Free Market Power

Apparently I'm not the only one critical of Social Security

2011-09-21T05:12:00.001-07:00

Another person who think we being fooled and manipulated with Social Security.

http://m.cnn.com/primary/_gjwK2X-i7wmb3a0WBj

Thoughts on the tablet war

2011-09-20T16:42:00.000-07:00

I think in a few year from now when the tablet market gets to a more
stable place I think we will see a there are three basic players.

Windows/windows phone - I like what Microsoft is doing introducing
apps that will run on Windows 8 and can be easily ported to Windows
phone and Windows arm tablets as well as traditional windows tablets.
When people have programs or apps they like they want to use them on
all their platforms. They don't want one app for uploading pictures if
they are on a phone but a different app on thier computer (example
Instagram is great for the Iphone but back on you computer its not
available) this kind of barriers people thought we fixed with the web
browser and they still bother people. But I think Microsoft risks
their base users if people and business think that powerful full
featured programs are going to suffer.

Apple- IOS has a huge head start and definitely has the mindshare in
the market. I know Apple won't do this but I think it would be
interesting if they had a Mac and pc version of an emulator and app
store that people could use on pcs. Then they same Apps you have on
your phone are available on the PC. I know multitouch guestures won't
work as well but its better than nothing working.

Android- I think that this will stay the primary phone os but it still
remains to be seen if they can make an impact in the tablet market. I
think if they had a Windows based emulator and appstore for Android
they could definitely help them, and I unlike Apple I think that
Google actually may do it. Otherwise they still have to prove that
Android tablets can equal the same experience users get with IOS.

I think I actually believe that if done right my money is on
Microsoft. Apple did them a big favor by getting the population used
to tablets, something Microsoft could never get done on thier own. Now
that the market is primed if they make Windows 8 a good platform for
big boy computing plus tablets and phones I think they can get back in
the drivers seat.
I hope they don't make the same mistake Apple made. As a programmer I
don't want to pay Apple $100 a year to put programs on my own tablet.
Even if it is only a real time compiler. If I can't write my own
programs That is the quickest way to ensure Android is my choice.

Comment from Michael Wall

2011-09-17T20:24:00.001-07:00

Thank you, too. No hurt feelings, and I learned a lot. I think autonomy and dignity are real human needs that are the basis of where your outlook starts, while the other side overlooks that issue too easily. I still remain of the view that as citizens, we can receive support from the government with dignity, but I have to concede to you the point that it can lead to a dangerous loss of autonomy. So it may not make sense, but I feel that it could be fortunate for me that your kind of opposition exists. Cheers to you!

What I learned in my extensive debate with my gracious, but very conservative Libertarian cousin.- They have a Point. by Michael Wall

2011-09-17T20:20:00.000-07:00

Recently, I was honored by my cousin with a very strong engagement in a debate over Social Security. Needless to say, it could have been any government administered social program. I admit, I had more difficulty being gracious than he did. I thought he wasn't listening, or facing the facts. Luckily, he stayed engaged, and I dragged myself back into it for long enough for me to learn something which I think explains a lot for us Liberals, who are often mystified and condescending, when it appears that the other side pointlessly cruel and harmful to their own interests. What I learned is this: They have a highest priority opposition to any mandatory or communally enforced dependency of any kind, except military. Then I thought about that, and I realized: If you understand that, they actually make perfect sense, especially at this point in history. Not that I have become a Conservative, but the truth is: The loss of personal autonomy is profound with modern developments, looking like becoming almost complete. I have to admit and can easily imagine that : We may really need what they are fighting for. And in addition, and most important for us Liberals, if we want to win their support on almost any issue,except Woman's Rights, where strangely they are in complete opposition to themselves, we must try to include provision to preserve personal autonomy. The bottom line seems to be this: Their concept of freedom and dignity must include, at least for healthy, capable people, a pathway through life to supply all needed resources for themselves. I remain a Liberal, but I feel it is an ominous realization that Conservatives are willing to go down and take everything and everybody else down with them for this one reason, so I feel it is important that we respect and acknowledge it.

Ed. Note this appeared on Facebook as a response to the my post. See the original at https://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-wall/what-i-learned-in-my-extensive-debate-with-my-gracious-but-very-conservative-lib/10150375896426357

Blaming Ron Paul is very popular and also illogical.

2011-09-15T20:42:00.000-07:00

It is a meme I have seen over and over again. Someone doesn't have health insurance so they blame Ron Paul. This is a completely silly argument raised only to make Ron Paul look bad.

a good example is this blog

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/09/15/for-ron-paul-health-care-question-struck-close-to-home/

The implication here is that Ron Paul's libertarian beliefs are is some way reponsible for someone not being able to get coverage because they had a pre-existing condition and libertarians would not force insurance companies to cover him. They go on to say that he had hundreds of thousand of dollars of bills and the Charity approach Ron Paul Favors only raised $30,000.

Ron Paul's idea of people helping each other with charities admittedly doesn't work when we are taxed so high most Americans don't have extra money to donate. If the govt. takes most of their disposable cash of course they can't donate it.

Remember that Ron Paul is 1 of 435 members of congress. Most of his ideals are in direct opposition to the big govt. bills that get passed.

You can blame a lot of people for the way health care is but don't blame Ron Paul.

Ron Paul favors no income tax and no social security. For most working Americans almost half their paycheck is gone before they even get it. Give that money back and they could spend it on healthcare if they choose.

Ron Paul favors a strong dollar backed by a gold standard. We don't have that and the result is inflation which is especially evident in health care.

Ron Paul doesn't support Medicare and Medicaid which leads to inflated medical cost because hospitals have to raise prices for everyone else to make up for their Medicare/Medicaid losses.

Ron Paul Doesn't support the FDA and other regulations on medicine and health care that raise cost.

Ron Paul doesn't support tax breaks for company's that offer health care. Resulting in less competition and greater costs.

Ron Paul doesn't favor govt. licensing which reduces competition and raises prices.

So you can speculate on what might happen under a Ron Paul administration but it is just speculation. If he gets elected and gets his policies implemented and in two years health care isn't less expensive, easier to get and better than ever then you can blame him.

Don't blame him now.
He is not the president
These are not his polices
He is not responsible for the Fed. Govt's interference, in fact he fought it every step of the way.

Blaming Ron Paul for healthcare issues makes you look pretty stupid.

Thanks Cousin Mike

2011-09-15T17:17:00.000-07:00

Thank you to my cousin Mike for a nice debate. I think I can report there are no hurt feelings and it was all it done in the effort to make everyone rethink their opinions and have a nice debate of the facts. He is welcome to post a rebuttal to anything I write here and I will be happy to link to it. He and I obviously have some different beliefs but in the end we respect each other and agree to disagree.

2011-09-14T20:12:00.000-07:00

My biggest critic has spoken and would like a point by point rebuttal to explain my
stance on Social Security

In my plan the states could pass laws that ensure that workers invest for retirement and have insurance for disability but allow the workers to control their own accounts. My system offers a safety net but does not manipulate or take peoples money.

Critic : do you think that no one should ever be allowed to retire?

Response : People are allowed to retire whenever they want all they have to do is save enough to live on. I recommend a mix of stocks bonds and possibly a private annuity so your money lasts the
longest. Since it is not Social Security your heirs can inherit what is left or you can donate it to charity in your will. Your choice.
Social Security is unsustainable and hurts the very people it was intended to help. The hurt is over a long time and so slow that it is hard to see, but the result is people are manipulated and robbed.

Critic: Are you really that cruel that you think any poor elderly or disabled person should be left
to starve to death by society?

Response: I believe there are more than these two options. If the federal government did not tax them at an outrageous rate they could invest each month and would have 15% extra that the government would not seize for Social Security that could potentially be invested by the individual or their company and would allow them to retire quite nicely. Social Security hurts many families ability to retire if a man and wife work for 40 years and then one dies before they collect Security Security the money paid in by lowest earner was siezed by the govt. and not returned. If they invested in a private account the spouse would have that inherited money to retire on as well. I have never objected to states helping those who are truly disabled. The constitutions clearly says the state has the right.

Critic : If so, why don't you just say that, instead of expecting your politician to say it? I challenge you to say clearly that that is what you believe.

Response : What I believe is that instead of insulting people and trying to use force to make people do as you please it is better show people that others need help and most people would do so willing for the people who truly need it.

Critic : What fantasy history are you basing your trust on? There certainly isn't any actual history to back you up.

Response : History is filled with examples of people helping one another. Generations of families living in one house were common in this country and many others. There are many charities that help the poor and elderly. The St. Vincent DePaul society, Goodwill, United Way, Salvation Army and these are just a few off the top of my head. Bill Gates has given billions voluntarily to help others. I am not sure why you believe people can't or won't help each other unless the government forces them too. Social Security has only been around for less than a hundred years. Kindness has been around as long as history has been recorded.

Critic : I will admit that some are unable to save, others might run out, some may be betrayed by their employer, others hurt in an accident, etc.., etc.... I wouldn't call someone who could have saved, but didn't, stupid. Unwise, maybe. You do reveal your cruelty by calling them "too stupid". You are unwillling to admit the truth of your cruel hatred for others, just like I said. You can't explain your beliefs, you just divert
the question, just like the politicians.

Response : I don't think allowing people freedom is cruel. I think it is cruel that some use government force to make people do what they feel is correct. For most retires if they invested their own money for retirement they would be far better off in retirement than being dependant on the government. People can and should by private insurance to cover accidents. If their employers
defrauded them there are courts for that. I don't recommend people put all their eggs in one basket. These things are not hard. I also think it is cruel every two years for politicians to use Social Security as leverage to threaten people with to gain their vote. This is leverage they would not have if people had their own retirement accounts. Most people would save for retirement for themselves and if the states wanted to pass laws that would make people prove they were investing for their retirement in investments with suitable risks without forcing them to let
the state control these accounts I would not object.

Critic : A fantasy does not explain your beliefs. I listed several circumstances which are
common, I could list several more. Your idealist fantasy only accounts for the people
who don't need help, who have nice saintly parents, or children. So you still are
refusing to admit that you have no compassion for all others.

Response : It does expect people who are capable of providing and saving for themselves to do hat and have adequate insurance to provide for disabilities. If you reward people who make bad decisions, you encourage more bad decisions. Maybe they have to work until they are older or have to get by on less. That is the choice they made. The very small amount who do need legitimate help can get it from a combination of the states, charities, families, neighbors and communities. I believe these type of charities would flourish if people were allowed to keep the money that the Fed. Government takes and wastes with bureaucracy and pork. I feel compassion is letting people make their own decisions not forcing them to do things your way. Compassion is helping people voluntarily. Taking what people have earned just because others need it is theft that you justify by calling it compassion.

Critic : Look at all the current developed nations. The better the social safety net, universal
health care, the better the longevity is. Look at the past, same thing. You like Ayn
Rand, Social Darwinist. Social Darwinists= letting the weak and unfortunate die. If that
is what you believe in, admit it.

Response : Nice of you to decide for everyone that it is better they live longer than live freer. The ends do not justify the means. I don't think the weak and unfortunate should or would die. I trust that there are caring and compassionate people who would volunteer to help those who needed it. I think the government forcing people to do it has the exact opposite effect. It makes people resentful and allows them to feel like it's not their responsibility.

Critic : I don't think I can spend any more time arguing, if you refuse to address the issues, and just are going to keep throwing your fantasy based opinions out. The only reason I started this is because I can't believe you are actually as cruel as you beliefs imply.

Response : I have addressed everyone of your points.

Critic : If you won't take responsibility, you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I am not asking for the benefit of the doubt I am responsible for my own retirement and I have never asked any one to provide it for me against their will. Somehow I feel you will not agree. Maybe you can have the Federal government pass a law to force me to agree.

Critic : You keep working on it, cousin, looks like you have a very good chance of succeeding, and you'll probably get the health care bill repealed too. Let the banks take everyone's houses, the corporations send all our jobs overseas. You'll be all right, 'cause you kissed their asses enough, you think. You sure you kissed their asses enough? Whenever you need to go somewhere, you gonna build your own roads? You gonna have your own army to protect yourself? I didn't know that you were one of the Windsors, wow, how could that be?

Response : I would like to see the health care bill repealed. If the banks engage in fraud in taking people houses the govt. should stop them. The corporations that send those jobs overseas do so voluntarily mostly because of the higher costs that the Fed. Govt. causes. You are free to start a group that does not buy from these corporations if you want. if enough people do that they will probably move back. I assure you, I kiss no one's ass. I have no problem with the state and local govt. funding roads. I think the roads would be better if they opened them up to more competition. The constitution is pretty clear the Federal Govt. can raise an army. How am I a monarch if instead of ruling people, I leave them free to live as they please so long as they don't threaten or steal from others.

Critic : okay, I'll try just a little more. You are not listening, though. In the other post, I said that you are not taking responsibility in your arguments, or that is what I meant. And again, here, you think that Ron Paul suggestion about churches and charities is important somehow, but it is just another irresponsible, meaningless, careless, throw- away argument. Any honest thought or look at history would tell you that churches and charities have always been there, but never been at all able to provide even a small fraction of a social safety net for health and welfare. That is just reality. If you or Ron Paul spit out your fantasies which have no basis in reality, you shouldn't be surprised that you get ignored. There is no point in arguing with someone's fantasies. Furthermore, that brings me back to what my main point through this thread has been,
which is that you shouldn't expect to not be seen as brutally unkind in your beliefs, just because you put some fantasy fig leaf of an excuse in front

Response : You are the one living in a fantasy world. Even with Social Security we still need charities and kindness. You are under the misguided impression that govt. Can solve any problem. What it actually does is take from the productive and make those needing help, dependent. The govt.'s layers of bureaucracy and politics make it far less efficient. You seem to want a perfect solution, none exists and never will. Put your efforts towards getting people to help voluntarily and you are more likely to help those who need it. I believe people are more compassionate than you give them credit for. We should help people who truly need help. What you are doing is the opposite. Imposing your will which hurts everyone and rationalizing it so you can feel better.

10 reasons Social Security is worse than a Ponzi scheme

2011-09-10T14:57:00.000-07:00

I have often commented that Social security was a ponzi scheme. I am aware that there are differences but the point is that it is a terrible plan. In retrospect I don't support Gov. Perry or agree with him Social security is not a Ponzi Scheme, it is worse than one. Here are ten reasons why.

1. Ponzi schemes are illigal. Social Security is unconstitutional- judges have use the general wefare clause to to justify it and greatly expand the federal government’s power. If the general welfare clause allows this then I guess anything intended to do good is a federal power.

2. No one is forced into a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is mandatory for the vast majority. of Americans.

3. Ponzi schemes are not insured by the fed govt. Tax payers will bail out social security if it fails, and it will fail unless they change it and make it so the retirement age is greater, payouts are less and there will probably be means testing for need.

4. Politicians us Social Security to manipulate and threaten voters. Threatening that if you don’t vote for them their opponent will let the elderly starve. Etc.

5. Your benefits under Social Security are not in any way guaranteed congress can change or eliminate them any time. At least with a good Ponzi scheme you promised a 10 per month return. Its a lie but at least you know what you are promised.

6. Social Security was designed to work in conjunction with savings and pensions but instead the effect has been that fewer and fewer companies fund pensions so many people with blue collar jobs are worse off.

7. Social security has helped cause the deficit. The excess money from Social Security was lent to to govt. has given the Fed. Govt. a continuous cash flow that was spent to buy votes. Soon that money will have to be paid back and will likely mean tax increases.

8. With a Ponzi scheme your estate has the same rights to your claim as you do. With Social Security once you die your Social Security benefits end your children or spouse may receive an alternate benefit but only under certain conditions and a spouse may have to waive their benefits to take yours.

9. The way Social Security is set up it costs society more the longer people live. Politicians have a vested interest in reduced life expectancy because that would make their jobs easier by costing Social Security Less. Soon if we have a single payer system they would be able to fix Social Security by quietly manipulating payouts and surgeries to lower life spans.

10. Social Security causes class warfare. Taking from one generation to pay for another. What if in 2020 all the people under 50 who are a large majority vote in politicians who decide to end Social Security. All those who paid in could get nothing. This is what can happen when you put govt. in charge of your retirement. individual rights are ignored for the supposed greater good. I don't trust politicians that much.

Unintended consequences

2011-08-04T18:24:00.000-07:00

There was a story a few year ago on 60 Minutes about how they wanted to relocate elephants in Africa to areas with less humans. They relocated many but the biggest adult males were too big to move so they built these new communities of elephants without the oldest males. They had the best of intentions but the result was they had a bunch of young male elephants who had never had older adult males to keep them in check so these young elephants were incredible aggressive and fearless. Attacking villages and other animals without provocation. This was an unintended consequence.

There was a time when we had communities and the older adults helped keep the younger generations in check. Take the Facebook community as an example. Because like 1 in 50,000( just a guess) teachers abuse a student we ban all of them from friending students of Facebook. Imagine that now without these valuable members of the community assisting in keeping these youngsters in check, they have freer reign to bully and be aggressive. That would be an unintended consequence.

In Africa they solved the aggressive elephant issue by trucking in large male adults to restore the balance of power.

Usually when politicians interfere they do more harm than good. Leave the educating to the educators and the parents. Let the communites find their own natural balance.

2010-04-21T19:57:00.000-07:00

Why I am a libertarian.

Taxes.

Ben Franklin supposedly said

"When the people find they can vote themselves money,

that will herald the end of the republic."

I think that day has come.

In school we always heard that the constitution had checks and balances to keep govt. power in check. I heard about the 3 branches of the Federal govt. I later determined there we a few more that I am sad to report were either ignored or eliminated and this I am convinced is the cause of many of the issues we have today. Two important changes have been made that have gotten us to where we are today. The Tenth Amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

In order to ensure the states rights Senators were selected by the state government. They were the representative of the State intended to keep the Federal government in check. Because of political issues that prevented some states from electing Senators The seventeenth admendment allowed for direct elections bypassing the state govt.completely. The uninteded consequence is the enforcement of the Tenth Amendment was only in the hands of the Supreme court. A court

which of course is appointed by the Executive branch and the Congress a clear conflict of interest.

Before the Sixteenth Amendment taxes at the Federal level had to be more or less apportioned based on the population. This ensured that states could not ban together and enrich themselves at the expense of the other states as Ben Franklin had suggested.

By taxing people directly the Federal Govt. was able to get around this safegaurd and with the states powerless to stop them the Feds. power has grown at an alarming rate.

One might say (not me) it is for the best because this tax money is used for good. Examples include health Care, Social Security, education, student loans, farm subsidies and the list goes on and on.

Let look at one example: student Loans. This sounds good on the surface but here is what has happened. Allow large subsidized loans and grants for college. Making it easier to get student loans means that many students pay little attention to what a school costs and instead focus on things like the New gyms,new dorms, big computer labs, "free" Ipads, and the quality of the education as well, no matter what the cost is. That cost they figure will just be rolled into the grants and loans. This has caused a virtual arms race of sorts where schools have to continue to add expensive perks to attact students. This is why the cost of Univeristy tuition continues to rise way above the rate of inflation. Causing people to call for more and more student loans which will continue the cycle upward. Students get out of school with incredible debt far above what many of these students can ever afford to pay back. It is getting to the point that soon no one will be able to pay for College without the Govt. Student loans can't be forgiven in bankruptcy and private companies have extraordinary powers to sieze assets to collect on student loans. This will amount to virtual Govt. sponsored indentured servitude before long.

I would like to be able to save to send my kids to college but I have to pay incredible taxes plus in addition to paying taxes for schools I pay again to send my kids to private school because of the sorry state of public schools. It is no wonder we all have to buy cheap Chinese made poor quality goods. Soon when we have a VAT tax and it will insure that no one can afford to buy US made items.