Now, obviously, that's a bit of a generalaztion, but poor fiscal responsibility on their part definitly did happen. Therein lies the central problem with America today: accountability (or lack therof). And that's the problem with big government, it breeds lack of responsibility and accountability. Certainly, there are people in this thread *cough* that represent that. *durp* you make more money than me, I should get some of it har, even though it's your property *durp*

But, regardless of that, people here will just keep being irresponsible because of the continuation of these programs. And that's why just "encouraging fiscal responsibility" will never be a viable solution, unfortunately. The only way to stop social security is to kill it, and that will never happen because it would be political suicide abandoning all the baby boomers. Abandoning social security and setting up mandatory retirement accounts instead would work in the long run, but no one will want to go through the extremely painful 20-30 years before habits would change.

And for god's sake it doesn't matter how these rich people complain about earning "only" 800k or whatever. Or even 500k, or even 400k. Sure it's absurd that they complain, but it's completely irrelevant. Whether you make 20k, or 400k, it's your property. Why shouldn't you be entitled to all of your property. Why should you get a piece of my property that you in no way shape or form contributed to.

I always find Rob's "silver spoon" analogy incredibly ironic. To me, I think mooching off welfare is the ultimate form of silver-spoonery (since they are getting money that frankly they just don't deserve). Or perhaps union workers getting paid a **** ton more than their marginal productivity of labor dictates because of unionizaiton, that's some silver spoonery right there.

Unions aren't the same thing. Corporations would have people work 80 hours a week and pay them nothing if they could. Unions exist to give the individual employee the ability to negotiate for a better wage. A livable wage, in many cases. Unions actually reduce the gap between the rich and middle class, though they also contribute to inflation.

They started off that way, but not so much any more.

No, that's why unions existed. Now unions are corporations unto themselves and primarily concerned with their own profits.

In Alberta there's a serious problem with unions making small companies go out of business. They get their members to infiltrate the poorly staffed non-union shops, tip the balances and force unionization. If the company can afford all of the union's demands, the company can't afford to lose all of the union thugs who ditch as soon as the ink dries. It's gotten to the point where Alberta is passing stricter laws regarding unionization, which - of course - the toolstores are lobbying against. We'll see who wins.

A lot of trade unions around here have ridiculous rules too. Technically a union company can't hire you unless you're a member of the union, but you can't join the union unless you work a union job. Half of it is so they can more easily coerce companies into unionizing and the other half is so the people in the union can exert an undue amount of influence over who is joining that trade.

No, unions are vile. Stronger anti-collusion laws are required, as well as stricter laws governing pay and the outright elimination of at-will employment. Unions shouldn't need to exist because the job a union is supposed to be doing is really the responsibility of the government.

The gross generalization of the lower class as represented by this thread is really tragic. I'm glad I kept out of it. Sad that a public serviceman who's salary is reliant on taxation has such an opinion.

Until now, huh?

Oh boy, here we go again.

Social security doesn't pay his salary. He can badmouth it all he wants.

and besides we are basically paying him (via taxes) to perform a service, not to sit around and collect money for not working.

no wai i see da fuggin po pos siittin round all the time eetin donuts hahaha.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln

says the democrat

i believe that was a warning about privatizing banks, and a statement in favor of having a standard currency controlled by the government. not about robbing peter to pay paul.

I thought Lincoln was a Republican.

He was, I think he was meaning Kirbs is or something.