This is topic Since Mortgage Backed Securities worked so well, try our new Life Backed Securities in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
I am always excited when I catch wind of our newest utterly terrible idea. Yes, ladies and gentlemens, this is actually legal to pursue and investors are climbing over each other to shove their money into such a scheme.
quote:Wall Street Pursues Profit in Bundles of Life Insurance
By JENNY ANDERSON Published: September 5, 2009
After the mortgage business imploded last year, Wall Street investment banks began searching for another big idea to make money. They think they may have found one.
The bankers plan to buy “life settlements,” life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell for cash — $400,000 for a $1 million policy, say, depending on the life expectancy of the insured person. Then they plan to “securitize” these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.
The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return — though if people live longer than expected, investors could get poor returns or even lose money.
hmm i wonder if this is such a wise idea, let's just
quote:Indeed, what is good for Wall Street could be bad for the insurance industry, and perhaps for customers, too. That is because policyholders often let their life insurance lapse before they die, for a variety of reasons — their children grow up and no longer need the financial protection, or the premiums become too expensive. When that happens, the insurer does not have to make a payout.
But if a policy is purchased and packaged into a security, investors will keep paying the premiums that might have been abandoned; as a result, more policies will stay in force, ensuring more payouts over time and less money for the insurance companies.
“When they set their premiums they were basing them on assumptions that were wrong,” said Neil A. Doherty, a professor at Wharton who has studied life settlements.
Indeed, Mr. Doherty says that in reaction to widespread securitization, insurers most likely would have to raise the premiums on new life policies.
Critics of life settlements believe “this defeats the idea of what life insurance is supposed to be,” said Steven Weisbart, senior vice president and chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group. “It’s not an investment product, a gambling product.”
oh look it is our good friend perverse social incentive
quote:In addition to fraud, there is another potential risk for investors: that some people could live far longer than expected.
It is not just a hypothetical risk. That is what happened in the 1980s, when new treatments prolonged the life of AIDS patients. Investors who bought their policies on the expectation that the most victims would die within two years ended up losing money.
It happened again last fall when companies that calculate life expectancy determined that people were living longer.
Yes. What a fantastic idea. There will be billions and billions of dollars at stake to not cure cancer or diabetes or fix our healthcare system.
Cheers.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
So the Death Panels are not part of the Health Care overhaul. They belong to the FTC.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just as an objection to your thread title Samprimary, but it seems to me that all mortgage backed securities aren't necessarily a bad thing - though naturally they're persona (or, well, mortgage-a) non grata right now.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I've got one,
Everyone give me 6% of their income and I'll guarantee them a retirement. Wait, we have that...Social Security - the biggest ponzie scheme of all.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Oh, go away and quit whining, malanthrop.
Failing that, at least learn how to spell "ponzi" if you're going to use it to label everything you hate.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It appears only a certain type of whining is permitted....I believe SS is the only thing I've called a Ponzi scheme:
"operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."
Fairly accurate description.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Fairly moronic post, for any number of reasons....
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Please just take it somewhere else, malanthrop. I could care less what you think about social security, even if you had managed to fit it into the discussion in an even remotely non-nonsequitorial way. Go gorm up your own thread instead.
tia
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Sorry Sam,
No intention to worm up your thread....I just find it funny that the creative book-keeping of the government isn't a concern. It is apples and oranges, even Madoff couldn't lend himself money.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Mal, here's a thought. Start a thread about the abuses and absurdities you find in the 60 year old successful retirement plan of the United States that has saved countless elderly from begging or starving, and we'll all happily debate you and give you all the attention you want.
For now, lets consider the dangers that a few dubious investors are causing while betting on the deaths of the masses.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Everyone give me 6% of their income and I'll guarantee them a retirement.
Why is that bad? It means no matter what happens with your savings, or your various jobs etc. You get a retirement.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's bad because while he'll gladly take the 6%, he can't actually guarantee anything.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Calculon: And you say you can guarantee me an Oscar?
Bender: I can guarantee you anything you want.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I can guarantee you Hope and Change and you can fill in the blanks of what you want in your heart...brilliant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok I give up, thread is now about malanthrop.
Hey malanthrop might as well tell us about what you think about medicare, maybe brag about how much you work again, go nuts.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Yes. What a fantastic idea. There will be billions and billions of dollars at stake to not cure cancer or diabetes or fix our healthcare system.
I like the way you distilled this.
quote:So the Death Panels are not part of the Health Care overhaul. They belong to the FTC.
This too. "Too big to fail" becomes "Too big for all y'all old people to not die already"...(?)
Seriously, while real world effects might be a bit subtler than FTC death squads protecting the economy from collapse, I think you've convinced me that it could be really bad to involve too many parties in a financial interest in life or death.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Hello.
My name is Mr. Alphonse Dewitt III, financial advisor with DC&H (formally known as Dewey, Chetham, and Howe).
In the past we joined the crowd that "Securitized" mortgages, making billions on the fact that if you didn't pay off your mortgage, someone would.
That didn't work out to well.
We are joining other financial institutions in "Securtizing" your life insurance. We guarantee the highest pre-EOL (end of life) pay out percentage for the life insurance on anyone 85 or older. We plan to make Billions if you folks do your duty and die in a timely fashion.
Hence the free lifetime supply of Jolt Cola and raw sugar to all who take our offer. You deserve a big fat cigar! Have you considered the advantages of driving while texting?
But the newest addition to our portfolio is Securitized Lottery Tickets. We'll buy your lottery tickets for 50% of the face value. We don't care what lottery tickets. Big Game, Power Ball, The portable used TV from the church auction. It doesn't matter. We'll buy your tickets for 50%, but get to redeem the winnings.
We figure that on average 65% of all income generated by selling of lottery tickets are paid back in prizes. So if we pay 50% of the value, that will generate a profit of 15% annually.
Where are you going to find numbers like that in this economy?
We will accept tickets for any lottery that has not been called yet--so no old losing tickets, unless our competitors start accepting them. Then we will as well.
We are also accepting investors. 15% profit is the true lottery. We have a limited opening for investors with more than $100,000 to spend per share. With hundred's of Millions being won weekly, that is your profit waiting for your investment.
Send all check to the "Lottery Organization for Special Eligible Refinancing" or L.O.S.E.R.
Thank you.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Not only would there be a cash incentive not to cure diabetes, etc., there would also be a cash incentive to invent some new killer pandemic disease. Only the shareholders would have the secret cure. Some conspiracy buffs (like Obama's old pastor) think the CIA created AIDS to kill certain targeted populations. Something like this might actually happen, when there is a multi-trillion dollar cash incentive.
I think we should outlaw "Life-backed securities." While we are at it, we should also end the practice and outlaw shorting of stocks, where you make money by betting that a stock will go down in value. It may not have been widely realized yet, but this gives a real incentive to terrorists and greedy sociopaths to sabotage companies by tampering with products, and blowing up factories, office buildings, and airliners. Sooner or later, we are going to see this, more widely and regularly. It was observed a few days after the 911 attacks that someone had shorted stocks of airliners and insurance companies, four times the normal amount of shorting. The implication is that the organizations behind the terrorists not only killed thousands of people, they also made millions, perhaps billions of dollars by shorting stocks they knew were going to go down after their attacks.
Sorry, this is an old beef of mine. I spout off about it every once in a while.
[ September 08, 2009, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:We'll buy your lottery tickets for 50% of the face value.
If people were crazy enough to buy a lottery ticket for 100% face value and then sell it immediately to you for 50% face value, then that'd be quite a good investment for you....
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
If people were sane do you think they'd buy lottery tickets to begin with?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: If people were sane do you think they'd buy lottery tickets to begin with?
People "DO" win lotteries, and on the brightside lottery income is used for public works projects and whatnot so Im not overly inclined to disparage our Idiot Tax.
However that said there ARE ways to cheat (legally) the lottery system to insure you win or at least 99.99% likely you'll win. Something along the lines of buying every possible permutation of tickets, this only works for some, one guy won the Australian national lottery 3+ times before they made the process illegal.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:However that said there ARE ways to cheat (legally) the lottery system to insure you win or at least 99.99% likely you'll win. Something along the lines of buying every possible permutation of tickets, this only works for some, one guy won the Australian national lottery 3+ times before they made the process illegal.
Source? If true, it suggests the lottery was very poorly designed. I suspect an urban legend.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Sorry, this is an old beef of mine. I spout off about it every once in a while.
Good god, I agree with Ron Lambert. Uh... Hey, you down there in H**l, had any cold spells lately?
But on a more serious note, I agree wholeheartedly with you Ron. Things like this that create incentives to do damage are really freaking bad. I wish my coworkers had more fore sight. Unfortunately, most people don't seem to think about the implications of things like this. Their response to my telling them about this was "So? What's the problem with that? Those people could use the money now." None of them thought twice about the perverse incentives this could create.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:However that said there ARE ways to cheat (legally) the lottery system to insure you win or at least 99.99% likely you'll win. Something along the lines of buying every possible permutation of tickets, this only works for some, one guy won the Australian national lottery 3+ times before they made the process illegal.
Source? If true, it suggests the lottery was very poorly designed. I suspect an urban legend.
I recall someone a while back who calculated that one particular state's lottery would have an positive expected return under certain conditions that were uncommon but did occur. It's been a while, but I'll see if I can dig up the source on it.
At any rate, though, I'm fairly sure that there's no general method for getting a positive return on playing lotteries (not counting outright cheating, of course ).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There was a documentary on it actually where they interviewed the guy, I forget where.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
As a general rule, the lottery just a massively regressive tax, even if it does pay for useful things.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I remember reading an argument that someone (I think it may have been Dagonee) posted to Hatrack some time ago about how playing the lotto, while statistically unwise, CAN make economic sense.
To wit, played sparingly*, a lottery ticket generally has a negligible impact on your economic condition. That is, the opportunity cost is very low, approaching zero. The economic impact of winning the lottery, though, is huge. It would provide the chance to nearly completely change your life. The utility benefit is massive.
Alternatively, someone might argue that when they purchase a lotto ticket, they're buying an opportunity to dream a little bit about what life could be like if they won. I don't really see that as any different than buying a book to read for escapist purposes.
*Yes, I realize how big of a caveat this is.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
On the OP:
My, sounds like a remarkably bad idea. It's very comforting that, by the time I have kids, I probably won't be able to afford medical insurance OR life insurance.
Hell, why not start securitizing homeowner's insurance too? In fact, let's just render the entire concept of insurance absolutely useless by turning it into a massive gambling den.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: If people were sane do you think they'd buy lottery tickets to begin with?
People "DO" win lotteries, and on the brightside lottery income is used for public works projects and whatnot so Im not overly inclined to disparage our Idiot Tax.
However that said there ARE ways to cheat (legally) the lottery system to insure you win or at least 99.99% likely you'll win. Something along the lines of buying every possible permutation of tickets, this only works for some, one guy won the Australian national lottery 3+ times before they made the process illegal.
You can of course make your probability of having a winning ticket arbitrarily close to 1. But unless the lottery is deliberately set up to lose money, this will require you to buy so many tickets that in actual dollars, you still come out behind. Spending 100 dollars to get a 99.9% chance of winning 50 is not very clever.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Tom's right. Here in Florida, you'd need better than $20 million cash to buy enough tickets to guarantee a win of only $13 million this week.
Though it does seem that with a large enough pot and enough disposable cash, it could be worth it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*blink* KoM, are you also named Tom?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Oh dear. You're nowhere in that cluster of posts at all.
I can only apologize and say it's been a very long month. Sorry!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Tom's right. Here in Florida, you'd need better than $20 million cash to buy enough tickets to guarantee a win of only $13 million this week.
Though it does seem that with a large enough pot and enough disposable cash, it could be worth it.
If there's a jackpot that rolls over from week to week when nobody wins, it can grow large enough that lottery tickets can be a good investment assuming that the usual amount of lottery tickets are sold. What you find empirically, however, is that a lot of other people have the same idea - and a bunch of plebes with no more idea of math than of nuclear physics see a big jackpot and spend an extra ten dollars - and so a lot more tickets get sold, and the actual payout is split between more people than usual. So even then it's hard to make a positive expectation value after you take other people's behaviour into account.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: . However that said there ARE ways to cheat (legally) the lottery system to insure you win or at least 99.99% likely you'll win. Something along the lines of buying every possible permutation of tickets, this only works for some, one guy won the Australian national lottery 3+ times before they made the process illegal.
Look, I've never taken a stats course or an accounting class, but I can tell you that yes, if you buy half the available lottery tickets, you will have about a 50% chance of winning the lottery. The risk remains proportionately equal to just buying one ticket, unless the jackpot was so high that the pool of numbers was vastly smaller than the payout amount. That would only take a lottery jackpot of about 10 trillion dollars or so. Again, no mathematician, but I think it's unlikely to work.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Blayne's probably talking about the time some Australians realized there was a positive expected payout on the Virginia lottery, and bought a huge number of tickets (winning a huge sum of money): http://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues07/05-28/Curious.php Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Social Security is definitely a ponzi scheme.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Except that it isn't an investment (much as some people think of it that way). You aren't promised a return equal or above what you put in (though due to how the government informs people of their social security status, some people think that's the case).
It is a transfer program. Money is taken from a lot of people, and given to a few people. Depending on the ratio between people paying in and people qualifying to receive, and the rules for paying money, the amount a person receives may be more or less than what they paid in.
Nothing ponzi about it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Blayne's probably talking about the time some Australians realized there was a positive expected payout on the Virginia lottery, and bought a huge number of tickets (winning a huge sum of money): http://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues07/05-28/Curious.php
Thanks.
quote:In 1992, an Australian group, led by professional lottery whiz Stefan Mandel, bought 5.5 million of the possible 7 million ticket combinations possible and won the $27 million jackpot. In the three days before the drawing, 20 representatives of the Lotto Fund of Melbourne, Australia crisscrossed the state snatching up as many of the tickets as possible. The 2,524 investors won $400 a year per each $3,000 unit bought. Needless to say, Virginia tightened the rules on block ticket purchases after that win (“Jackpot! Australian Group Wins Virginia Lottery,” People Weekly, April 6, 1992).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Social Security is definitely a ponzi scheme.
You see, when you talk like this, you make it very clear to everyone here exactly what you want us to think about social security- how you never realize how heavy handed this is, I don't see.
It isn't a ponzi scheme, and you know it isn't. If you don't know why it isn't then you're not dishonest, sorry, you're dim. It is in some ways *like* a ponzi scheme, in the sense that it depends on continued (though unlike a PS, not ever-expanding) inflow of cash in order to meet obligations made in the past.
But it is also different from a ponzi scheme in a lot of ways. A, number 1, it isn't fraud. It's a government program that isn't going to keep working. Like Star Wars. Like the "Gay Bomb." Like the war in Iraq and Guantanamo and cash for clunkers- nothing lasts forever, and some stuff breaks really quickly. Whoops. Still not fraud.
2, Social Security will not keep working because the changes in the current population and birth rate in the US, as well as the expected lifespans of those already covered under the system were (in hindsight) not well calibrated to keep the system afloat for more than a century. Again, were the lawmakers of the mid 20th century wholly responsible for the outcomes of their policies projected into the middle of the next century? Or are we responsible, in the here and now, for fixing mistakes and problems as they arise?
But no, no, point fingers and make foolish accusations and never follow up like you have in the last 5 threads in which you've made glaringly dumb statements that you were never really able to get around to backing up because you don't give a crap about that. Then tell me how you're 'just fascinated' at my socialist tripe while you wheedle your little invectives as if any of this matters to you- but I don't think any of it does.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I find my annual statement from the Social Security Administration somewhat fraudulent. It discusses money I've contributed to my "account" an account that does not exist and projects what I will collect provided they do not change the age of receipt or the program exists at all. Just because it's government doesn't make it not fraudulent. The accounting tactics of government would be a punishable crime in the private sector. They will call a reduction in the increase of spending, a spending cut. Can a private business tell it's shareholders it made a profit because it has less losses this quarter than last? Can a corporation sell stock to itself to raise funds for the corporation???? These are tactics the government uses but would get the SEC very interested in the private sector. Even China is worried about our government's monetary policy...and I'm sure everyday con men were shocked by Madoff.
[ September 09, 2009, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Astonishly, Ornicoro, personal attacks on my character are not the same thing as a coherent argument.
Try to see if you can manage to write in a thread without resorting to personal attacks. Just try. See what it's like. It'll hurt and you won't get that adrenline rush you get when you insult people, but you'll be a better person for it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I find my annual statement from the Social Security Administration somewhat fraudulent. It discusses money I've contributed to my "account" an account that does not exist and projects what I will collect provided they do not change the age of receipt or the program exists at all.
I don't recall a reference to an "account" on my Social Security statement. I'm not saying it isn't there, I just don't remember seeing it.
However, it does seem to predict future payments based on the assumption that nothing will change. I guess it would be nice if it accurately predicted the future changes.
I'm gonna call my congressperson and have him get right on that. Future legislation prediction technology will probably benefit the economy in all kinds of ways.
(edited to insert quote)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, I consider the statements misleading because they're formatted in a way that feels like account statements. They do hold useful information, though, and they do explicitly state that the estimates can change for reasons unrelated to amount paid in.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
True it isn't called account...it's an account statement in terms of "credits" that are quantified in dollars....I think I'll open up a casino at my house and play for "credits" but you'll get reimbursed in dollars at the door...do you think that would fly?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps you aren't aware how casinos work? I'll give you a hint: chips are credits.
An account is something where what is in the account is your property. At a casino, your account is your property, whether recorded in chips or dollars. With Social Security, what you have paid in so far is not your property. The amount you are estimated to receive is not your property. There is no account. That payouts are somewhat related to amount paid in is purely because it is so dictated by the law governing social security. If the law changed tomorrow so that everyone was paid exactly the same, regardless of amount paid in, that would be the way it would be. No property would have been confiscated, because none existed. Social Security is a transfer that is taxed from a lot of people, and given to a smaller number of people. Nothing more.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
All I need to know about it is this.
Any individual investor would be foolish to invest 6.2% of their income for their entire lives for that return on investment. If an investment firm were offering this to the public the firm would be sickeningly profitable and the investors would be victims.
To make matters worse, the government can manage to lose money under the same circumstance.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a good return on investment if you don't earn much and live a long time. It's a terrible return on investment if you earn more than poverty levels and don't live for a long time - you can't leave your unused social security benefits to your heirs because you never had legal claim on the money in the first place.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Social Security should be liquid and stable. The lie is your social security tax is in reality just a federal income tax going into the general fund. Just as state lotto was to fund schools, instead of boosting school funding it supplanted it without a reduction in "school tax" on your millage statement. They play the general fund game. 6.2% and matched by your employer is more than enough to fund SS..SS isn't going broke, they use SS money for other things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* It's refreshing to hear you agreeing with Al Gore.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It will, however, start paying out more than it takes in at around 2020, at which time the benefits will probably be reduced and the taxes raised.
When social security started, it was 1% of salary. It is now 15% (the part your employer pays for you ultimately comes out of your paycheck). The benefits haven't really gotten more generous - current workers just pay more proportionally than the beneficiaries getting the money did when they paid in.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We need a lock box...but it may be too late. We can thank Jimmy Carter for that. When there were more paying in than receiving, they couldn't resist tapping into it. They were shortsighted. We need less lawyers and more businessmen running our government.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
What you don't understand is that Social Security is not designed to be a retirement plan for those who earn above the poverty level, or who can afford the investment of more than 6.2% of their income without going homeless or starving.
Yes, people would be foolish to invest 6.2% of their income for so little return.
Guess what.
People are foolish.
They are a whole lot more foolish than that.
They will invest 0% of their income and not bother to plan on what becomes of them.
Or they will count on their employers and union retirement accounts, that may be stolen or emptied in bankruptcies.
Or they will invest in the much more lucrative Real Estate market, only to see it disappear in a popped bubble.
People are foolish, stupid, and don't plan ahead.
The result was starving elderly.
You, champion of the Me Generation, say "Why can't My Social Security Account make Me more money like I know I would. I don't trust the mistakes of others with My money."
What Social Security is based on, however, is not your money. Its not a "Me" thing.
The secret is the word "Social". Its based on the idea that Society prospers most when we don't let the elderly starve. When the workers can look forward to an old age with something more than fear and pity.
Social Security is not designed to improve YOU. Its supposed to improve SOCIETY.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Which is why it should drop the charade that you have an "account" and that it is anything other than a wealth transfer from the comfortable to the poor.
[ September 09, 2009, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They don't say you have an account. Take a look at the statement that was linked. It says how much you've paid in social security taxes, how much that would mean you qualify for in payments under current law, and that the amounts may well change depending on many factors unrelated to how much you pay.
And it isn't forced savings at all (I realize you quote it, indicating you don't consider it literal savings, but I want to emphasize how the program runs now and has always run). It is a forced transfer payment, much like most other government programs (food stamps, medicare, et cetera). The big failure of social security is not its existence, but that the tax to fund it is so regressive.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You are correct and there is an obvious attitude in government that the people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves. The people just don't understand and need to be dictated to rather than the politicians dictated to by the people. I'm not about "me", rather about what is so often touted, "choice". The same people that are pushing for choice in healthcare or choice for abortion deny school choice in vouchers (ala unions) deny individual choice for one's retirement (ala SS) or even choice to wear a seatbelt. I personally think you are a fool to ride a motorcycle without a helmet but it should be your choice to be foolish and live with the consequences of your actions. You should be able to opt out of social security (congress has that choice)- but hey, they are the smart leaders and trust themselves to take care of their own retirement. The little people they dictate to are to stupid to have the same choice afforded to them.
I agree that there are many who are either too poor or too stupid to take care of themselves. Being so stupid they would also be too dumb and lazy to opt out but we should be able to opt out and live with the consequences. I have life insurance so that my family will be taken care of, perhaps the government should collect life insurance premiums from everyone to cover the stupid parents out there. I get annual dental and physical exams as a preventative measure, perhaps the government should make exams compulsory because some people are either too stupid or poor to look after themselves.
The price of individual liberty and freedom is individual responsibility. When the leaders think that they know what is best for the people, despite the will of the people, we are no longer free.
[ September 09, 2009, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Astonishly, Ornicoro, personal attacks on my character are not the same thing as a coherent argument.
Try to see if you can manage to write in a thread without resorting to personal attacks. Just try. See what it's like. It'll hurt and you won't get that adrenline rush you get when you insult people, but you'll be a better person for it.
You're an idiot.
Damn. Fail. Oh well...
Good job not answering to all the reasons your statement was wrong though. Well, not so much good, but yeoman-like.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I suspect the reason you stick with insults is because you fail at everything else.
Good job playing to your strengths. Too bad they make you suck as a human being.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You are correct and there is an obvious attitude in government that the people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves.
It's like a game of telephone with you. He says: society functions better this way despite your personal competence or lack thereof, and you respond: "yes, the government *does* think I'm stupid." Just listen. DM is explaining something you don't demonstrate an understanding of- he's talking about something I'm interested in hearing more about.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I suspect the reason you stick with insults is because you fail at everything else.
Good job playing to your strengths. Too bad they make you suck as a human being.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).