The world population is expected
to double in less than fifty years. You're going to have to change
that mind-set if you expect us all to get along in the future.

Or you could found Rand's Gaultville, and live in blissful isolation.
:-(

I am thankful that our nation is not littered with impoverished
seniors who failed to provide for their years of unemployability.
Yes, but I do resent being the one to support them.
We are all on this planet together. The world
population is expected to double...

You are using the fallacy of "all things being equal". All things are
not equal. The doling out of money =causes= people to reach their hands
out - hands that might otherwise be contributing to society. This is
especially true for the doling out of money based on the recipient
having made poor choices. Guess what that encourages.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:48:16 GMT, ktbr wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Regardless of what the people believe, they are the beneficiaries, not
large corporations.


You talk as if these Corportations are an "evil". What is a
Corportation Larry? It is a publicly owned company or business
that employes people, pays them a salary and benefirs. It is
owned by people... stockholders who are by and large participating
by virtue of pention and 401K plans. They count on Corportations
doing and making profits so that their stock will go up and thus,
they can enjoy a decent return on their investment.

In an ideal world, that may be true. But you're not going to get the
former Enron employees to see it that way.

For some reason you disdain the idea of a company making mony...
or even worse that any profits they make should be somewho
turned over to tge government for dispersal to people you think
"need" it. That's a very sad vision of a free country you have.

Those are your inferences. They are not supported by my statements.

I believe that _large_, soulless corporations, for which profit is the
_sole_ criterion for decision making, are using their wealth to wrest
power from our government (which was created for and by the _people_,
not corporations), and bend it into benefiting them at the expense of
our nation's people. There are at least two reasons for that
behavior.

The obvious one is greed, but it's not quite that simple.

The other reason for basing all corporate decisions on profit, is
competition in the marketplace. If a corporation is able to produce
its product at a reduced cost, it may be able to drive its competitors
out of the marketplace by pricing its products below that of the
competition while continuing to make a profit on them, and ultimately
enjoy the goal of all _large_ corporations: a market monopoly. Then
that corporation is free to charge any price it likes that the public
will bear. If the corporation's method of reducing the cost of
producing its product or service involves exploitation of workers
and/or the environment, all the competing companies in that market
segment will be forced to do the same sort of reprehensible
exploiting, or face bankruptcy due to their becoming uncompetitive.

So the much ballyhooed laissez-faire capitalism of the US is
double-edged sward, that is fundamentally flawed. By its vary nature,
corporate competition fosters ever lower prices, perceived as a
good-thing by the buying public, until it drives its competition out
of the marketplace, and the survivor starts gouging. The other edge
is the implicit mandate to engage in unscrupulous exploitation and
fraud in order to dominate, or indeed survive, in the marketplace.
That needs to change.

I see at least two methods of accomplishing corporate responsibility
under a capitalistic system:

1. The buying public can refuse to purchase from those firms who
are less than responsible in the production of their products.
This is beginning to take hold today. You can choose to
purchase your electrical power from "green" generating utility
companies, for example. The trend toward organically produced
food is another example, in which consumers are willing to pay
a premium for a superior product. And you used to be able to
choose to shun foreign goods produced by coolie labor in
unhealthy sweatshops devoid of environmental concerns in favor
of domestically produced products produced in compliance with
US labor, quality, and environmental law. But that options
has become clouded over the last few decades as domestic
corporations have increasingly pursued outsourcing to remain
competitive.

2. The government can reward those companies who voluntarily
choose not to exploit their workers and the environment, to
help them meet their competitions' prices and remain in
business. And those corporations that voluntarily develop
innovative means of responsibly reducing costs should also
receive a government incentive.

I'm still deliberating on how this might be effected.

So while it is obvious that large corporations are fraught with
supporting unscrupulous political influence paddling, exploiting
workers, and defiling the environment, such reprehensible conduct is
not wholly their fault; it is the capitalistic market system that
virtually demands it.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:48:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

I am thankful that our nation is not littered with impoverished
seniors who failed to provide for their years of unemployability.


That's swell, but do you choose to contribute to Social Security, or are you
forced?


I am not forced. Only the majority of US wage earners are compelled
to participate in the Social Security Insurance plan.


http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...s_soc_sec.html
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security
Act into law on Aug. 14, 1935, only a relative handful of citizens
were covered by private pension funds. If you weren't wealthy, or
didn't have an extended family with means, there was no place that
you or your family could turn to if you were in economic distress,
except charity. Most Americans faced a future full of economic
hardship and uncertainty, and a "poverty-ridden old age," to use
FDR's apt description.

Today, thanks to FDR's commitment to the principle of the General
Welfare, one in six Americans—nearly 46 million people—receive a
Social Security benefit. Social Security is more than a monthly
check at retirement age. Nearly one in three beneficiaries are not
retirees; such people receive disability benefits, including
benefits for the blind. In addition, the Social Security
Administration dispenses to the state, monies to cover
unemployment benefits, while also administering funding for the
Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Since the 1970s, the Social Security Administration has
administered Supplemental Security Income (SSI)—the Federal
component of what is commonly called welfare. More than 6.5
million people are still covered by these programs, despite
efforts by the type of people who are now pushing President Bush's
privatization looting schemes to reduce or eliminate such
commitments. Of the more than 6.5 million SSI recipients, 31% are
aged, 56% disabled, and 31% disabled children, according to the
Social Security Administration.

And, it is still the case that Social Security represents the only
source of retirement pension income for the vast majority of
Americans.

2. The government can reward those companies who voluntarily
choose not to exploit their workers and the environment, to
help them meet their competitions' prices and remain in
business. And those corporations that voluntarily develop
innovative means of responsibly reducing costs should also
receive a government incentive.

I'm more than a little uneasy with the government rewarding "good"
behavior, as the definition of "good" changes from administration to
administration, but the mechanism for rewards remains in place.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
ktbr wrote:
If it is such a great retirement program why is everyone
forced to participate?

Not everyone is.

My wife is a member of a teacher's retirement plan and is exempt from SS
contributions.

Government employee.

Larry Dighera wrote:
pported by my statements.

I believe that _large_, soulless corporations, for which profit is the
_sole_ criterion for decision making, are using their wealth to wrest
power from our government (which was created for and by the _people_,
not corporations), and bend it into benefiting them at the expense of
our nation's people. There are at least two reasons for that
behavior.


And I believe that _large_ soulless governments, for which power and
priveledge is the _sole_ criterion for decision making, are using
their legislative and political muscle to wrest power from individuals
and businesses (which were created for and _by_ the _people_, not
GOVERNMENT), and bend it into benefiting THEM and their re-election
campaigns at the expense of the people that actually work and pay
the bills. There are two reasons for this type of behavior :
Arrogance and greed for ever more Power.

The obvious one is greed, but it's not quite that simple.

Politicians are as greedy as they come. I long list of
people found with their hands in cookie jar come to mind...
an obvious and blatant breach of their oaths of office.

The other reason for basing all corporate decisions on profit, is
competition in the marketplace. If a corporation is able to produce
its product at a reduced cost, it may be able to drive its competitors
out of the marketplace by pricing its products below that of the
competition while continuing to make a profit on them, and ultimately
enjoy the goal of all _large_ corporations: a market monopoly. Then
that corporation is free to charge any price it likes that the public
will bear. If the corporation's method of reducing the cost of
producing its product or service involves exploitation of workers
and/or the environment, all the competing companies in that market
segment will be forced to do the same sort of reprehensible
exploiting, or face bankruptcy due to their becoming uncompetitive.

To you Larry, profit is bad. That is because you are an irrational
socialist. On the other hand Government is good and can do no wrong
and is comprised of hard working servants full of honesty and integrity.

... right.

So the much ballyhooed laissez-faire capitalism of the US is
double-edged sward, that is fundamentally flawed.

All socialists feel that way, and you Larry, are a socialist,
you just won't admit it. I ADMIT to being a capitialist...
at least I am honest about my passion.

By its vary nature,
corporate competition fosters ever lower prices, perceived as a
good-thing by the buying public, until it drives its competition out
of the marketplace, and the survivor starts gouging. The other edge
is the implicit mandate to engage in unscrupulous exploitation and
fraud in order to dominate, or indeed survive, in the marketplace.
That needs to change.

It may need to change... but I submit that there is no such mandate
in the Constitution or otherwise for Government to get involved in
these changes. Who in government has the experience and integrity
anyway? Most are in fact LIFELONG politicians with preciousl little
real business experience. They are also horribly beholden to the
many speacial interest groups that paid big money to get them
elected... you then they are going to render a fair shack to joe
sixpack???

In fact, if you had a bit more intellectual honesty
you would agree (and even willingly identify) quite a number of
areas where government intervention has caused inequities, high
prices, shortages, business slowdowns due to ignorant and
worthless legislation. Since they always pander to and show
preference to layers and their lawsuits they make out like
bandits (and they are) while joe six-pack pays the bill.
So much for Government "fairness".


I see at least two methods of accomplishing corporate responsibility
under a capitalistic system:

1. The buying public can refuse to purchase from those firms who
are less than responsible in the production of their products.
This is beginning to take hold today. You can choose to
purchase your electrical power from "green" generating utility
companies, for example. The trend toward organically produced
food is another example, in which consumers are willing to pay
a premium for a superior product. And you used to be able to
choose to shun foreign goods produced by coolie labor in
unhealthy sweatshops devoid of environmental concerns in favor
of domestically produced products produced in compliance with
US labor, quality, and environmental law. But that options
has become clouded over the last few decades as domestic
corporations have increasingly pursued outsourcing to remain
competitive.

2. The government can reward those companies who voluntarily
choose not to exploit their workers and the environment, to
help them meet their competitions' prices and remain in
business. And those corporations that voluntarily develop
innovative means of responsibly reducing costs should also
receive a government incentive.

I'm still deliberating on how this might be effected.

So while it is obvious that large corporations are fraught with
supporting unscrupulous political influence paddling, exploiting
workers, and defiling the environment, such reprehensible conduct is
not wholly their fault; it is the capitalistic market system that
virtually demands it.


I see ONE method of Government responsibility and accountability:

T E R M L I M I T S

..

Larry Dighera wrote:


We are getting pretty far a field here, but I believe it's fair to
say, that Democrats' spending tends to benefit the people, and
Republican spending tends to benefit large corporations.

We are way far a field so I added OT to the subject.

It is in no way fair to say that. The Democrat's spending tends to benefit
people who choose not to work. Republican spending tends to benefit those
that do.

Larry Dighera wrote:


We are getting pretty far a field here, but I believe it's fair to
say, that Democrats' spending tends to benefit the people, and
Republican spending tends to benefit large corporations.

I think a closer look will show Democrat spending benefits their
constituents. (See: Taxpayers Union)

Want to review who they are?

Will you then promise to STFU, goofy?