Nader Rules

Yeah, Nader rules...

You people make me sick.

---------------------------
Tell your friends. Tell your family. Tell your...don''t tell your family. The GDTalker

Ficus for president!

----------------------------------------
"Before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
Then, when you do criticize them, you will be a mile away and have their shoes." -- Deep Thoughts

yeah, go Ficus...Ficus would have taken Florida...There would have been no disputes over it. It would have been a landslide...if only the world could open its mind to the brilliance of planets


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.


Edited by - Nazrix on November 12, 2000 7:49:38 PM

More power to Nader!

Another good point he makes:
Gore is running as a Democrat, but he needs Bush votes, so he''s really acting a lot like Bush. We need some other party to come in and be different. Everyone hates soft money, but I don''t think Bush or Gore is ready to do away with it. They need lots of money from big companies. If only money wasn''t an issue. Then one of the candidates really could be for the working man, because he wouldn''t be pressured by the companies who sponsered him.

See the problem with Nader supporters is that they think that everyone that doesn't like Gore/Bush is a left-wing nut that wants bigger more powerful government. Not true.

There are other 'third parties'
Libertarians: (My favorite of all) For smaller, less powerful government, getting rid of the crackpot scam of social security, among other things. Browne was on the ballot in all 50 states, and got ~375,000 votes. Check this one out.
www.harrybrowne.com

Also, the famous reform party, which was very viable in '92. Now it has Buchannen.

And the naturlist party, which has a (in my opinion) crazy nutcase candidate, who also happens to be a quantum physist.

There are quite a few others, I heard some 290 people are registered as running for president.


Mike

Edited by - Vetinari on November 15, 2000 12:41:24 AM

FICUS!

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

quote:

---

Original post by Vetinari
Libertarians: (My favorite of all) For smaller, less powerful government, getting rid of the crackpot scam of social security, among other things

---

What exactly do you mean by crackpot scam?


I just know I''m gonna catch hell for this...

Alright, on social security -

The government is using social security to force a retirement plan down American''s throats. This is so ludicrous I''m surprised it''s even constitional. 15% of your paycheck goes into SS! I would prefer planning my own retirement thank you very much. Not to mention that there is no way one can live off SS, so you still have to plan for your own retirement.

As for it being a scam, there is no guarentee that I will ever see a damn penny of the money I put in SS. Not to mention that I most likely will not see nearly as much as I put in, especially after adjusting for inflation.

The way politicians treat SS, it''s like it''s in the constitution or something. Not so, it was part of the ''New Deal'' that the democrates had way back in the late 30''s. Guess what, people lived just fine without this kind of government ''help''. It''s really starting to piss me off that politicians and most Americans don''t even seem to think critically about this.


Mike

quote:

---

The way politicians treat SS, it''s like it''s in the constitution or something. Not so, it was part of the ''New Deal'' that the democrates had way back in the late 30''s. Guess what, people lived just fine without this kind of government ''help''. It''s really starting to piss me off that politicians and most Americans don''t even seem to think critically about this.

---

Probably the reason that its treated like that is because it was designed to be nearly impossible to repeal it. And think about it, if you eliminate it now, what will happen? All of our grandparents will be SOL...not that i think it was a great idea to begin with, but there would be major repercutions if we did away with it. Add to that the fact that seniors are a major voting force, we''re pretty well stuck with it. But that''s ok, by the time i''m 40, 50% of my wages will go to taxes, that should be fun (i''m not saying i''m against that much going to taxes, it will be necessary due to the debt, but it''ll suck)

-arsenius
''after three days without programming, life becomes meaningless'' -The Tao of Programming

There''s no good reason we can''t work slowly to relieve dependance on SS. The people on SS of course need to be supported, but there are plenty of options to slowly rid this country of this burden.

One option is Browne''s approach, which is to sell unnesesary government properties. He estimates that these sales could both pay for everyone currently on SS and also relieve the entire debt. Visit his site, www.harrybrowne.com. A lot of ideas that have not been addressed by either of the other candidates. Some of them may be a bit crazy, but he could definately do this country some good.

There are also other serious issues that are not being discussed by the candidates, like the fact that 1/4 of our income taxes pay the interest of the national debt. Why they both plan tax refunds when we have a burden like that is beyond me.

And complete denial of the drug war''s failure. Both of the candidates want more drug/alchohol brainwashing in the schools, as if that ever works. It''s especially hypocritical since they have both used at least marijuana.


Mike

quote:

---

Original post by Vetinari
One option is Browne''s approach, which is to sell unnesesary government properties. He estimates that these sales could both pay for everyone currently on SS and also relieve the entire debt.

---

What land? The land that government buildings sit on, or the wilderness lands that logging and mining companies would gladly destroy for their own profit?

quote:

---

And complete denial of the drug war''s failure. Both of the candidates want more drug/alchohol brainwashing in the schools, as if that ever works. It''s especially hypocritical since they have both used at least marijuana.

---

It''s not really hypocritical since neither candidate is known to use drugs anymore. They''ve learned their lesson (probably).


I just know I''m gonna catch hell for this...

quote:

---

Original post by Vetinari

Alright, on social security -

The government is using social security to force a retirement plan down American''s throats. This is so ludicrous I''m surprised it''s even constitional. 15% of your paycheck goes into SS! I would prefer planning my own retirement thank you very much. Not to mention that there is no way one can live off SS, so you still have to plan for your own retirement.

---

Okay, let''s say for the sake of argument that you are correct and that these people should have an incentive to plan their own retirements. Where will they make up the extra money that is lost when SS is abolished and employers are no longer forced to match employee payments?

quote:

---

As for it being a scam, there is no guarentee that I will ever see a damn penny of the money I put in SS.

---

You get it when you''re 65 or disabled. I understand your concern that you won''t get to 65; it''s highly likely you''ll work yourself to death before then to get money for retirement if you have your way with SS.

quote:

---

Not to mention that I most likely will not see nearly as much as I put in, especially after adjusting for inflation.

---

It''s really not that different from putting it in a private savings account and not earning enough interest to beat inflation. Investing could beat inflation, but it''s easy to lose everything you invested in a crash.

quote:

---

The way politicians treat SS, it''s like it''s in the constitution or something. Not so, it was part of the ''New Deal'' that the democrates had way back in the late 30''s. Guess what, people lived just fine without this kind of government ''help''. It''s really starting to piss me off that politicians and most Americans don''t even seem to think critically about this.

---

Yeah, they lived just fine, assuming that having no money because the depression left you jobless is fine. Of course, the people who still had their jobs had some money left, but that was because the cost of living wasn''t as ridiculously high as it is now.


I just know I''m gonna catch hell for this...

quote:

---

Original post by ArchWizard

What land? The land that government buildings sit on, or the wilderness lands that logging and mining companies would gladly destroy for their own profit?

---

I was informing you of his approach. I have now given his website twice, I really suggest you take some looks with an open mind. Yes, he includes land among other assests. I was just saying his opinion, I don''t want wildernesses sold. Honestly, I don''t really want to discuss the ways to get rid of SS; especially since you''re not sold on the idea that it NEEDS to be gone.

quote:

---

And complete denial of the drug war''s failure. Both of the candidates want more drug/alchohol brainwashing in the schools, as if that ever works. It''s especially hypocritical since they have both used at least marijuana.

It''s not really hypocritical since neither candidate is known to use drugs anymore. They''ve learned their lesson (probably).

---

No, it''s especially hypocritical. They know from experiance that there is no reason for marijuana to be banned.

quote:

---

Okay, let''s say for the sake of argument that you are correct and that these people should have an incentive to plan their own retirements. Where will they make up the extra money that is lost when SS is abolished and employers are no longer forced to match employee payments?

---

Tons of things happen. That money goes either goes to pay increases or back into the economy. Granted, not everyone will see instant pay increases; but plenty are paid on how much the company can afford.

quote:

---

You get it when you''re 65 or disabled. I understand your concern that you won''t get to 65; it''s highly likely you''ll work yourself to death before then to get money for retirement if you have your way with SS.

---

Disability programs should be salvaged. I do''t think you understand my position. The government is forcing a retirement plan down my throat. I believe that not only can I get better returns on my own, but that I will actually have more money when I am 65 than I could possibly have on SS. I plan on getting to 90 at least, and I would prefer to live off my own retirement plan, not the government''s.

quote:

---

It''s really not that different from putting it in a private savings account and not earning enough interest to beat inflation. Investing could beat inflation, but it''s easy to lose everything you invested in a crash.

---

There are plenty of better retirement plans than the government''s. Including private firms, 401k''s, some moderate investment, certificate''s of deposits, etc. Not only is SS heading towards bankrupcy, but if there were a serious crash, it would be headed there much more quickly unless the government goes further into debt.

quote:

---

Yeah, they lived just fine, assuming that having no money because the depression left you jobless is fine. Of course, the people who still had their jobs had some money left, but that was because the cost of living wasn''t as ridiculously high as it is now.

---

You''ve got to be kidding. Not only did lack of SS not cuase the depression, but by far the largest reason of getting out of the depression was WWII, not any of the ''new deal''. There have been (smaller) depressions since the 30s; there is no evidence that SS does anything to prevent depressions. Cost of living? An extra 7.65% in your pockets would take care of that nicely.

Well, I wasn''t really expecting an arguement, I''m kinda argued out for a bit. The bottom line is that I would like to be responsible for my own retirement. No one should have to bear hte burdurn of other''s retirement either. I''m not argueing to take away disability checks either, welfare or any of that. But nearly all of the 7.65% goes directly to a failing system taht I want no part of. If you don''t think you are responsable enough to plan your own retirement...I don''t know what to say.


Mike

quote:

---

Original post by BigBrother

Nader''s case must make you see what happens to people who mess with us leftists, eco-freaks, commies, anarchists, RageAgainstTheMachine funs, Seatle veterans etc.
That is, it is nice to have a Left that doesn''t necessarily support the US right for global domination and for producing half of the planet''s CarbonDioxide.

---

Yes, we republicans want to destroy the world. We want to poison babies and steal from the weak and poor. If you believe that you are not only stupid, but gullible and easily decieved.



Are you even trying to be intelligent?
''cuz if you are, it ain''t workin''

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster

actually nader made some good points the other day after the election. clearly since only half of the united states voting population went out to vote, something is wrong. either they are stupid, or they just dont think that they have anyone worth voting for because they couldnt really get an idea on the positions of 3rd party candidates because they were left out of the debates. I applaud nader for filing a law suit against the debate commission for leaving out 3rd party candidates. hopefully if things go well for nader, more candidates will be involved in the debate process next election and maybe the voter turn out will increase as well. This two party system we have now sucks.

---

their are actually many reasons that only half the population came out. The list includes, apathy, stupidity, a belief that their vote doesn''t count (proven wrong by florida, one person and their friends could have turned the tide in that ellection easily), time constraints, stupidity, procrastination, arriving too late to the poles, forgetfulness, not enough ballets, and stupidity. Yes, I know I mentioned stupidity 3 times, because it''s probably the major reason. This year we had a considerably large voter turn out.
Yes, two party system does suck. But, the American people will never vote a majority 3rd party unless the 3rd party came about from a split in one of the 2 major parties. Just leave the commies and socialists out, they is stupider (notice the use of bad grammar).

Are you even trying to be intelligent?
''cuz if you are, it ain''t workin''

social security...the problem is that it is too routed in socialist ideals. The Russians were focussing on socialist ideals when they set up their communist for of government.
The problem with social security is that it is bleeding the younger generation dry. You talk about refraining from cutting of SS because it would leave our grandparents SOL. Well guess what, even if SS is still here by then, we will be SOL when we are grandparents. I shouldn''t have to pay to take care of YOUR grandma. If you want security for your retirement, plan for it, set up a mutual fund, invest long term in low risk stock. Have kids and get them educated and make them support you, you supported them for the first 18+ years of their lifes, they can support you for the last 18+ of yours. If you think that a stock market crash could ruin your investment, then your are sorely misunderstood. Actually, the market had a rather large crash a few months ago. If you were out of town for the week you would have missed it because the market had corrected itself in 2 days without any government injunctions. If you are afraid that your kids will turn out to be deadbeats that can''t even support themselves, well that would be your fault for not raising them properly.
It''s called the American Dream. It isn''t dead, yet. But people who want to keep social security forever want to kill the Dream.

Are you even trying to be intelligent?
''cuz if you are, it ain''t workin''

quote:

---

Original post by Vetinari

Okay, let''s say for the sake of argument that you are correct and that these people should have an incentive to plan their own retirements. Where will they make up the extra money that is lost when SS is abolished and employers are no longer forced to match employee payments?

Tons of things happen. That money goes either goes to pay increases or back into the economy. Granted, not everyone will see instant pay increases; but plenty are paid on how much the company can afford.

---

Sounds like Supply-Side Economics. You remember Supply-Side Economics, don''t you? When Reagan tried it, most businesses kept the money and gave the shaft to everyone else.

quote:

---

You get it when you''re 65 or disabled. I understand your concern that you won''t get to 65; it''s highly likely you''ll work yourself to death before then to get money for retirement if you have your way with SS.

Disability programs should be salvaged. I don''t think you understand my position. The government is forcing a retirement plan down my throat. I believe that not only can I get better returns on my own, but that I will actually have more money when I am 65 than I could possibly have on SS. I plan on getting to 90 at least, and I would prefer to live off my own retirement plan, not the government''s.

---

Maybe that''s why there''s a lot of talk about adding special investment vehicles to SS.

quote:

---

It''s really not that different from putting it in a private savings account and not earning enough interest to beat inflation. Investing could beat inflation, but it''s easy to lose everything you invested in a crash.

There are plenty of better retirement plans than the government''s. Including private firms, 401k''s, some moderate investment, certificate''s of deposits, etc. Not only is SS heading towards bankrupcy, but if there were a serious crash, it would be headed there much more quickly unless the government goes further into debt.

---

According to even the gloomiest predictions from economists, SS is fine until 2037.

quote:

---

Yeah, they lived just fine, assuming that having no money because the depression left you jobless is fine. Of course, the people who still had their jobs had some money left, but that was because the cost of living wasn''t as ridiculously high as it is now.

You''ve got to be kidding. Not only did lack of SS not cuase the depression, but by far the largest reason of getting out of the depression was WWII, not any of the ''new deal''. There have been (smaller) depressions since the 30s; there is no evidence that SS does anything to prevent depressions.

---

I''m not saying the lack of SS caused the Depression, or that SS helps to reduce future recessions. Perhaps I wasn''t clear. The New Deal helped people weather the storm of the Depression until the economy improved.




I just know I''m gonna catch hell for this...

quote:

---

Original post by ArchWizard

[quote]Original post by Vetinari

Sounds like Supply-Side Economics. You remember Supply-Side Economics, don''t you? When Reagan tried it, most businesses kept the money and gave the shaft to everyone else.

---

What? They don''t put the money in company vaults. Think of it though, a 7.65% raise increase for everyone .

quote:

---

Maybe that''s why there''s a lot of talk about adding special investment vehicles to SS.

---

Regardless, even if I don''t earn as much as I plan, I won''t see nearly as much as I put into it. Period. This is why it''s a scam; I don''t want socialism.

quote:

---

According to even the gloomiest predictions from economists, SS is fine until 2037.

---

So? I won''t be retired by then. 2/3''s of Americans don''t believe they will see anything from SS, including 1/3 of those over 50.

quote:

---

I''m not saying the lack of SS caused the Depression, or that SS helps to reduce future recessions. Perhaps I wasn''t clear. The New Deal helped people weather the storm of the Depression until the economy improved.

---

Even if did (andI have no reason to belive SS helped one bit) for sake of arguement, how is that an arguement against getting rid of an antiquated program?

As for the prohibition of marijuana, there is bucketloads of medical evidence against alchohol/ciggarettes, not one shred against marijuana. The government''s arguement for taking away our civil liberties? This is a kicker: marijuana is a gateway drug . Want to know how they came to that conclusion? Took the number of cocaine addicts and asked how many used marijuana. They got 99.2%. Talk about numbers lying, I''m surprised it''s that low . Ask how many used alchohol, I bet you get 100%. If you take the number of marijuana users that go onto cocaine, the numbers are astronomically lower.


Mike