[admin]

Enjoy!

 

[V]

The story should have been called "Touching the Third World"
Welcome to reality.
At any given moment in time we are only a few months from becoming the third world.
Sorry.

 

[Guest]

Lex, that's some scary figures in that video. I knew the numbers were high for the tons of new retirees but that was a "wow." I'll probably be flamed for saying this but the 40+ million innocent Americans killed by abortion in this country (equivalent to the population of the State of California!!) would have paid a whole lot of taxes.

 

[SigsRule]

... and increased the numbers of people that will eventually be on social security.

Let's not get into pro-life/pro-choice issues.

 

[aziator]

Or welfare...though I am pro-life.

I think welfare should be all but done away with. There are probably a few instances where some help may be required but there should be a limit.

I was actually excited back in 2000 when bush was talking about letting younger taxpayers (Me at the time) invest their own social security and be responsible for their own future. I think it still makes sense to me. Let me worry about my own future...

 

[Guest]

... and increased the numbers of people that will eventually be on social security.

Let's not get into pro-life/pro-choice issues.

You apparently missed my point completely. Sure, the 40+ million people who have been killed (starting in 1973) would "eventually be on social security" -- but the very first not for another 40 years yet. Meanwhile, they would have been paying taxes for the last 10 years and for the next 30-40 years. It's one reason for the imbalance of workers/retirees that is often ignored (shhh, not supposed to acknowledge or talk about it). And of course, this is just a snapshot from this moment in time, not even counting future abortions/births from this point forward. We can ignore the morality of abortion but I don't think we'll be able to ignore the economic consequences so easily. I thought it was a valid viewpoint on the posted video but sorry to have offended you.

 

[admin]

Bullrat, you should check out Freakanomics. They argue with supporting evidence the exact opposite conclusion from yours regarding abortion and economic benefit. Great book, the last part about first names was boring though.

 

[Guest]

Thanks Lex, yes, I'm familiar with it. Experts have poked so many holes through Levitt's work, that it looks like swiss cheese. Even the author has conceded to at least some of the many mistakes that have been pointed out. But I'm done. Didn't mean to change the thread focus, my intention was only to comment as it related to the video. Thanks.

 

[V]

I know what to do.
Lower the lending rate to zero and run those presses at the BPE at high speed.
That should do it.

 

[SigsRule]

... and increased the numbers of people that will eventually be on social security.

Let's not get into pro-life/pro-choice issues.

You apparently missed my point completely. Sure, the 40+ million people who have been killed (starting in 1973) would "eventually be on social security" -- but the very first not for another 40 years yet. Meanwhile, they would have been paying taxes for the last 10 years and for the next 30-40 years. It's one reason for the imbalance of workers/retirees that is often ignored (shhh, not supposed to acknowledge or talk about it). And of course, this is just a snapshot from this moment in time, not even counting future abortions/births from this point forward. We can ignore the morality of abortion but I don't think we'll be able to ignore the economic consequences so easily. I thought it was a valid viewpoint on the posted video but sorry to have offended you.

Bullrat, you didn't offend me, you just completely missed my point as well. There are too many people that want and accept simplistic answers to complex situations, and that's what offends me. Think of it this way - have you ever seen the signs in public bathrooms that say electric hand dryers save trees and are good for the environment. Well That's a very narrow view. Where does the power for that electric hand dryer come from? It comes mostly from coal fired plants which means coal mining, sulfuric gases and other particulates from burning, acid rain. Now I'm not pretenting to say I know which is better but I do know enough to question the whole premise in the absence of any real numbers. In engineering terms, somebody has artificially defined the "system" to be just the impact of using paper in bathrooms, whereas the real "system" includes a lot more to be considered. There's a similar example in the current crop of hybrid vehicles relating to ignoring the costs of the batteries (both making and disposing of them).

My comment about "don't go there" is just that this is a gun-related forum and while we're all cheerfully dissing all the candidates, it's primarily with the potential impact to our hobby. I'm sure there are plenty of forums for pro-life/pro-choice discussions but hopefully our bandwidth won't be consumed by it in this forum. I recognize that not everyone is a single-issue voter (I belong to those that see the 2nd amendment as the ultimate litmus test) but not considering the 2nd amendment philosophy as a major determinant will guarrantee the loss of our hobby and basic freedom.